The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data

EDITORIAL: Rigged ‘science’

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES – Monday, June 23, 2014

· clip_image002

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

A fractured Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This harmless gas, the agency insists, is melting the planet.

Only the brave deny man’s responsibility for super-heating the globe in precincts where the wise and wonderful (just ask them) gather to reassure each other than they know best. “We know the trends,” President Obama told the graduates at the University of California at Irvine the other day. “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.”

The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.

The “Steven Goddard Real Science” blog compares the raw U.S. temperature records from the Energy Department’s United States Historical Climatology Network to the “final” processed figures, to demonstrate how the historical data have been “corrected,” using computer modeling.

The modifications made to the past temperature record had the effect of cooling the 20th century, which makes temperatures over the last 14 years appear much warmer by comparison. Such changes don’t square with history, which shows the decade of the 1930s the hottest on record. The Dust Bowl storms were so severe they sent clouds of debris from Texas and Oklahoma to the East Coast, even darkening the skies over the U.S. Capitol one day in 1934.

In an inconvenient article from 1999, written before the data had been “corrected,” James Hansen, then a NASA scientist, acknowledged that the climate had held steady after the Dust Bowl storms. “In the U.S.,” wrote Mr. Hansen, “there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.” Mr. Hansen, recognized as a godfather of the global warming doom criers, then predicted that the first decade of the 21st century would be even hotter than the 1930s.

To produce this hotter result, the scientists “adjusted” the temperature records to make it appear so. NASA redrew the temperature chart Mr. Hansen used in 1999, and the new chart shows a dramatically cooled 1930s. The 1990s that Mr. Hansen once said were not so hot became warmer than the 1930s.

With the global warming scam unraveling before his very eyes, President Obama and his administration want action now. “The question is not whether we need to act,” says Mr. Obama. “The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest. The question is whether we have the will to act before it’s too late.”

Too late for what? The planetary thermometer hasn’t budged in 15 years. Wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes and other “extreme” weather events are at normal or below-normal levels. Pacific islands aren’t submerged. There’s so much ice the polar bears are celebrating.

Opinion polls show the public figured out that global warming was all hype years ago, but the judges still haven’t heard the news. The usually unflappable Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Monday opinion, joined by the four liberal justices and assorted conservatives who agreed only in part, and disagreed in other parts of the opinion. The high court justices missed an opportunity to reverse the EPA premise that all humans are “polluters” because they exhale. It’s not supposed to be easy to dupe a judge, but the global warming scientists have done it.

Read more:

PdC – The issue called Climate Change after first being called Global Warming is a classic example of both sides convinced they are right and “the other side is wrong.” There are articles supporting both sides with scientific data supporting both arguments as well. That is sad because the world’s population suffers through the argument of the “fools” and has no immediate impact on the argument.

I firmly believe that we need to protect Mother Earth and take care of her. Yet I read examples where allowing the native wolf population back into an area allowed the habitat to regenerate and soil erosion was reduced because the over grazing from the wildlife was reduced directly relating to the decrease is the deer and elk population in the habitat.

The Left presents all the science and claims that mankind is destroying the planet with an increase in C02. Yet I have seen data supporting the claim that CO2 levels are consistent with previous measured CO2 levels of previous centuries. Who are we to believe? Can we believe anyone? I know for a fact that I cannot believe anything president Obama claims about Global Climate Change. One primary reason for that is he is a politician and has no background supporting his knowing anything about Climate Change. I have more credibility in climate change assessment simply because I have a degree in Engineering and know and understand the scientific process. Yet I will be the first to admit that I do not have the climate knowledge or the data that I trust to make any claim regarding Climate Change. Yes, I am skeptical that we have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. But I have no idea who to trust telling me that the CO2 levels are changing drastically. The above article is biased.

Yes, the climate is changing. It has changed from the creation and will continue to change long after man is dead and gone. Mother Earth is a living breathing entity that changes every day depending on factors outside our atmosphere as well within our atmosphere. Sun Spots affect many climate variations on our beloved Mother Earth. Yet, are the Global Warming people clamoring to alter the sun to prevent Sun Spots?

I do believe that legislating a carbon tax is something that is based not on reality but on hearing Chicken Little scream “the sky is falling” and we need a carbon tax to finance preventing the sky from falling. In the fable Chicken Little was deemed crazy and therefore not credible. We have the Global Warmers running around much like Chicken Little and the issue has become politicized and therefore one side is claiming the issue is relevant while the other side says they are running around with their heads cut off and falsifying data.

So we have the Deniers claiming that there is absolutely not climate change as this article purports. Each side has its base of supporters.

Then there is Joe the Plumber stuck in the middle and trying to understand what is really happening.

It is clear that Global Climate Change is a political issue and therefore both sides are extreme in their perspectives. Where is reality? Somewhere in the middle and the only way that we will ever find out is to work for compromise. In today’s political environment that will not happen. Hopefully we the voting population will keep the Congressmen and President in different political parties preventing one party from gaining power and forcing bad law down our throats.


Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

The Collapsing Obama Doctrine

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.


Updated June 17, 2014 7:34 p.m. ET

As the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threaten Baghdad, thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in their wake, it is worth recalling a few of President Obama’s past statements about ISIS and al Qaeda. “If a J.V. team puts on Lakers’ uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant” (January 2014). “[C]ore al Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated” (August 2013). “So, let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding” (September 2011).

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is “ending” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality. Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America’s enemies are not “decimated.” They are emboldened and on the march.

The fall of the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Tikrit, Mosul and Tel Afar, and the establishment of terrorist safe havens across a large swath of the Arab world, present a strategic threat to the security of the United States. Mr. Obama’s actions—before and after ISIS’s recent advances in Iraq—have the effect of increasing that threat.


An Iraqi soldier in Baghdad with volunteers to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, June 17. Reuters

On a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, “Can you please explain what your president is doing?” “Why is he walking away?” “Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?” “Why is he abandoning your friends?” “Why is he doing deals with your enemies?”

In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, “They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don’t the Americans care?”

Our president doesn’t seem to. Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing. He seems blithely unaware, or indifferent to the fact, that a resurgent al Qaeda presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe. According to a recent Rand study, between 2010 and 2013, there was a 58% increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist terror groups around the world. During that same period, the number of terrorists doubled.

In the face of this threat, Mr. Obama is busy ushering America’s adversaries into positions of power in the Middle East. First it was the Russians in Syria. Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.

This president is willfully blind to the impact of his policies. Despite the threat to America unfolding across the Middle East, aided by his abandonment of Iraq, he has announced he intends to follow the same policy in Afghanistan.

Despite clear evidence of the dire need for American leadership around the world, the desperation of our allies and the glee of our enemies, President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch. Indeed, the speed of the terrorists’ takeover of territory in Iraq has been matched only by the speed of American decline on his watch.

The president explained his view in his Sept. 23, 2009, speech before the United Nations General Assembly. “Any world order,” he said, “that elevates one nation above others cannot long survive.” Tragically, he is quickly proving the opposite—through one dangerous policy after another—that without American pre-eminence, there can be no world order.

It is time the president and his allies faced some hard truths: America remains at war, and withdrawing troops from the field of battle while our enemies stay in the fight does not “end” wars. Weakness and retreat are provocative. U.S. withdrawal from the world is disastrous and puts our own security at risk.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent and they present a security threat not seen since the Cold War. Defeating them will require a strategy—not a fantasy. It will require sustained difficult military, intelligence and diplomatic efforts—not empty misleading rhetoric. It will require rebuilding America’s military capacity—reversing the Obama policies that have weakened our armed forces and reduced our ability to influence events around the world.

American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. Our security, and the security of our friends around the world, can only be guaranteed with a fundamental reversal of the policies of the past six years.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, “If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.” President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.

Mr. Cheney was U.S. vice president from 2001-09. Ms. Cheney was the deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs from 2002-04 and 2005-06.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Be brave, Republicans – Republicans must not misunderstand the meaning of Eric Cantor’s defeat

Republicans must not misunderstand the meaning of Eric Cantor’s defeat

Jun 14th 2014 | From the Economist print edition


ERIC CANTOR is by most standards a fairly conservative American. The House majority leader’s commitment to cutting government spending has survived an earthquake and a hurricane: when both hit his Virginia district in 2011 he insisted that any federal disaster relief be offset by budget cuts elsewhere. He is also credited with, or blamed for, scuppering a grand bargain between House Republicans and the president that was meant to shrink the deficit by cutting spending a lot, on the grounds that it raised taxes a bit.

Yet the Republican voters in his June 10th primary were not convinced of his bona fides. Though he had helped to block a recent proposal for immigration reform in the House, he had once talked of a limited amnesty for some migrants who arrived as children. And he had suggested that perhaps, on this, a compromise with Barack Obama might be possible. Mr. Cantor also voted to reopen the government in October and to avoid a disastrous technical default on America’s sovereign debt. Faced with such infamy the primary voters backed David Brat, a professor of economics at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland who is rock solid on opposing immigration—effectively ejecting Mr. Cantor from Congress. “God acted through people on my behalf,” Mr. Brat told Fox News.

But if God intervened in the race, he is clearly a Democrat. Mr. Brat’s victory is bad for both the Republicans and America, for it increases the chances that a party beginning to recover a bit of its vim will veer off once again to the right, as incumbents scramble to make themselves primary-proof.

No you Cantor

After Mitt Romney’s defeat in the 2012 presidential election, the Republican National Committee concluded that the federal wing of the party was “increasingly marginalising itself”. Young voters, it said, are “rolling their eyes at what the party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country.” This newspaper, which has often backed Republicans in the past, shared some of those emotions: the sunny small-government optimism of Ronald Reagan had given way to the party’s moralising southern-fried wing, with its disdain for immigrants, gays and economic solutions not composed wholly of tax cuts.

Before Mr. Cantor’s ouster, the party seemed to be making some progress. The Republicans looked increasingly likely to take the Senate in the mid-term elections in November, partly because of Barack Obama’s unpopularity and partly because mid-terms are low turnout elections. Voters who are old and white are more likely to turn out, and Republicans do well with both. A smaller share of eligible voters showed up in the 2010 mid-terms than for the widely derided elections to the European Parliament.

To be fair, though, the party had also made an attempt to learn from its presidential defeat. In several primaries this year, more moderate old-timers beat Tea Party candidates who had condemned them for their culpably conciliatory attitude towards Democrats. This opened up the possibility of a much more Republican America this November, with the party, which also controls the House of Representatives and most state legislatures, in charge of everything but the presidency. The stage would then be set for someone with experience of running a state—Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, John Kasich—to wrestle Hillary Clinton for the White House in 2016.

Mr. Cantor’s defeat was partly a reprimand for laziness: he did not spend enough time in his district. But it is also a reminder of how far the party still has to go. The gap between the Tea Party activists and the pragmatists remains immense. And the issues on which Republicans can agree these days—opposition to abortion and tax increases, passionate enthusiasm for guns and the constitution—are too narrow to address America’s problems. Too many primary races are still purity contests. A victory in the Senate could exacerbate that problem: some Republican strategists fear that it would drive the party towards the extremes once more, and the voters towards Mrs. Clinton.

Wages, work and welfare

That would be a shame. America needs a decent opposition—one which argues for unleashing the country’s entrepreneurial side, not for the urgency of arming teachers. An important debate is under way about the role of the state in which the Republicans—at heart a small-government party—have a lot to say. Most of America’s governorships are now held by Republicans, usually of a problem-solving sort. From New Jersey to Wisconsin and Nevada, they have got elected by spending more time fixing things than fighting culture wars and have been experimenting with pro-business policies, introducing competition to America’s lacklustre schools, and cutting both red tape and taxes. A good bit of “the America that works” is in their hands, and their governments compare well with the bureaucracy created by some of Mr. Obama’s well-intentioned but lazily assembled laws.

In Washington too there are Republicans with good ideas, many of which are aimed at voters beyond the party’s base. Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida, is focusing on poorer workers, whose pay has stagnated in recent decades: he counters the Democrats’ proposal for much higher minimum wages with one to boost low incomes with wage subsidies. John Thune, a senator from South Dakota, wants to build a relocation allowance into unemployment benefits to help the long-term jobless move to where there are jobs. Such policies do not fit easily onto a bumper-sticker, but they could help persuade voters that the Republicans take the business of government seriously.

In the wake of Mr. Cantor’s defeat, there is a danger that the pragmatists will hunker down. Already immigration reform is being pronounced dead. Abandoning attempts to address America’s real problems would be a grave mistake for the party. Mr. Obama may be unpopular, but he is not running in 2016. If the Republicans present themselves to the electorate yet again as a bunch of angry, old, white men, they will lose—and deservedly so.

From the Economist print edition: Leaders

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Dem Congressman: ‘We’ve Proved That Communism Works’


Brendan Bordelon

Democratic Florida Rep. Joe Garcia — fresh off being caught eating his own earwax on camera — was caught red-handed (or is it yellow-fingered?) in another gaffe this week, claiming that low crime rates in border cities with lots of federal immigration workers is proof that “Communism works.”

Garcia made the comment during a Google hangout he convened last week to talk about comprehensive immigration reform with supporters. The Democrat attempted to point out how, for all their talk about limited government, many Republicans are fine spending loads of government money on border security.

“Let me give you an example, the kind of money we’ve poured in,” he said. “So the most dangerous — sorry, the safest city in America is El Paso, Texas. It happens to be across the border from the most dangerous city in the Americas, which is Juarez. Right?”

“And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico,” Garcia continued. “And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there’s no crime.”

“But that isn’t what we should be doing on the border,” he continued. “The kind of money we’ve poured into it, and we’re having diminishing returns.”

The video was uploaded to YouTube by the America Rising PAC, a Republican PAC founded in 2013 and dedicated to opposition research. It’s also the same group that originally uploaded Garcia’s earwax snafu.

Garcia, who is of Cuban descent along with many of his south Florida constituents, told the Miami Herald he never meant to espouse Communism — and was instead taking a tongue-in-cheek shot at his GOP opponents.

“This is an absurdity, accusing the son of Cuban immigrants of believing in Communism is just ridiculous,” he declared.

But Garcia’s district is already rated a toss-up by the Cook Political Report, and with their second attack on the congressman in a week America Rising clearly senses an opening in the south Florida district.

Coupling the “ew” factor of the earwax video with Garcia’s chirpy endorsement of Communism, Republicans now have a rather robust chest of opposition material to deploy in Florida this fall.

WATCH (video via America Rising):

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office


Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015.

The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.

“History tells us what Obama was able to do. This list reminds us of what Obama wanted to do,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The number of proposed tax increases per year is as follows:

-79 tax increases for FY 2010

-52 tax increases for FY 2011

-47 tax increases for FY 2012

-34 tax increases for FY 2013

-137 tax increases for FY 2014

-93 tax increases for FY 2015

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Obama budget with the lowest number of proposed tax increases was released during an election year: In February 2012, Obama released his FY 2013 budget, with “only” 34 proposed tax increases. Once safely re-elected, Obama came back with a vengeance, proposing 137 tax increases, a personal record high for the 44th President.

In addition to the 442 tax increases in his annual budget proposals, the 20 signed into law as part of Obamacare, and the massive tobacco tax hike signed into law on the sixteenth day of his presidency, Obama has made it clear he is open to other broad-based tax increases.

During an interview with Men’s Health in 2009, when asked about the idea of national tax on soda and sugary drinks, the President said, “I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring.”

During an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood in 2010, Obama said a European-style Value-Added-Tax was something that would be novel for the United States.”

Obama’s statement was consistent with a pattern of remarks made by Obama White House officials refusing to rule out a VAT.

“Presidents are judged by history based on what they did in power. But presidents can only enact laws when the Congress agrees,” said Norquist. “Thus a record forged by such compromise tells you what a president — limited by congress — did rather than what he wanted to do.”

The full list of proposed Obama tax increases can be found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me

Husker Basketball Expectations

Husker Basketball

This past 2013-4 men’s basketball season has seen a tremendous change in Nebraska basketball. Coach Tim Miles has turned around a program that has never been a consistent winner into an exciting penetrating basketball team. Miles has tremendous young talent that this year was a growth year for multiple reasons. The team grew together and bonded as only the good teams can and will do. They learned to rely on each other and build on their ability to defend. Defenses do win titles. Every championship caliber team has a great defense.


Just to give you a bit of understanding where I get my experience and understanding of basketball and how I view the great game of basketball. My father was a basketball coach and started me playing basketball when I was able to walk and bounce a basketball. I remember being on a basketball court bouncing the ball before I started kindergarten in Belgrade, Nebraska where we lived. The first time I played organized basketball was at age eight. I played organized through high school and concentrated on football and track in college. After an injury playing baseball I took a brief three year hiatus in the US Army and returned to college on the GI Bill and worked my way through college in Lincoln, Nebraska officiating football, basketball and softball. From that point I had worked football and basketball for over twenty-five years from the little kid games to college games. Utilizing my engineering education I grew to know and recognize winning strategies for football and basketball and understanding what teams do enabling them to win games and the differences in the mental makeup of winning players and how they behave once they become consistent winners from a non-partisan perspective. I did not care who won and only recognized the difference in the players that won and those that lost. How they behaved and what they did to ensure those victories. In other words, I watched to see what the winners did to become the consistent winners they are. How they behaved when they lost and what they did to ensure that they learned from their mistakes enabling them to take that experience and win their next time in that position.

Now when I see a team compete I watch many behavior patterns to see if the teams are going to compete and what they will do when the “crunch” time happens.

B1G Conference

Recently the only real team that I have watched over the last forty years, Nebraska Cornhuskers joined the B1G Conference. At first I was a bit unsettled by the loss of long-time football antagonist Oklahoma. All my life the Boomer Sooners were a football thorn in my side. It seemed they always won when they did not deserve to win the game and were lucky more than not. It was a lifetime of an opponent that I thought was worthy of my beloved Huskers. Yet when the Big-12 Conference was created the Boomers gave up their games with Nebraska every year in favor of their game with the Texas Tinhorns.

So it was that I knew that the departure from the Big-12 was the best thing from the perceived destruction of the Big-12 Conference by one team that felt they could and did bully their way onto the other conference members. It turned out that the conference commissioner had to go to prevent favoritism that allowed that bully to force its way on everyone else for the conference to heal and now looks to expand into a conference that will occasionally be competitive on the national college scene.


Meanwhile the B1G Conference knew that to make their basketball teams competitive they would have to play the best teams face-to-face and mature the talent in the conference learning how to first play at the national level and then to grow through the learning curve to win at the national level. When Nebraska joined the B1G Conference in 2011 the conference was playing the Atlantic Coast Conference face-to-face in early season matchups knowing that the teams would benefit from the national level exposure and grow into better basketball teams short-term and long term. Validating this assertion is that last year 2012-3 men’s basketball season the B1G had five teams in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Dance. This year the B1G Conference has three teams in the Elite Eight level playing excellent basketball with all their teams playing like experienced winners at this level.

Back to the Huskers

This past season the Men’s basketball Huskers were picked to finish last in the B1G Conference. The Women’s Basketball team was expected to compete and won their first ever Conference tournament once again going to the NCAA Women’s Dance. Another reason for our Husker Pride to grow and recognize what a solid coach that can teach players to hustle learning to play against national level competition can do for the team. It has taken Connie Yuri a few years but she has worked hard and reached a level where the Lady Huskers compete at that national level annually. The second year men’s BB coach had taken his teams at Colorado State to the NCAA Men’s Dance and was hired by Dr. Tom Osborne to take the men’s BB program to the same level as Yuri has done with the women. Something that Nebraska basketball has never done consistently.

As stated the team was not expected to compete and to well this year. They started the season losing more than they won. Miles changed the line-up and team chemistry was built allowing the team to start winning. They play excellent defense and the B1G Conference scoring leader is one of the best defenders always reaching out and switching and double covering with his teammates. They are a team effort defensively doing excellent work hustling making the effort to learn and get to the next level.

Getting to the next level and staying there is going to be their challenge this off-season. At the end of the season they lost to first Ohio State in the B1G Conference Tournament and then to Baylor in the NCAA Dance mostly due to their lack of tough game experience that is required to play in the “playoff” environment. In other words the teams do step up the competitive level when they get to tournament-time. It is a mental state they reach and to get there they have to learn how to reach that mental game and what to do to stay there mentally and physically.

When the final 3 minutes in the Ohio State game the OSU team that played in the NCAA Dance last year and advanced took control and performed as experienced winners. Our Huskers lost their focus and did not play up to their potential. They let OSU take them out of their game. During the Baylor game it was the Baylor defense that prevented the Huskers from driving the lane that they had done so well all season and took the game away from the Huskers. Both games with playoff experience could have been won. They are very close. They beat Wisconsin in Lincoln playing great Husker basketball. Wisconsin is still playing basketball into the Elite Eight this year along with two other B1G teams.

Our beloved men’s basketball team reached that level and did not win their first ever NCAA Dance game. Let us hope that Coach Miles will be able to coach the team and let them grow to that national competitive level for years to come. The Husker fans have proven they support the team with the season tickets were sold out last season for a team that was expected to finish last and finished fourth. The Wisconsin game was a standing only room crowd and the new Pinnacle Bank Arena was an exciting place to be.

Mike Babcock at Hail Varsity tells his readers that Husker fans should expect more from the Huskers and they should. The team has set our expectations and theirs at a higher level.

Go Big Red!

Leave a comment

Filed under Husker Nation




Conservative Nebraska Senate candidate Ben Sasse, who has been surging since being labeled the anti-Obamacare candidate, has released a “Constitutional Madness” bracket to highlight the lawlessness of the Obama administration.

“Which is President Obama’s worst constitutional violation?” the bracket says. “Make your picks!”

Pairings include “allowing congressional Obamacare subsidies” versus “forcing taxpayers to violate religious conscience by funding abortion through Obamacare” to “Using the IRS to suppress free speech” to “Secret monitoring of Fox News and the Associated Press.”

Sasse, who has vowed to take on the permanent political class and has already clashed with the Washington establishment, was most recently endorsed by former Alaska. Gov. Sarah Palin.

Here are the “Constitutional Madness” regionals:



Allowing congressional Obamacare subsidies.


Forcing taxpayers to violate religious conscience by funding abortion through Obamacare.

Two-year delay in Obamacare individual mandate.


Empowering IPAB to govern health care without Congress.

One-year delay to make health plans Obamacare-compliant.


One-year delay in Obamacare’s employer mandate.

Implementing the DREAM Act without legislation.


Changing welfare work rules without legislation.



Six-month moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf.


War in Libya without congressional authorization.

White House “kill list” includes Americans without due process.


Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 without legislation.

Collecting bulk data from Americans’ cell phones.


Warrantless searches of Americans’ international phone calls.

Issuing “national security letters” to violate free speech.


Proposing a national license plate tracking system.



Using the IRS to suppress Tea Party free speech.


Secret monitoring of Fox News and the Associated Press.

Decision not to defend DOMA.


Appointments to the NLRB while the Senate was in session.

Regulating carbon dioxide without congressional approval.


Barricading the WWII Memorial during the government shutdown.

Preventing layoff notices to contractors affected by sequestration prior to the election.


Closing the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage site in violation of the law.



DOJ sues Arizona over immigration enforcement measure.


Waivers exempting most states from No Child Left Behind Act.

Failing to enforce federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana.


Asserting executive privilege over Fast and Furious investigative documents.

FCC attempted power grab over Internet regulation.


Attempted through EEOC to overturn church’s right to choose own ministers.

Bailout of the auto industry despite not being “financial institutions.”


Rule to make farm chores subject to child labor laws.


PdC – It is with a  smile on my face that I see Ben Sasse is from my home state of Nebraska. He has a sense of humor regarding Obamacare and with his extreme approach added humor to a very sad situation that is so destructive to the USA.

This bracket approach to comparing the extremes of the increased taxation from Obamacare to what Obama has done to the constitution while touting his experience teaching Constitutional Law is a touch of hitting our sports crazed country while getting attention to his agenda to get elected so he can work to overturn Obamacare.

George W. Bush was increasingly frustrated with his inability to push his agenda through a divided Congress and used executive orders as well in his second term. Obama has his extreme agenda that often reminds me of Saul Alinsky’s eight rules of political controlling and making a country submissive to its government.

Both political parties has gone too far with their extreme politics and have not bothered to understand that the people continually approval rating of each party and congress as so low they are the laughing stock of the USA. The political system is so corroded and ineffective they are unable to see the writing on the wall that they need to revamp their policies and give the people what they want rather than view the people as not smart enough to do anything about what Washington does.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left - Off Base, Politics from Just Right of Center - I want Balance!, Right - too Religous for me