Sunday, August 30, 2009

Polar Bears Refute Al Gore's Warnings

Polar Bears Refute Al Gore's Warnings
The polar bears that climate change alarmists claim are endangered by global warming are doing just fine, thank you.
Al Gore and other alarmists have warned that higher global temperatures due to greenhouse gases could lead to the melting of the polar ice caps. That would threaten the polar bears' efforts to find food and survive.
But due to colder than usual subarctic weather this year, healthier polar bears are being spotted along the Hudson Bay coast in Canada, according to a release from PR Newswire.
"The late break-up of ice this year on Hudson Bay means the polar bears, which rely on sea ice to live, have been given more time during spring and summer to hunt and eat seals, and this has allowed them to gain important weight to live off of until freeze-up," said Robert Buchanan, president of Polar Bears International.
Daryll Hedman, a regional wildlife manager for Manitoba Conservation in Canada, said polar bears remain on the Hudson Bay ice for as long as possible so they can feed, and this year the ice was so thick that they stayed there for an extra two weeks, resulting in fatter, healthier bears this summer.
On a related front: With many Democrats still clamoring for cap-and-trade legislation to curb carbon emissions in response to global warming fears, the outgoing leader of the environmental group Greenpeace has retracted an assertion about Arctic ice.
In a July 15 release entitled "Urgent Action Needed as Arctic Ice Melts," Greenpeace said there will be an ice-free Arctic by the year 2030 due to global warming.
Under questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur, Gerd Leipold, the retiring Greenpeace leader, stated, "I don't think it will be melting by 2030 . . . That may have been a mistake."


Courtesy of NewsMax.com

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Health Care Reform, my point of view

I think the most vital thing that needs to be done with our health care system before we turn over the payment system to the federal gov. is to ask and get answers as to why it is so much more expensive than other countries per person.
I think the top two reasons in my opinion are (and not in any order of importance)a
1. Tort reform, we live in a country that if you don't like the way your dry cleaner pressed your pants you can sue them for $2,000,000.00 if you spill hot coffee on your lap because you are a clutz you can sue the company you bought it from.
Doctors are forced to do tests on patients as defensive medicine and do extra CYA paperwork.
Some changes need to be made here.
2. The consumer is so far removed from the payment process and feels little or no responsibility for containing costs or getting the best value for his dollar. Most health insurance plans today if you did a comparison to the benefits to your auto insurance would be like having auto insurance that covered your tire ware, oil changes and any other mechanical problems that occurred.
I don't think this is realistic but if companies were not involved in providing group policies for their employees and people, individuals/families purchased it on their own and it would have some positive effects on the overall cost of health care.
The free market system works until the government over regulates it and that may be a third issue that should be looked at.
For those who want a universal (federally controlled) health care system, could you point out one well run federal government plan? (other than our military) The federal gov. already has programs which are in the process of leading our great nation into financial ruin now. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid how in any logical thought process does giving an institution that's proven over and over they can't manage money our entire health care system?

Support my blogging habit, www.VLSsports.com

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Gun Laws, History and the 2nd Amendment

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.

Something to think about:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
xterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2
percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide,
armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria
alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note, that while
the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and
criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25
years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now
are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic
increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian
politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased,
after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully
ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the
other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president,governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note.....before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor
of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

Author Un-Known

Monday, July 6, 2009

Here are some things to ponder.

When this country started it had a weak federal government with few regulations and people were allowed to and almost forced to be self employed and self sufficient. The States or Colonies were the primary regulators of individual law. The USA grew from a band of Rebels to the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world without or very little aid from a LARGE federal government.

Now we have a LARGE federal government mandating, regulating and controlling the majority of things that are a mess in our country. Education, how are all the federal regulations helping that? If someone can explain how one way will work best for 50 states and 300,000,000 people feel free to try and explain that to me.

The Federal Government did very little (outside of a fine military) to build this country into the best, wealthiest, most powerful and most envied nation on earth, people in the past came here for a chance, yep just a chance at an opportunity to have the freedom to be independent. Now they are attracted here to become dependent on all of the government handouts.

I personally think there is plenty of evidence based on history what needs to happen to correct things or more accurately stated, what needs to be stopped.

Our founding fathers said that government needs to be most powerful at the lowest level.

Why do we now think they were so wrong?