Friday, December 31, 2010

Happy New Year!!

I hope everyone has a Happy New Year!


Law Abiding Citizen...

I watched the movie Law Abiding Citizen last night. I had seen bits and pieces of it before. It's a decent movie, if you haven't seen it, it's worth a watch. I have a criticism though, I really think that the Jamie Fox character should have gotten killed in the end.

I can understand where the Gerard Butler character was coming from. The system failed, much as our system fails in the real world. While a prosecutor may feel that cutting a deal with a murderer to convict another murderer is a victory, it isn't. The Jamie Fox character was more worried about his conviction record than in ensuring that justice was done, he was as guilty of the failure in the system as any of the other people involved. All of them were killed and the Jamie Fox character gets away, kind of a let down for me...

On the upside though, there was a little cutie in the movie. Her name is Leslie Bibb. She has been in other things, I'm not sure if I have seen any of them or not though. Here she is...





 

Boehner’s New House Rules Reflect Tea Party Principles

This is good stuff, but are politicians going to be able to live by the new rules? It seems I remember obama spouting all kinds of nonsense about transparency and posting things online and that all turned out to be bullshit. obama nad his gang of thugs have been the most sneaking, secretive bunch I have ever witnessed.

I hope for the sake of our Country that Boehner can do all the things he says. We need to feel comfortable again with those we elect. It has been a long time since I have been able to say I trust anyone in congress. I remain skeptical, but optimistic...

by Emily Miller - Human Events

Republican House leaders released a draft of new rules for the 112th Congress, which address many of the reforms advocated by the Tea Party.

The House Rules package shows a greater focus by congressional Republicans on transparency, deliberation, and cutting government spending.

“I expect the Tea Party movement will be excited when they see the new rules proposed by Republicans,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Chair of the House Tea Party Caucus, told Human Events. “We are forcing ourselves to cut spending, and it’s about time.”

The package includes a Constitutional authority rule, which the Tea Party strongly advocated and was in the GOP “Pledge to America”. The rule states that every bill must include a “statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact” it.

New Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) appointed a transition office to draft the House Rules package, which was distributed to GOP Members on Wednesday. The rules will be posted online later for the public to read.

The once and future Chairman of the House Rules Committee David Dreier (R-Calif.) authored the package. He will offer the rules to the full House for a vote on January 5, when the new Republican-controlled Congress convenes.

“The rules are focused on our goal to try and reduce the size, scope, and reach of government. It creates a climate which encourages spending cuts, rather than spending increases. It has greater transparency, disclosure, and accountability. It makes things easier to understand,” Dreier told Human Events.

Many of the new rules are directly from the Republicans’ “Pledge to America,” including the following provisions:

* Each bill will be posted online at least three calendar days before a vote to ensure the American people have the opportunity to read it.

* The budget process for long-term spending is reformed to prevent tricks that allow bills to show balance in the short-term but worsen the deficit later. Under current pay-go rules, a bill must be offset within one, five, and 10-year budget windows. The new rule makes all bills include budget projections for four more 10-year windows. If mandatory spending increases the deficit by $5 billion or more in any of the 10-year windows, the bill would be subject to a point of order.

* All bills that increase mandatory spending bills will be subject to a “cut-go” rule, which means the spending must be cut by an equal or great amount elsewhere. The rule also stipulates that tax increases cannot be used to pay for new mandatory spending.

“Allowing the American people to be heard through their elected representatives is the most important message that will come through. And there are a lot of rule changes that will make that possible,” said Dreier.

The House committees are the focus of much of the new rules. The Republicans reinstated a six-year term limit on committee chairmen, which was a 1994 reform from the “Contract with America” that the Democrats retracted in 2006.

In addition, a new rule states that delegates and resident commissioners (those not representing states) will not be able to vote in the committee of the whole.

The new rules restore to the committees their bill-writing power, while enforcing higher transparency standards. The committees must:

* Both webcast and make available online their hearings and markups.

* Markups, which are meetings in which bills are rewritten, must have three days’ notice, the text of the legislation must be posted online 24 hours in advance, and the votes released within 48 hours.

* Online “truth in testimony” information must be made available, so any conflicts of interest with hearing witnesses are made public.

* Members’ attendance records will be posted for each hearing and markup within 24 hours.

Also, the Republicans made changes in the names of the committees. The Committee on Education and Labor will again be referred to as the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The Committee on Standards and Official Conduct will simply be the Committee on Ethics. The Committee on Science and Technology will be the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Boehner included in the package that the entire U.S. Constitution will be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives on his first full legislative day as Speaker of the House on January 6.

The Constitution read aloud in Congress? There’s a new sheriff in town, and his name is John Boehner.

Richardson Declines to Pardon Outlaw Billy the Kid

Let's just forget for a minute that Billy the Kid was a thug, a killer and a criminal, aren't there more important issues facing our Country and States right now? That a governor spent any time on this at all is a disservice to the citizens of the State. Has anyone put a price tag on what this experiment cost the people of New Mexico?

It's also interesting that more than half of the people who responded to the website voted to pardon Billy the Kid. It's funny how when hollywood puts a spin on something it's like rewriting history. Suddenly a hardened criminal becomes witty, charming and the story somehow romantic. I'm sure the people who were killed by this guy didn't find him witty or charming and you can bet that most people didn't find life in the old west romantic.

bill richardson is leaving the governors office in about two and a half hours and will wind up with a job in the obama administration. If it were me, I would want to go out having accomplished something significant for the people of my State. Contemplating a pardon for a criminal from 130 years ago wouldn't even be on the radar...

From FoxNews

Billy the Kid is still an outlaw.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson announced Friday he would not grant a posthumous pardon to the infamous Old West bad guy, after drawing international attention by entertaining a petition on Billy the Kid's behalf during his final days in office. Richardson's term ends at midnight.

The pardon request had centered on whether Billy the Kid, who was shot to death in 1881 after escaping jail where he awaited hanging in the killing of a sheriff, had been promised a pardon from New Mexico's territorial governor, Lew Wallace, in return for testimony in killings he had witnessed. The proposed pardon covered the 1878 killing of Lincoln County Sheriff William Brady.

But the descendants of Wallace and Sheriff Pat Garrett, who fatally shot the fugitive in 1881, had expressed outrage over the proposal.

Granddaughter Pauline Garrett Tillinghast told Fox News minutes before the decision was announced Friday that a pardon would tarnish her grandfather's legacy. Though the pardon might have been narrowly tailored, she expressed concern that the public perception would be that he was "pardoned for everything."

"It's ridiculous to pardon a murderer," she said. "Hollywood has turned him into some sort of a folk hero."

Pat Garrett's grandson J.P. Garrett and Wallace's great-grandson William Wallace also publicly opposed the proposal after Richardson set up a website in mid-December to hear from the public.

Richardson said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" that he decided against a pardon "because of a lack of conclusiveness and the historical ambiguity as to why Gov. Wallace reneged on his promise."

According to legend, Billy the Kid killed 21 people, one for each year of his life. The New Mexico Tourism Department puts the total closer to nine.

The historical record on the pardon is ambiguous, and Richardson staff members told him in August there are no written documents "pertaining in any way" to a pardon in the papers of the territorial governor, who served in office from 1878 to 1881.

The governor's website was established after Albuquerque attorney Randi McGinn submitted a formal petition for a pardon.

Richardson's office received 809 e-mails and letters in the survey that ended Sunday, with 430 favoring a pardon and 379 opposed. Comments came from all over the world.

McGinn argued that Lew Wallace promised to pardon the Kid, also known as William Bonney or Henry McCarty.

She said the Kid kept his end of the bargain, but the territorial governor did not.

The Kid was a ranch hand and gunslinger in the bloody Lincoln County War, a feud between factions vying to dominate the dry goods business and cattle trading in southern New Mexico.

Richardson has said the Kid is part of New Mexico history and he's been interested in the case for years. He's also pointed to the "good publicity" the state received over the pardon.

J.P. Garrett of Albuquerque said there's no proof Gov. Wallace offered a pardon -- and may have tricked the Kid into testifying.

"The big picture is that Wallace obviously had no intent to pardon Billy -- even telling a reporter that fact in an interview on April 28, 1881," he wrote. "So there was no 'pardon promise' that Wallace broke. But I do think there was a pardon 'trick,' in that Wallace led Billy on to get his testimony."

He also said that when the Kid was awaiting trial in Brady's killing, "he wrote four letters for aid, but never used the word 'pardon."'

William Wallace of Westport, Conn., said his ancestor never promised a pardon and that pardoning the Kid "would declare Lew Wallace to have been a dishonorable liar."

Billy the Kid killed two deputies while escaping jail, but McGinn's request did not cover those deaths.

The Kid wrote Wallace in 1879, volunteering to testify if Wallace would annul pending charges against him, including a murder indictment in Brady's death.

A tantalizing part of the question is a clandestine meeting Wallace had with the Kid in Lincoln in March 1879. The Kid's letters leave no doubt he wanted Wallace to at least grant him immunity from prosecution.

Wallace, in arranging the meeting, responded: "I have authority to exempt you from prosecution if you will testify to what you say you know."

"It seems to me that when the government makes a deal with you, it should keep its promise," McGinn said after filing the request.

But when the Las Vegas, N.M., Gazette asked Wallace shortly before he left office about prospects he would spare the Kid's life, Wallace replied: "I can't see how a fellow like him should expect any clemency from me."

J.P. Garrett also contended Richardson should have designated an independent, impartial historian, and noted that Richardson appointed McGinn's husband to the state Supreme Court.

McGinn has "meager qualifications" and a possible conflict of interest, William Wallace said.

McGinn insisted her only tie to the administration was in volunteering to look into the issue, knowing Richardson's interest.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

A couple of additions to the blogroll...

I found both of these in the last couple of days and wanted to share. Pay them a visit if you get a chance...

Tall Cool Drink of Water - A Texas Girl with an attitude. Lots of good reading here folks...

Gotta Get Drunk First - A few guys with some interests I can relate to. Good reading here too.

A couple of Loverboy tunes this evening...



"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

Let me preface this by saying that if you drink and drive you are a dumbass and you deserve everything you get and probably more.

This is wrong. It is a violation of our rights.

The police in Florida can forcibly take blood from your body but the police in Arizona can't ask for ID? WTF? Where is the outrage and the uproar? Where are the protestors? It is illegal to drive drunk. It's also illegal to sneak into our Country.

How would you like to have the police draw your blood on the side of the road? Especially if you are innocent. What if you are innocent? Do you have any kind of legal leg to stand on for being forced to give blood? I see problems for the agencies that perform these checkpoints...

By Adam Freeman - WTSP

Tampa, Florida-- With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.

But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area.

"I think you'll see the difference because people will not drink and drive. I truly believe that," she said.

Not everyone is on board, though.

DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett sees the mandatory blood test as a violation of constitutional rights.

"It's a slippery slope and it's got to stop somewhere," Hayslett explained, "what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"

The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.

"Now you've got attorneys telling their clients, don't blow, don't blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they're not operating as the state or the government says they're supposed to operate," said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.

Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October.

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

She adds that this type of checkpoint would be heavily advertised, with the goal of deterring any drunk driving.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.

Audit Finds CDC Misplaced $8M in Equipment

On Wednesday I told you a little about NASA spending $500 MILLION dollars on a project that no longer exists. Today let's chat about the CDC. I know that their $8 MILLION dollars in missing equipment isn't nearly as big or sexy as the NASA fiasco, but it is a lot of money.

Do you think that somebody, somewhere is keeping track of this excess and waste? How many millions does it take to make a billion? How many billions to make a trillion? How much of the money we pay in taxes every year is wasted on stupid bullshit projects or stolen by government employees? Why isn't there any accountability in our government? I'll tell you, because they don't care and the money is free. No matter what they do, there is always more money.

What we need to impress upon the people in washington is that we don't have a revenue problem. Raising our taxes isn't going to fix what is wrong. We have a spending problem, and from what I see, we have a waste problem. If the people in washington could be good stewards of the money we send to them, in good faith, we would have no deficit. We wouldn't owe our souls to the Chinese. It will never happen, they don't care.

Until we rise up and take our Country back from the pretenders we will never be free of the mountains of debt they have strapped us with. THEY DON'T CARE! For far too long we have been silent and let them have their way with our freedoms and our wallets. We have to take a stand, and we have to do it NOW.

Go visit Guardians of Liberty. They will show you how you can begin, how you can take a stand.

Associated Press

ATLANTA -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lost or misplaced more than $8 million in property in 2007, losing track of items including computer and video equipment, government auditors say.

Agency officials said Wednesday they have corrected the lapses that led to that amount of waste.

The report was released this week by the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of the CDC. In 2007, the auditors checked on 200 randomly sampled items and found 15 were lost or not inventoried, including a $1.8 million hard disk drive and a $978,000 video conferencing system.

CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden wrote the inspector general that the CDC agrees with the report's conclusions and has now instituted better controls. He wrote that 99 percent of the agency's property was accounted for in 2009. And the agency says all of its property this year is accounted for.

The agency still hasn't explained what happened to the 15 pieces of missing equipment from 2007, auditors said. But a CDC spokeswoman on Wednesday said all but four of the items -- including the two most expensive ones -- have since been accounted for.

CDC officials were tsk-tsked by Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

"It's just a good thing they haven't lost any diseases," Schatz said.

The Atlanta-based CDC often gets high marks for how well it does at its core mission of promoting health and investigating outbreaks of illness. But it has less incentive to keep track of its computer equipment or take care of other concerns that would seem important to a private business, Schatz said.

"There are a lot of agencies that do their job well, but they don't manage the 'little things' very well. The Defense Department is notorious for losing all kinds of equipment, but they do a pretty good job defending the country," Schatz said.

The CDC is the only HHS agency to have had such an audit -- the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration have not.

This is the CDC's second audit. A 1995 audit found the agency was unable to account for more than $5.5 million in property, including computers, microscopes and even vehicles.

In 2007, two House Republicans -- Joe Barton of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon -- asked the inspector general to take a new look at how CDC inventories and tracks its property, following allegations that as much as $22 million in CDC equipment had been lost or stolen.

The audit focused on the $350 million in equipment CDC had in fiscal year 2007. The report was delayed until now partly because of personnel changes within the inspector general's office, auditors said.

Traci Denee is a 100% Perfect Beauty!







Union Workers Reportedly Staged Slowdown as New York City Battled Blizzard

Regardless of what the high and mighty union officials are saying, I think I'm going to believe the whistle blowers in this case. Do you really think a union head is going to admit to his people willfully refusing to do their job? Expecially in this case, people lost their lives because ambulances were unable to navigate the streets. There will be a price to pay for someone, and it will be steep.

Let me ask you, do you think a non-union person performing the same job would risk their employment to make a political statement? I sure don't. Many union workers have no fear of losing their job. They can sabatoge the snow removal of a city as large as New York, they can cost the lives of innocent people and as long as the union big shots say it didn't happen, everybody keeps their job and the big fat pay checks that come with it.

The people of New York need to force an investigation. The FBI needs to be involved. Everyone, including bloomberg needs to be grilled. If there is any evidence that their was sabatoge heads should roll...

From FoxNews

As New York City finishes cleaning up the mess of the recent debilitating blizzard, it also faces allegations that union workers entrusted with cleaning up the mess of snow decided to stage a slowdown as the blizzard hit.

The plan was to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts, several sources and a city lawmaker told the New York Post. The lawmaker, City Councilman Dan Halloran, underscored those claims in an interview Thursday on Fox News' "Your World."

Halloran said he met with three plow workers from the Sanitation Department -- and two Department of Transportation supervisors who were on loan -- at his office after he was flooded with irate calls from constituents. The workers said the work slowdown was pushed by supervisors, not the unions, as the result of growing hostility between Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the workers responsible for clearing the snow.

"They're saying that the shops that they worked in ... basically had the go ahead to take their time, that they wouldn't be be supervised, that if they missed routes it wasn't going to be a problem," Halloran told Fox News.

In the last two years, the agency's workforce has been slashed by 400 trash haulers and supervisors -- down from 6,300 -- because of the city's budget crisis. And, effective Friday, 100 department supervisors are to be demoted and their salaries slashed as an added cost-saving move. Sources said budget cuts were also at the heart of poor planning for the blizzard last weekend.

The blizzard struck days before 100 Sanitation Department supervisors in charge of coordinating the plowing fleet were scheduled to be demoted in a budget-cutting move. The timing of the demotions, scheduled for Jan. 1, ignited the initial speculation that disgruntled supervisors had purposely sabotaged the snow removal effort in an act of revenge.

"I don't think it took place, but we are going to do an investigation to make sure that it didn't," Bloomberg said Thursday.

Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty said he was also concerned but had seen no sign of a such a move. The heads of the two unions that represent sanitation department supervisors and rank-and-file workers said the rumors were false and insulting.

Joseph Mannion, president of the Sanitation Officers Association, which represents about 1,000 supervisors and has been fighting the pending demotions, called that claim "ludicrous."

"There would never be a coordination to do anything in the snow. It's absolutely a taboo issue," he said. "You never, ever play with people's lives. And that's what they are saying we did."

President and family on multi-million dollar Christmas vacation in Hawaii

I actually prefer it when obama is on vacation. I wish he would just stay in Hawaii. As long as he and his family are living it up AT OUR EXPENSE, he isn't doing new and exciting things to kill our Country.

It's funny, if you follow the link to this post at Washington Examiner and read the comments below the article, some liberal douchebag tried to make a comparison between the vacations obama takes and those of George W. Bush. I was very surprised to see a large majority of the commentors supporting Bush. George W. Bush usually spent his vacations in Crawford, Texas doing actual physical labor, something that obama knows nothing about. obama thinks Manual Labor is the president of Mexico...

By: Mark Tapscott - WashingtonExaminer

President Obama and his family are enjoying a delightful Christmas vacation with friends and family in the chief executive's home state of Hawaii.

Nobody questions a president's right or need to take take away from the White House, but an investigation by Hawaii Reporter has turned up some eye-opening information about the costs and other aspects of the Obama get-away.

Just consider these estimates on part of the costs of the latest Obama Hawaii trip:

* Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)

* Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii: $1 million (GAO estimates)

* Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800

* Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) – excluding meals and other room costs

* Police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)

* Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)

TOTAL COST: $1,474,200

But that $1.47 million figure leaves out a number of signficant costs that simply could not be calculated by Hawaii Reporter:

* Rental of office building in Kailua on canal

* Security upgrades and additional phone lines.

* Costs for car rentals and fuel for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel (Secret Service imports most of the cars used here to escort the president).

* Surveillance before the president arrives.

* Travel costs for Secret Service and White House staff traveling ahead of the President.

White House spokesmen insist Obama's vacation expenses are in line with those of previous presidents, which may well be true, but, since the government refuses to disclose many important details about any presidential journey, nobody can know for sure.

There appear to be reasons to suspect the Obamas' trip could have been done for less, according to Hawaii Reporter.
"They could have chosen a less expensive and more secure place to stay such as a beachfront home on the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station – just a two-minute drive away from the Kailuana Place property where they are now," according to Hawaii Reporter.

"The president visits the military base daily to workout, bowl with his kids or enjoy the more private beach there. He also could have stayed at a home 15 minutes away on the beach fronting Bellows Air Force Base as President Bill Clinton did."
But Obama and friends opted instead to secure use of three luxury beachfront places, including the “Winter White House” – or Kailua home that the president rents two weeks a year.

That facility, Hawaii Reporter, noted, normally rents for an estimated $3,500 a day or $75,000 a month, according to the web site Gadling.com.

The latter describes the place as a “7,000 square foot home [that] features 5 bedrooms, 5 ½ bathrooms, a media room with surround sound, a kitchen suited for a master chef, a dining room and great room, a secluded lagoon-style pool with tropical waterfalls and a lavish island spa. The ocean lanai and garden lanai showcase ornate landscaping and stunning views of Kailua Bay and Mount Olomana.”

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Happy early New Year!

With the new year right around the corner, that can only mean one thing! The second anniversary of Hell on Earth is a few days away! Woohoo!

I think I'll celebrate by going to Cabela's and buying some bullets, or maybe some shotgun shells. Hell, I may even go all out and buy a new gun!

Happy anniversary to me! (and the blog!)!!

A couple of Fleetwood Mac tunes this evening...



On this day in history...

On this day in history, December 29th, 1975, LaGuardia airport in New York was bombed. A bomb with the equivalent of 25 sticks of dynamite was placed in a locker near the baggage carousel. At 6:30pm the bomb went off. It collapsed the floor and ceiling and sent shrapnel flying in all directions.

Eleven people were killed and seventy-nine others were injured.


Investigators suspected the group FALN, but weren't able to prove that. Just to refresh your memory, in 1999, eric holder (obama's attorney general) pushed for clemency for 16 members of  FALN. Clemency was later granted by bill clinton.

The FALN is a group of Puerto Rican terrorists who committed at least 130 bombings in New York and Chicago.

Jillian Beyor is a Scorching HOT Gorgeous Goddess!







New York snowstorm...

Have you guys in New York been dug out yet? It would seem to me that this should be the straw that broke the camel's back. The poor response from your local government on the snow removal coupled with the major tax issues would send me over the edge. If you people re-elect bloomberg, well, you get what you get. From this side of the street he seems like a dud...

Massachusetts Cop Was Killed by Career Criminal Out on Parole Despite Three Life Sentences

Um, wow, where do you even begin with a story like this? First, my sympathies to the family of the officer killed. It could have been avoided, this thug should never have been released from prison.

Ok, Massachusetts, seriously, maybe you should think about importing some non-liberal people for the heavy lifting in your State. I'm sure you could find some folks in Texas that would volunteer to run your parole board, you are obviously a punch of stupid pussies and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions, especially where the safety of the citizens, and police officers, is concerned.

Has there ever been a criminal before a parole board that didn't swear up and down that he was a changed man? That he found Jesus? Etc., etc.... I would say the same thing, no matter how much of an insane dumbass criminal I was. Holy shit, are you people just stupid or what? Did you happen to notice his record before prison and even during his time behind bars? Did you not notice he was serving THREE life sentences.

So now the governor has ordered a review, to see what happened. It's not rocket science and really doesn't call for a major investigation, the parole board released a dangerous, convicted criminal with a lifetime history of violence and anti-social behavior on the people of their State. Every one of them should be fired and possibly brought up on negligence charges...

From FoxNews

The Massachusetts Parole Board is under scrutiny after a local police officer was killed by a career criminal who was released despite serving a term of three concurrent life sentences.

Dominic Cinelli was serving time for shooting a security guard during an armed robbery to feed his heroin addiction when he told the board in November 2008 that he was a changed man, the Boston Globe reported.

Four months later the board unanimously voted to free Cinelli, but police say the 57-year-old returned to his ugly ways Sunday, fatally shooting Woburn police officer John Maguire, 60, while robbing a Kohl's department store. Cinelli also died in the shootout.

But critics say Cinelli isn't the only person to blame for Maguire's death.

"I don't know how any member of the Parole Board justifies that," Laurie Myers, president of Community Voices, a Chelmsford-based nonprofit that advocates on behalf of crime victims, told the Globe. "He shouldn't have been out, and now there's another person dead."

Cinelli had a lengthy rap sheet filled with armed robberies, assaults and other offenses, had been serving three life sentences since 1976, and had chronic disciplinary problems while in prison including two escapes during which he committed crimes, the Globe reported.

Still, he won the board over by saying the deaths in the family, including his mother's, and drug counseling changed him, the paper reported.

"When you hear that somebody who had been serving three life sentences is released on parole and commits another violent crime that causes the death of a police officer, that causes us great concern," Mark K. Leahy, president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Northborough police chief told the Globe.

John Grossman, the state's undersecretary of public safety and security, told the Globe that Gov. Deval Patrick ordered the Parole Board to review the decision.

"We're doing a complete look at what happened, and whatever amount of time it takes to do it right, we're going to take," he said.

Why NASA Is Spending Half a Billion Dollars on a Canceled Rocket

Nope, there is nothing wrong with our government. It is perfectly normal for NASA to continue to spend money on a project that has been cancelled. 500 million dollars, tax dollars mind you, on a defunct project. O.M.G.W.T.F.? Are there no sane people left in washington?

You know Alliant Techsystems is lauging it's ass off. 165 million dollars in their pocket, of tax dollars, to continue working on a project that is going absolutely nowhere. And we wonder why these assclowns can't balance a budget.

It's all our fault people. We have elected a bunch of idiots. I hereby suggest that before anyone can run for an office, any office, they have to pass an intelligence test and a common sense test. If they fail either, no office for you. It's going to be especially important for the next president, we don't want to wind up with another dumbass community organizer...

From FoxNews

Stifled by legislative bottlenecks, NASA will be forced to continue an already defunct rocket program until March, costing the agency half a billion dollars while adding more hurdles to the imminent task of replacing the space shuttle.

Constellation is the umbrella program that includes the Ares I, the rocket NASA has been building to replace the space shuttle as means of transport to and from the International Space Station, as well as other spacecraft that would have been capable of performing a variety of missions. President Obama cancelled Constellation last year, but thanks to congressional delays and inaction, the program simply won't die -- and it's costing big bucks.

A large portion of the estimated $500,000,000 NASA will spend on the canceled rocket in the next few months -- $165 million of it -- will be paid to Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, toward the development of a solid-rocket first stage for the Ares I the rocket. However, with the cancellation of the Constellation program as part of the President’s new NASA plan, signed into law in October, there are doubts that the technology will ever be used, reported the Orlando Sentinel.

It’s the frustrating result of an ongoing political battle that stretched throughout this year. With the potential cancellation of Constellation looming, lawmakers inserted clauses into NASA’s 2010 budget to protect Ares I jobs in their home states, effectively preventing NASA from shutting down the program pending a new budget from Congress.

This was expected to happen prior to the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, but Congress instead extended the current budget until March. This inaction leaves NASA obligated to keep Ares I alive -- despite the program’s cancellation.

NASA is currently spending almost $100 million a month on Ares I, or roughly $500 million from October to March 2011, according to the agency. ATK didn't respond to FoxNews.com requests for additional information.

Such unnecessary and potentially wasteful expenditures come at an especially inopportune time, as the agency struggles with budget issues. It now faces the expensive task of modernizing the Kennedy Space Center and transforming it into a "21st-century spaceport," a project that now looks to be indefinitely delayed.

NASA remains hopeful that work put into Ares I could have its benefits, however. Some programs from the new plan, such as a heavy-lift rocket, could employ the solid-rocket technologies still being developed.

“Much of the Ares 1 work likely will be directly applicable to a heavy-lift vehicle if a shuttle-derived architecture is selected, including five-segment boosters, tank structures, upper-stage engine and avionics,” NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage told the Orlando Sentinel.

Regardless, until Congress takes action, the program's short term purpose is far from certain and new projects have been inevitably stalled, according to J.D. Harrington, a Public Affairs Officer at NASA.

"Current CR language requires we continue work on the Constellation program at FY10 levels, yet it doesn't include money for us moving forward with a new heavy lift architecture," Harrington told FoxNews.com. "We expect much of the current Constellation work to migrate forward but won't know for sure until decisions are made on a path going forward."

U.S. Official: 'Consequences' Will Follow Chavez Decision to Reject U.S. Ambassador

Let me guess, the consequences will be obama picks somebody else for the job. It's funny when obama and his gang of thugs try to put on the tough act. They don't know anything about tough. They know sneaking and bribing. They know backstabbing and trickery, but they don't know a damn thing about tough. obama does try to talk tough, like when he wanted to know who's ass to kick, that was really funny.

I have a feeling that the thug dictator chavez will get about anything he wants from obama. Isn't he one of obama's socialist heroes? Aren't they buddies? Maybe obama should make sean penn the ambassador. Of course, nothing would ever get accomplished because sean penn is dumber than a bag of hammers and he has a man crush on chavez or maybe it is a real crush. Who knows and even more important, who cares...

From FoxNews

It is in the best interest of the United States to maintain relations with Venezuela, but that country may face diplomatic "consequences" if it refuses to accept Larry Palmer as the U.S. ambassador there, a State Department spokesman said Wednesday.

Spokesman Mark Toner said he's prohibited from discussing visa issues under U.S. law, but suggested Venezuela's ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo Alvarez could become the casualty in a diplomatic feud with Venezuela.

Toner was commenting after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday dared the U.S. government to expel Alvarez in reaction to Venezuela's rejection of Larry Palmer as the White House's choice for ambassador in Caracas.

Chavez reiterated that he will not allow Palmer to be ambassador, and said "if the government is going to expel our ambassador there, let them do it! ... If they're going to cut diplomatic relations, let them do it!"

"We believe it's in our national interest to have an ambassador in Caracas so we can express our views and engage with the government of Venezuela," Toner said, noting that tensions between the two countries demands that they stay in contact.

The United States does have a second in command at the embassy, but Toner said an ambassador is an ambassador and head of the diplomatic mission in host countries.

Toner was grilled by reporters Wednesday and, while he would not say what the consequence could be, he did say there could be consequences. Toner didn't deny that throwing Alvarez out is an option but said his plans right now are the decision of the Venezuelan government.

The State Department has previously said it stands behind its nomination of Palmer, who is awaiting Senate confirmation. Palmer angered Chavez by suggesting during the confirmation process that morale is low in Venezuela's military and that he is concerned Colombian rebels are finding refuge in Venezuela.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley also said last week that Venezuela's decision not to accept Palmer -- after initially giving its approval -- will have consequences on relations with Venezuela, and that the U.S. government will evaluate what to do.

The State Department has also been strongly critical of decree powers granted to Chavez by his congressional allies this month, a maneuver Crowley described as one more way for the leftist president to "justify autocratic powers."

"Now the U.S. government is threatening us that they're going to take reprisals. Well, let them do whatever they want, but that man will not come," Chavez said in a televised speech.

There was no immediate reaction from the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, which has been without an ambassador since Patrick Duddy finished his assignment and left in July.

Chavez, whose economy relies heavily on oil sales to the United States, has accused Palmer of dishonoring the Venezuelan government by expressing concerns on several sensitive subjects, including 2008 accusations by the U.S. Treasury Department that three members of Chavez's inner circle helped Colombian rebels by supplying arms and aiding drug-trafficking operations.

"For an ambassador to come, he has to respect this homeland," Chavez said.

Chavez's latest actions in pushing through controversial laws are contributing to the diplomatic tensions.

LAURA ACUÑA













Tuesday, December 28, 2010

A couple of Jackyl tunes this afternoon...



White House attempts to quiet revived talk of 'death panels'

Have you ever had to take one of those psychological evaluation tests that ask you the same questions over and over but in different ways? The obama administration is like that, they throw something out and shit hits the fan so they reword it and try to bury it somewhere else. Over and over, they try to get their radical, economy killing, grandma killing agenda past those of us that are paying attention.

Blogs, conservative media and conservative talk radio have screwed up so much stuff for obama and his gang of thugs. No wonder he wants to try and do away with them. obama and his radical socialist thugs will continue to try and pull the wool over our eyes until the day we run their asses off, which can't be too soon.

All of you people who thought Sarah Palin was crazy or stupid or both better hope that it isn't your relative who goes before the "death panel". It would suck for you to find out they are real that way wouldn't it?

By Jason Millman - The Hill

The Obama administration is trying to quiet talk about so-called “death panels” after The New York Times reported Sunday that a new Medicare regulation includes incentives for end-of-life-care planning.  

The Medicare policy will pay doctors for holding end-of-life-care discussions with patients, according to the Times. A similar provision was dropped from the new healthcare reform law after Republicans accused the administration of withholding care from the sick, elderly and disabled.

However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law's draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

"The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform]," Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

Sarah Palin, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, sparked controversy last summer when she said the reform law's end-of-life provision would create “death panels,” in which “government bureaucrats” would decide who receives care. President Obama countered the claim by saying his administration didn’t want to “pull the plug on grandma."

Jessica Barton is a Perfect Blonde Goddess!







111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.







That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.

During the 110th Congress—which, according to the Clerk of the House, officially convened on Jan. 4, 2007 and adjourned on Jan. 4, 2009--the national debt increased $1.957 trillion. When that Congress adjourned less than two years ago, it claimed the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history. As it turned out, however, its record did not last long.

The $3.22 trillion in new federal debt run up during the 111th Congress exceeds by 64 percent the $1.957 trillion in new debt run up during the 110th.

Although the 111th Congress cast its last vote on Dec. 22, it will not officially adjourn until next week.

Democrats controlled both the House and Senate in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

The 108th Congress ($1.159 trillion in new debt) and 109th ($1.054 trillion in new debt) take third and fourth place among all U.S. Congresses for accumulating debt. In both these Congresses, Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.

Still, the $3.22 trillion in new debt accumulated during the record-setting 111th Congress is more than three times the $1.054 trillion in new debt accumulated by the last Republican-majority Congress (the 109th) which adjourned on Dec. 8, 2006.

Historically, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal debt did not reach $3.22 trillion until September 1990, during the 101st Congress. Between the first Congress, which adjourned in 1791 leaving behind approximately $75 million in debt, and the convening of the 101st Congress, which occurred on Jan. 3, 1989, the national debt grew to $2.684 trillion.

During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 23, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996.

In her inaugural address as speaker, Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."


Congress Convening/Adjourning Debt Levels


111th Congress

Jan. 6, 2009 $10,638,425,746,293.80
Dec. 22, 2010 $13,858,529,371,601.09

New Debt: $3,220,103,625,307.29

110th Congress

Jan. 4, 2007 8,670,596,242,973.04
Jan. 3, 2009 10,627,961,295,930.67

New Debt: 1,957,365,052,957.63

109th Congress

Jan. 4, 2005 7,601,016,892,663.19
Dec. 8, 2006 8,655,403,967,590.98

New Debt: 1,054,387,074,927.79

108th Congress

Jan. 7, 2003 6,387,381,983,103.35
Dec. 9, 2004 7,546,778,677,941.37

New Debt: 1,159,396,694,838.02

107th Congress

Jan. 3, 2001 5,723,237,439,563.59
Nov. 22, 2002 6,332,715,758,032.33

New Debt: 609,478,318,468.74

106th Congress

Jan. 6, 1999 5,615,428,551,461.33
Dec. 15, 2000 5,706,990,981,165.37

New Debt: 91,562,429,704.04

105th Congress

Jan. 7, 1997 5,312,781,237,956.91
Dec. 19, 1998 5,583,950,306,972.53

New Debt: 271,169,069,015.62

104th Congress

Jan. 4, 1995 4,801,793,426,032.89
Oct. 4, 1996 5,222,049,625,819.53

New Debt: 420,256,199,786.64

103rd Congress

Jan.5, 1993 4,169,232,407,244.75
Dec. 1, 1994 4,774,851,353,596.54

New Debt: 605,618,946,351.79

102nd Congress

Jan. 3, 1991 (Dec. 31, 1990) 3,364,820,000,000.00
Oct. 9, 1992 (Sept. 30, 1992) 4,064,621,000,000.00

New Debt: 699,801,000,000.00

101st Congress

Jan. 3, 1989 (Dec. 31, 1988) 2,684,392,000,000.00
Oct. 28, 1990 (Oct. 31, 1990) 3,274,950,000.000.00

New Debt: 590,558,000,000.00

Starve the Beast: The Republican Plan to De-Fund the Health Care Law

It's funny, in a way, that there are portions of the obamacare legislation that both republicans and democrats think are bad. If only someone had READ the bill before signing on to it, but that isn't how things are done in washington. We have to pass this shit to see what's in it.

No matter what republicans do it's too late to stop the massive increases many of have seen in the cost of our insurance. The company I work for had to find new insurance for everyone because the rates went up around 40%. Even the new insurance is around 15% higher than we were paying last year.

One thing in this article that really caught my attention was this quote, "The law probably creates... 15 or 20 thousand new IRS jobs," he said, "It doesn't create a single new doctor job." This tells the whole story, obamacare is nothing but a power grab, that's it.

Republicans need to not only defund this monster, they need to reverse all of the damage that has been done so far. But is that even possible? They should start with several investigations of obama and his gang of thugs. The tactics used to gain votes for obamacare were at least against the rules and maybe even illegal. The bribes and kickbacks should all be explored. The exemptions that have been passed out since the passage of obamacare should all be undone. Can you imagine how unpopular this mess will be when obama's friends actually have to participate in it? The very people who supported the passage are now exempt!


The republicans have a huge hill to climb, especially when there are so many rinos involved. It would be a little easier if they could count on everyone with an "R" beside their name, unfortunantly even some of them can be bought...

*Update*

Go check out the thoughts of Under5Cents


by Jim Angle - FoxNews

Republicans have made absolutely clear what they intend to do to block the new health care law -- starve it.

Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, recently told Fox that "We can dent this, kick it, slow it down to make sure it never happens. And trust me," he emphasized, "I'm going to make sure this health care bill never ever, ever is implemented."

Brad Blakeman, who worked in the Bush White House agrees, saying, "They are going to be looking at the budget items that affect healthcare. They are going to be dissecting that 2000-page bill and picking apart those parts of the bill that can be defunded now."

Jim Kessler, the vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, offers this analogy for the Republican strategy: "You have a car -- that's the health care bill. And they're doing enough things to mess up the engine, to make it only drive at 45 miles and hour, not 65 miles an hour. But it's still a car, it's still driving and it's still going to get there."

It'll just take longer, he says, but stopping the funding won't stop the law, only complicate it, according to Kessler. "The law is not contingent on funding. Just how effectively it will be implemented is contingent on funding."

Republicans have already succeeded in blocking the first billion dollars in money to implement the health care law. It was part of the omnibus spending bill with six thousand earmarks that was killed in the Senate.

It was replaced by a temporary spending measure to keep the government running until March 4, 2011. The next budget bill is likely to bring the first big battle over funding the health care law.

There is one point of bipartisan agreement -- repealing a provision that requires a small business to file an IRS 1099 form for every person to whom they pay more than $600 in a year. Lawmakers in both parties agree that is an unreasonable burden on small business.

Don Holler of advocacy group Heritage Action says, "That's very costly, the burden ads up very quickly and makes hiring for small businesses very difficult."

Which is why it has bipartisan support. The measure was only added to the health care bill to bring down the price tag on the theory that new tax collections would raise money.

But Steve Hyde, an independent health expert, doesn't think much of it. "The law probably creates... 15 or 20 thousand new IRS jobs," he said, "It doesn't create a single new doctor job."

So the Republican strategy seems clear.

They say their hope is to defund and stall the health law's implementation, at least until they have more power to stop it.

Brad Blakeman says Republicans are taking the long view, "Hopefully we'll be able to defund and stall enough of the implementation that we'll make it into 2012, hopefully with a new president and perhaps take the majority in the Senate."

Which would be well ahead of 2014, when the health care law would take full effect. Many Republicans, of course, would like to repeal it right now, but the Senate could block that and even if it didn't, the President would veto it.

So conservatives are using the only tool at their disposal -- trying to stop or slow the law's implementation