Government Motors: An Absurd Affair


Ignore the politics of this for the moment, just consider the economics.  Is the Volt cost effective?  You judge, but take all costs into account.  Perhaps the administration’s ideology blinds them to the reality of the situatioin? Or maybe they all need a year of remedial arithmetic? Or just maybe the Cronies involved who kickback to the Obama campaign fund are occupying that favored status that Obama bestows on those who “understand” the way things work in leftist regimes?


                Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

                   Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel’s Follow the Money) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.  

                   For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine. 

                   Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

                  According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.   The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. 

                   I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.  

                   16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.  $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.

                   Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg. 

                   $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

                   The gasoline powered car costs about $15,000 while the Volt  costs $46,000.  So Obama wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that  costs more than 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country, one that is being produced and promoted by his Cronies with our own diverted taxpayer dollars.


Hands off My Health Care – A Project of Americans for Prosperity

Sign the People’s Statement to the Supreme Court

Americans for Prosperity believes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that it cannot be judicially severed from the underlying law. We believe the President’s entire health care law must be struck down.

Sign our statement that we will be presenting to the Supreme Court on March 27th at our Hands Off My Health Care Rally!

Use the form to the right to sign our People’s Statement to the Supreme Court.

Click here to read full statment

The continuing problems with mandated purchase of government controlled health care is building ever growing resistance. As Britain looks for a way to escape from Socialized medicine, American Socialists rush in. It’s time to pressure this government to stop meddling in things government isn’t authorized to mandate before it invades even more of our daily life.

Dem Rep to constituents on HHS mandate: “Basically, we’re not looking to the Constitution” « Hot Air

Democrats are now admitting that they consider the Constitution should be ignored in order to impose this “new right”.. bestowed by Congress. Huh? Either we have a Constitution, or we don’t. She swore to uphold the Constitution, but clearly didn’t mean it. Where does our supreme law of the land declare our rights come from? Congress? Nowhere does it say that.. but it does unequivocally set forth our rights and from where they derive. Nowhere does it say government shall have the right to impose a product purchase on citizens. They just deemed it so. Where does that slippery slope take us? Who knows? History shows us over and over that the road to Hell is paved with “good intentions”.. and she just showed us how this happens. Just ignore the Constitution and we can start making up all kinds of special “rights” and kill anyone who balks at compliance. Hitler’s socialist Germany, Mao’s Communist Chian, Stalin’s Communist Russia.. are just a few examples that come to mind.

Oregon Hostage Taking- The Welfare State

Who’s Holding Whom Hostage?

| Feb 25, 2012 | 0 comments


The Oregonian editorial board continues to pound away at Republican legislators and particularly House Co-Speaker Bruce Hanna.  On Wednesday of this week the editorial board railed against Republican failure to rush through education and health care reforms pushed by the Governor.  Today the editorial board expresses astonishment and outrage that Republicans are demanding action on their jobs package in return for action on the Governor’s health care and education initiatives. “Even in politics, friends don’t take friends hostage,” they write.

oregon governor john kitzhaber 2012

Photo: Associated Press

OK.  Fair enough.  But who is holding whom hostage?  On Thursday the Governor “invited” business leaders to a press conference at which he plead for quick action by the legislature on health care and education.  Are those folks going to stiff the Governor?  Of course not.  They understand that they have to get along with the guy who happens to hold the office.  But let’s hope those who agreed to serve as props for the Governor’s show and tell have also picked up the phone and let the Governor know privately that there needs to be action on the jobs package as well.

The Oregonian describes GOP leaders as having “crashed Kitzhaber’s news conference.”  So were not all business leaders invited?   Bruce Hanna, Kevin Cameron and Tim Freeman are all successful businessmen and business leaders.  Dennis Richardson is a successful lawyer who represents businesses.  And these are business people who not only show up when the Governor calls a news conference or when they are looking for something from government, but also impose significant costs on their businesses by volunteering to serve in the Oregon Legislature.  Of course, they are all from outside the Portland-Salem-Eugene power center, so perhaps that explains why they weren’t invited.

And the fact that these individuals and most other Republicans represent rural and small town Oregon gets to the heart of the apparent stalemate in Salem.  The Oregonian expresses sympathy with Republican job initiatives, but says “it’s wrong and dangerous to pretend that this kind of legislation is of equal importance to creating a new accountability system for schools, or reforming an early childhood education system that every year leaves an estimated 18,000 Oregon kids unprepared to learn when they show up to kindergarten.”

Maybe it’s wrong if you live in the Valley and can’t see past the Cascades or the Coast Range.  But if you live in eastern or central or southern or coastal Oregon, a dozen jobs here and a hundred jobs there make an enormous difference to the future prospects of your community.  Although many urban Oregonians have persuaded themselves that rural Oregon can survive on tourism and the “new green economy,” the reality is that we live in a resource rich state and if we refuse to responsibly develop and use those resources we condemn many Oregon communities and Oregonians to continuing economic decline.

The effects of that decline are not confined to rural Oregon.  They slowly, but steadily, trickle over the mountains and into Salem.  Did anyone notice that the state economist’s revenue projections are consistently wrong on the high side?  That’s a sad commentary on the sorry condition of the economy of the entire state.

Rather than condemn Republicans for holding hostage the Governor’s health care and education reforms, The Oregonian might more reasonably have asked why the Governor and his fellow Democrats are holding the Republican jobs initiatives hostage.  Of course health care costs and education are important to the future of business in this state.  But so too are jobs in the near term which will result from making greater use of the resources of the state.  Oregon could be a national model for responsible development of state controlled resources – if only the Governor and Democrats were willing.

If the jobs package is of such limited importance relative to the health care and education reforms, why don’t Democrats happily accept them.  According to The Oregonian they would be getting a lot in return for giving up very little.  Though one has to wonder what it is they think they would be giving up by encouraging a little job growth.

So who’s holding whom hostage?

@COPYRIGHT Northwest Free Press 2012. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


“Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces

Home » Guest Columns » “Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces

“Fakegate” Blows Up in Warmist Faces

Alan Caruba  —  
February 24, 2012

Printer Friendly

On February 16, I published “Anatomy of a Global Warming Hoax” concerning the theft of the private records of The Heartland Institute’s board meeting  and the creation of an alleged forged document intended to harm its reputation as a long time advocate of the real, not fake, science that has been the basis of the global warming—now called “climate change”—hoax.

The Feb 21 issue of The Wall Street Journal published an editorial, “The Not-So-Vast Conspiracy” noting that “As for ‘the largest international science conference of skeptics’ Heartland will, according to the documents, spend all of $380,000 this year on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. That’s against the $6.5 million that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) costs Western taxpayers annually, and the $2.6 billion the White House wants to spend next year on research into ‘global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.’” (Emphasis added)

The global warming hoax has cost taxpayers billions since it was initiated and earned the purveyors of “carbon credits” millions as industry and others paid for the privilege of emitting “greenhouse gas”—primarily carbon dioxide—as part of doing business. Currently the European Union is trying to shake down the airline industry by charging them a surtax on their emissions as they fly tourists and businessmen to that beknighted continent. Most of the exchanges that sold the credits have since closed.

The infamous “Cap-and-Trade” legislation that thankfully died in Congress was part of this scam.

We now know that the document theft was either perpetrated or abetted by Dr. Peter E. Gleick, a water and climate analyst, and founder of the Pacific Institute. A contributor to Huffington Post and prolific castigator of global warming “skeptics” and “deniers”, Dr. Gleick has admitted his part in the effort to depict The Heartland Institute, its board and its donors as part of the worldwide conspiracy to debunk the hoax.

Since 2008 Heartland has sponsored six conferences that brought together scientists and others who presented ample evidence of the absurdity that carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” was causing the Earth to heat up. Unfortunately for the real IPCC conspirators, the Earth entered a natural cooling cycle in 1998 and, in 2009, thousands of email exchanges between the IPCC scientists were posted to the Internet revealing their growing panic over the failure of Mother Nature to cooperate with their lies, most if not all of which were based on bogus computer models.

Even The New York Times that had trumpeted the false allegations based on the purloined documents, published a Feb. 20 article, “Activist Says He Lied to Obtain Climate Papers” reporting that “Dr. Gleick distributed the documents to several well-known bloggers and activists who support the work of mainstream climate scientists and who have documented the Heartland Institute as a center of climate change denial.”

The Times is incapable of not slandering organizations and individuals who have fought long and hard to rip the mask of respectability from the perpetrators of the hoax. The “mainstream scientists” to whom it refers are, of course, the IPCC scientists behind the hoax. “Climate change denial” is nothing less than the propagation of the truth about the hoax.

For me, the most interesting aspect of all this has been the way The Heartland Institute has responded to Dr. Glieck’s chicanery. From the moment that documents, real, altered and fake, were posted on sites like and others, Heartland’s president, Joe Bast, went after the then-unknown identity of the person who secured the documents threatening legal action.

When Dr. Glieck publicly admitted his part in a Huffington Post statement, Bast released a statement saying, “Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland’s staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.”

The key word in Bast’s statement is “crime.” As John Sullivan, a British-based attorney and an active “denier”, author and blogger, noted, Bast said “A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage”, adding that Dr. Gleick faces being financially ruined by a civil prosecution and “is also liable to a criminal investigation as such falsification of documents is a well-known brand of white collar crime.”

Some time ago I wrote a commentary saying that some of the global warming conspirators needed to go to jail for their crimes. As events unfold, that yet may occur insofar as they were the recipients of public funding and United Nations support as the IPCC published their false “science” amidst alarmist global warming claims.

Perhaps their greatest crime was the debasement of meteorological and climate science. Beyond that, their attacks on the reputation of the brave scientists who stepped forward to refute them is the very definition of slander and liable. The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, the National Geographic, and other “mainstream” news publications will unfortunately be given a pass for advancing their lies even to this day.

The Heartland director’s meeting was devoted to a program to deal with the torrent of false teaching in our nation’s schools intended to warp the perceptions and knowledge of students regarding global warming. That, too, is part of the crime committed against a national and worldwide population that was deliberately misled.

The warmists are in retreat and for that everyone owes a great debt of gratitude to The Heartland Institute and all the others who joined in the effort to refute the greatest hoax of the modern era.


Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

  • America has become a pathetic shell of it’s former self with a public sector that has become a gathering cess pool of interests whose primary goal is the legal plunder of the private sector.

    Lafayette, untiring champion of Liberty– To Appreciate America

    Lafayette, untiring champion of Liberty

    To avoid the cost of a translation, this conference is not exactly the one given to the Circle on May 24, 2008, but one given in English at Warsaw on June 29th, 2008
    by Jacques de Guenin


    During a long life interspersed with numerous stays in the United States, I have been increasingly puzzled by the difference in appreciation of Lafayette in France and America). In the U.S., affection bordering on adulation, and admiration that extends even to what he had accomplished in France. In France, a certain pride for his contribution to the American war of independence, but a certain discredit for his role in the Revolutions of 1789 and 1848.

    To illustrate this difference, I am going to give you two quotations.

    The first is from the great George Washington himself : “Lafayette has exceptional military talents, with a quick and secure judgment. He is enterprising and persevering, without imprudence, with in addition a conciliatory and perfectly sober disposition, qualities that are rarely gathered in a single individual.”

    The second is from the French Encyclopedia Universalis : “His mind lacks depth and his character lacks resolution”.

    Puzzled by this paradox, I ended up digging into the life of Lafayette, and I came to the conclusion that most French historians are unfair to him. But more importantly, I discovered that he was one of us, i.e. a true classical liberal. I also discovered that he had an intense relationship with Poland. These are the two reasons why I am giving this talk today. My aim is to have him added to our classical liberal/libertarian Hall of Fame.

    Gilbert Motier, marquis of La Fayette, had inherited his title at the age of two, when his father, an officer, was killed during the Seven Years’ War. He had been raised by his mother, his grandmother and his aunts in the Castle of Chavaniac, in the centre of France. He enjoyed great freedom, running across the country with the little peasants, strengthening his body, acquiring a sense of Liberty, a special acquaintance with nature and a total absence of prejudice.

    He lost his mother when he was 13 and his grandfather a few months later. The latter left him an immense fortune. At 15, he joined the army to be trained as an officer. At 16, he married Adrienne de Noailles, a girl from another wealthy family who was 15. The marriage was arranged by the bride’s father, the duke of Ayen, but it turned out to be a very happy marriage.

    At 18, while he was in garrison in Metz, he learned about the extraordinary events that were taking place in America. It was 1776. The 13 colonies of the English Crown had refused to pay taxes that they had not voted, which had generated repression from the crown. In 1776, each colony formed a State and adopted a constitution. In June, Virginia adopted a declaration of rights inspired by the philosophy of the great English liberal John Locke. The Congress followed that example and asked 5 persons, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, to write a draft for a Declaration of Independence, which was adopted straight away. This declaration is a hymn to liberalism. I cannot help quoting its two most famous paragraphs :

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

    On the 4th of July, Congress proclaimed the independence of the United States.

    This news inflamed the young Lafayette. During his leaves, and in his correspondence, he communicated to his young wife his enthusiasm for the liberation of peoples as was happening in America. He obtained leave from the army with the active complicity of his general, the Duke of Broglie. He bought a small vessel and sailed to America with a little group of gentlemen whom he had convinced. The king tried to stop him. Not that Louis XVI was hostile to the American cause, but he did not want to break the peace treaty signed with England a few years earlier at the end of the so called Seven Years’ War. He had his own prudent policy vis-à-vis the insurgents, and he was nervous about the uncontrolled agitation of this young marquis.

    However La Fayette managed to escape the king’s agents and sailed for America on April 20, 1777. He landed in South Inlet, near Charleston. From there, his little troop set off for Philadelphia on horseback, where they arrived on July 27.

    The Congress had been favorably informed about La Fayette by a letter from Benjamin Franklin, at the time representative of the Congress to France, and even more so by the fact that the young man insisted on enlisting without pay, assuming his own costs. They appointed him Major General, with the understanding that he would stay beside George Washington as aide de camp, but would not participate in combats.

    La Fayette, then not quite 19 years old, met with George Washington, then 45, on the 1st of August 1777. The sympathy between the two men was instantaneous and was to last throughout their lives. Washington did not have a son, and Lafayette did not have a father. He became a sort of adopted son of Washington, as testified by their correspondence. In the United States, where a book on La Fayette appears almost every year, the last one is titled “Adopted Son”, with a subtitle saying “Washington, Lafayette, and the Friendship that saved the revolution”.

    Among the foreign officers who came to the aid of the insurgents, there were two Poles who became friends with Lafayette : Count Casimir Pulaski, and Tadeusz Kosciusco. The latter had been an instructor in the Polish army, and was then trained in France as an engineer. He was used as a military engineer by the American Army, which lacked this kind of skill, and contributed to the quality of their fortifications. He went back to Poland in 1784 where he contributed to the elaboration of the Polish Constitution. We shall mention him again later in this story.

    In early September, Philadelphia was threatened. An English army was coming down from Canada, while other troops were disembarked from an English fleet in Chesapeake Bay. Between the two, forces lead by General Cornwallis were actively fighting the American army. La Fayette had obtained permission to go along with the division of General Sullivan as an observer. But when the division was on the verge of being surrounded, he gathered the men fleeing in all directions with extraordinary energy, exposing himself with a total contempt for danger. He was wounded in the leg. He fell from his horse, but asked to be put back into the saddle and went on gathering his soldiers until the time when he had to be evacuated as the hemorrhage was becoming alarming. Washington had to send him to the nearest hospital.

    Pulaski was among the heroes of that battle. The Americans were very short of cavalry. Lafayette suggested to Washington to use Pulaski to create and train a cavalry brigade, which he did so well that he was nicknamed the Father of American Cavalry. Unfortunately, he was to die in a later battle, in 1779.

    At the head of a disparate and ill equipped army of 11 000 men against a more numerous and better trained English army, Washington could not avoid evacuating Philadelphia and gathered his men at Valley Forge. The winter was rigorous. The men were short of just about everything : rifles, food, clothes, shoes. They had to build huts. General La Fayette shared the hardships of his subordinates. He compelled recognition by his soberness, his contempt for comfort, his generosity – using his own money to alleviate some of the hardships – and his enthusiasm for the cause.

    At the end of the winter, some of the generals, hostile to Washington, tried to lure La Fayette into schemes that would undermine Washington’s command, but La Fayette asserted his loyalty, which further strengthened the link between the two men.

    On May 18, 1778, Washington directed La Fayette to lead a force between the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers and thus disrupt British communications with Philadelphia. He displayed tactical genius by cleverly ambushing several British detachments, then maneuvering his men back through British lines. The British finally pulled their soldiers out of Philadelphia and headed for New York. Washington asked La Fayette to pursue them and inflict as much damage as possible.

    On January 11 1779, he was sent to France with a letter to Benjamin Franklin. He arrived on February 6th, the anniversary of the Franco American treaty that had been signed a year before. He had to convince the king to send ships and troops to his new allies. The king gave him a symbolic punishment for having disobeyed his orders, and then an assignment back in the French army. But Lafayette spent most of his time harassing the king’s ministers to convince them to send resources to America in order to help the revolution. Finally, the king yielded and decided to send 6000 men under General de Rochambeau and a war fleet of 30 ships under Admiral de Grasse.

    La Fayette was sent back to America on March 9 as an American general under Washington in order to prepare the reception of the French force, which he did with self sacrificing dedication. Washington then sent him to Virginia in order to keep the English forces under General Charles Cornwallis, preventing them from joining general Clinton’s forces in New York, where the latter were fighting against Washington and Rochambeau.

    Cornwallis’ own mission was to cut off the South from the North, destroy the arsenals, and if possible capture La Fayette who had about half his force. But exhibiting tactical genius, Lafayette harassed the British and escaped from them. He retreated as Cornwallis advanced. He was careful not to be outflanked by always staying on higher ground. His men found ways to cross the rivers of Virginia and harass Cornwallis from positions that were hard to assault. On the way, he was joined by local insurgent forces and new recruits, so that his forces grew almost as large as those of Cornwallis. However his forces dwindled in the spring as volunteers had to go back home to tend their fields. Two of his subordinates marched into a British trap, 139 Americans were killed, and La Fayette had to spur his horse through the gunfire to rally his troops. It was a defeat, but Cornwallis withdrew, as he was asked to send some forces to New York to help Clinton. For the record, one engagement in Virginia was marked by the death of General Phillips, the man who, 22 years earlier, as an artillery officer, had ordered the cannon fire that killed Lafayette’s father.

    On July 31, Washington ordered La Fayette to rebuild his forces and keep Cornwallis bottled up in Yorktown, to where Admiral de Grasse was sailing, while himself and Rochambeau came down from New York.

    La Fayette amassed provisions, increased his intelligence about the British and begged Virginia’s governor for help. A month later, on August 30, de Grasse reached Yorktown with six frigates and 28 battleships, 15 000 sailors and 3 100 marines. Soon La Fayette commanded 5 500 regular troops and 3 000 militiamen against the 8 800 soldiers of Cornwallis. They were even for a few days, but Washington and Rochambeau arrived in Yorktown on September 9, and Cornwallis was then outnumbered.

    The siege of Yorktown began on October 6, 1781. La Fayette was in the thick of the action, leading the capture of British positions. Cornwallis was almost out of food and ammunition, and about a quarter of his men were ill. He surrendered at noon, on October 19.

    It was time for La Fayette to go back to his family. As an American officer, he had to ask Congress to let him go back to serve the king of France. He received the Cincinnati medal and was made a citizen of honor of the United States. A frigate was left at his disposal. After an emotional parting with George Washington, he left Boston amidst a storm of applause on December 23, 1781, about 5 years after he had landed in America for the first time.

    Up to 1790, he received at home all Americans staying in Paris, such as Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, as well as European liberals such as Condorcet, Germaine de Staël, Benjamin Constant, Horace Say. He promoted free trade. He pleaded the cause of protestants to the king. He corresponded with Bolivar, the liberator of several South American states. He encouraged the Italian liberals, the Spanish constitutionalists, the Greek and Polish freedom fighters. He spent a lot of money to help free slaves in French colonies.

    He tried to interest George Washington in the emancipation of slaves and invited him to come to France. But the latter convinced him (La Fayette) to visit him in America instead. Landing in New York on August 4, 1784, he went to Mount Vernon 15 days later, and he spent 11 days there with Washington. He then visited some friends. On the way, he met enthusiastic crowds, and was invited to all sorts of parties and celebrations. By November, he was back with Washington. They traveled together to Annapolis. They bid farewell on December 1st.

    Back in France, he played a decisive role in the preparation of the Revolution – which, I recall, was initially peaceful and liberal. He wrote the first draft of the declaration of human rights, and promoted the abolition of privileges. He was appointed commander of the new, popular, National Guard. His popularity was at its peak. As a vice president of the Assembly, he obtained from it the separation of powers, under the form of a constitutional monarchy. But from mid 91, the Revolution sank into a totalitarian phase, the paroxysm of which would be the ominous “Terror”, and his troubles were to start.

    At the head of the Eastern Army, facing Prussians and Austrians who wanted to reestablish monarchy, he briefly left the army to go to the National Assembly to try and moderate those who wanted to execute the king, but he was accused of desertion and condemned to death. He escaped narrowly, only to fall into the hands of the Austrians, who considered him a dangerous revolutionary and imprisoned him. He stayed in various Austrian and Prussian prisons for 5 years in appalling conditions. He lost all his possessions. His wife narrowly escaped the Guillotine and also lost her possessions. Showing extraordinary devotion, courage, and perseverance, she managed to join him in his prison with their two daughters.

    He was freed by Napoleon in 1797 but maintained in exile for two years in Belgium. Back in France, he settled in an old château that his wife had been able to recover, the castle of La Grange, to the south-east of Paris. He led the life of a gentleman farmer, fairly active and entrepreneurial, while regaining some influence on the political scene, which he used to fight tirelessly against Napoleon’s violation of liberties, then against that of the monarchy that followed. He continued to worry about violations of liberty outside France, in particular in Poland. He received Kosciusko many times in his château

    In 1823, when he was 66, La Fayette accepted president James Monroe’s invitation for a farewell tour of America. He declined Monroe’s offer to send a warship for him and instead traveled aboard an ordinary commercial ship. He arrived on August 15, 1824 and was greeted by some 30 000 people. An estimated 50 000 cheered La Fayette as he rode a carriage drawn by four white horses to New York City Hall. People threw flowers to him. Mothers brought their children for his blessing. Some 6 000 people attended a ball in his honor. He began a 13 month tour through all 24 states.

    La Fayette commended Americans for what they had accomplished : “in the United States, he said, the sovereignty of the people was achieved by a glorious and spotless revolution, universally acknowledged, guaranteed not only by a constitution… but by legal procedures which are always within the scope of the public will. It is also exercised by free, general, and frequent elections…Ten million people, without a monarchy, without a court, without an aristocracy, without trade guilds, without unnecessary or unpopular taxes, without a State Police, a constabulary or any disorder have achieved the highest degree of freedom, security, prosperity, and happiness, which human civilization could have imagined”.

    At Bunker Hill, Massachusetts, one of his glorious victories, the orator Daniel Webster declared : “heaven saw fit to ordain, that the electric spark of Liberty should be conducted through you from the new world to the old”. La Fayette entered Philadelphia escorted by four wagons carrying about 160 revolutionary veterans. He stopped at the Brandywine battlefield where he had been wounded. He returned to Yorktown, which was still in ruins. Big crowds welcomed him everywhere, about 50 000 in Baltimore and 70 000 in Boston. He was cheered in Charleston, Mobile, New Orleans, Saint-Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Buffalo, to name only a few of the 132 towns which greeted him. He appeared at Catholic Churches, Protestant Churches and Masonic Lodge gatherings. He attended receptions open to everybody and he publicly welcomed the Blacks and Indians who came. La Fayette descended to the vault of George Washington’s tomb at Mount Vernon. He met three former presidents : Jefferson, Adams, and Madison.

    He was received in Congress, an honor which is normally reserved for heads of state.

    On September 7 he went down the Potomac river on the steamboat Mount Vernon, boarded the frigate Brandywine, and sailed back to France, bringing with him a load of American soil destined to be mixed with French earth on his tomb.

    A few years later, during the 1830 revolution, he was one of the actors of the abdication of Charles X. He was still extraordinarily popular, and many wanted him to turn the country into a republic and become its president. But he thought that France was not ripe for a republic. The French had not yet forgotten the disorders, the famines and the terror associated with the first republic. He thought that a constitutional monarchy would fit the situation better, and he obtained assurances from Louis-Philippe that he would create a liberal democracy, which he did initially. But power corrupts and Louis-Philippe cut back liberties little by little, and Lafayette was soon vocal again in Parliament to defend them.

    On 29 November 1830, an uprising broke out in Warsaw. Poland, you may remember was a kingdom integrated in the Russian Empire, whose autocracy the Poles did not like. Weakened by internal dissensions, the movement was not supported by the European powers, France included, although public opinion in France was very favorable to it. On 8 September1831, Russian troops took Warsaw. Numerous Poles went into exile, mostly in France.

    In parliament, Lafayette asked for a French military intervention. He created a “Central committee of assistance to Poland”, in which he enlisted intellectuals, journalists and politicians. The committee gathered money and sent to Poland volunteers, officers and more than 60 doctors and surgeons, of which 6 were to die there. Lafayette wrote to the French Prime minister, to the English minister of Foreign affairs and to the king of Sweden to obtain their intervention. In the Assembly, he made a resounding speech starting with the sentence “The whole of France is Polish”. In May 1832, he had 139 deputies sign a petition asking the Russian government to grant more liberties to the Poles.

    He welcomed in his home a number of Polish exiles. There is still, on the second floor of his château, a corridor called the Polish corridor, in memory of the Polish exiles who resided there.

    Lafayette died on May 20, 1834. In the United States, the Congress decided on a period of mourning of 30 days. The president, John Quincy Adams, pronounced a funeral oration in front of all the nation dignitaries. 60 000 copies were distributed. In France, Louis-Philippe made no public pronouncement. Instead, he ordered a military funeral with the intent of keeping the public away. There were no speeches. But there were Polish officers to carry the coffin in the Church of the Assumption where the funeral took place. This church later became the Church of the Poles in Paris.

    Today, he is buried in the cemetery of Picpus, near his wife, under an American flag that the ambassador of the United States renews each year on the 4th of July, Independence Day.

    In the States, a mountain, seven counties, 40 towns or villages, several schools and colleges, as well as innumerable streets bear the name of Lafayette. His statue is present in several towns, including the one in Lafayette square, just behind the White House in Washington. The association of the American friends of Lafayette, of which I am a member, is still very active. One of the latest nuclear submarines of the US Navy was named after Lafayette. There is no other example in History of such gratitude for a foreigner.

    I would like my country similarly to acknowledge the great liberal who was the originator of the first constitution, of the separation of powers, of the declaration of man’s rights, of the abolition of privileges, of freedom of expression, religious freedom and universal suffrage.

    Six months before his death, Lafayette wrote “no obstacle, no disappointment, no grief diverts me nor slows me in the pursuit of the single objective of my life : happiness for everyone and freedom everywhere”. This sentence summarizes his whole life.

    And as we are in Poland, I am pleased to end this talk with a quotation from the great Polish poet Adam Micskiewicz : “Lafayette had been the last statesman in Europe in whom existed the spirit of sacrifice, a remnant of Christian spirit”.

    Marxist’s insist that we rewrite history- Imagine American schools teaching this to our students.

    The high priests of eco-destruction- Obama et al

    The high priests of eco-destruction
    by Michelle Malkin
    Creators Syndicate
    Copyright 2012

    Rick Santorum is right. Pushing back against Democrats’ attempts to frame him as a religious menace, the GOP presidential candidate forcefully turned the tables on the White House: “When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones.”

    Scrutiny of the White House anti-science brigade couldn’t come at a better time (which is why Santorum’s detractors prefer to froth at the mouth about comments he made four years ago on the existence of Satan). It’s not just big-ticket scandals like the stimulus-subsidized Solyndra bankruptcy or the Keystone pipeline debacle bedeviling America. In every corner of the Obama administration, the radical green machinery is hard at work — destroying jobs, shredding truth and sacrificing our economic well-being at the altar of environmentalism.

    –Take Obama’s head of the National Park Service, please. While serving as the Pacific West regional director of the NPS, Jon Jarvis was accused of at least 21 instances of scientific misconduct (pdf) by Dr. Corey Goodman, a high-ranking member of the National Academy of Sciences. Extensive information about Jarvis’ alleged role in cooking data about a California oyster farm’s impact on harbor seals at Point Reyes was withheld during the 2009 nomination process. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has ignored complaints and follow-up from both Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sens. James Inhofe and David Vitter.

    The National Research Council determined that the NPS had “selectively” slanted its report on the oyster farm. The federal Marine Mammal Commission found that “the data and analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship” between the farm’s operations and harbor seal health. In a letter blasting the NPS for bullying the small oyster farm, Feinstein — normally a reliable eco-ally — concluded earlier this month that the “crux of the problem is that the Park Service manipulated science while building a case that the business should be shuttered.”

    Given Salazar’s own role in manipulating science while building his case for the White House offshore drilling moratorium — actions for which several federal judges spanked Salazar in the past two years — it’s no wonder he’s looking the other way. Remember: Two years ago, Salazar and former Obama eco-czar Carol Browner falsely rewrote the White House drilling ban report to wholly manipulate the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict. Despite repeated judicial slaps for their “determined disregard” for the law, the Obama administration continues to suppress documents related to that junk science scandal. Last month, House Republicans threatened to subpoena the Interior Department for information. Call it a greenwash.

    Water wars and the Delta smelt. The infamous, endangered three-inch fish and its environmental protectors continue to jeopardize the water supply of more than 25 million Californians. Federal restrictions have cut off some 81 billion gallons of water to farmers and consumers in Central and Southern California. Previous courts have ruled that the federal biological opinions used to justify the water cutoff were invalid and illegal. Last September, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California admonished two federal scientists for acting in “bad faith.” The judge’s blistering rebuke of the Obama administration scientists concluded that their slanted testimony about the delta smelt was “an attempt to mislead and to deceive the Court into accepting what is not only not the best science, it’s not science.”

    GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, who represents the hard-hit San Joaquin Valley area, noted that Salazar recently “doubled down on the illegal policies of the Department of Interior and attacked critics as narrow minded and politically motivated. Ironically, these were the same basic criticisms levied against his department by the federal court.”

    While Salazar manufactures a new biological opinion on the matter to get the courts off his back, unemployment and drought plague the Central Valley. And the White House stands by its “scientists.”

    Dams in distress. In Siskiyou County, Calif., local officials and residents announced last week that it intends to sue Salazar and Team Obama over their potential removal of dams on the Klamath River. Once again, the administration’s systematic disregard for sound science and the rule of law is in the spotlight.

    Salazar is expected to make a decision by the end of March on environmentalists’ demands that four private hydroelectric dams be demolished to protect salmon habitats and “create” demolition and habitat restoration jobs. Opponents say Salazar has already predetermined the outcome. Green activists blithely ignore the massive taxpayer costs (an estimated half-billion dollars) and downplay the environmental destruction the dam removals would impose. GOP Rep. Tom McClintock put it most charitably: “To tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams at enormous cost is insane.”

    People of faith aren’t what’s bedeviling America. Blame the high voodoo priests of eco-destruction in Washington who have imposed a green theocracy on us all. Science be damned.

    ~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle’s e-mail list ~

    See what others have said

    The current administration hopes to drive energy price to the moon.. and enrich our enemies in the process, while destroying our economy and emasculating our ability to defend our own borders. And now his minions are busy turning on the free markets (what is left of them) and add burden after burden on the job producers.. further advancing his Anti American policies throughout the country. Giving away our oil reserves in Alaska.. disallowing our domestic production of enormous oil reserves while continuing to squander away the public treasury on “favorite” political cronies who come up with scheme after scheme to enrich themselves under the guise of “clean energy”.. the fraudulent Solyndra being but one of MANY similar schemes.

    Urban Renewal- Another Abuse Of Taxpayer Funds and Trust

    Never give an urban renewal sucker an even break

    Community Soapbox by John Williams

    The Oregon City News, Feb 22, 2012
    A $30 million scam right here in Oregon City? Who lost the big bucks? Who pulled it off? Bankers, private equity manipulators, junk bond purveyors? Is it hard to believe?
    It’s true. If you paid property taxes in Oregon City in the last 20 years you were a victim of a “grand scam.” A scam called the Downtown/North End Urban Renewal Plan promising to make you and the city property tax richer.
    Proponents will say, “Just give us some of the city general fund tax income today and in 20 years we will pay it back with a bigger tax base than ever before! We’ll give you new jobs, business and progress. It’s like free money!”
    Want the facts? From 1992 to 2011, $10 million was diverted from taxes meant to pay for police, fire, parks, and senior center, etc. Nearly $10 million was drained from the state school fund, and the remaining $10 million came from a direct special levy tax paid by Oregon City property owners.
    What did the taxpayers get for $30 million? In 20 years zero, nada, not one dime of new taxable values was created in downtown Oregon City’s urban renewal plan area by urban renewal expenditures. The only new tax-generating project in the urban renewal area is Home Depot. It was built without ANY urban renewal dollars!
    Proponents will say, “But look we have a new $8 million City Hall, we paved Washington Street, 7th Street, McLoughlin Boulevard, did a streetscape on Main, rebuilt the historic Promenade rock wall, bought some land, built a parking lot and painted some downtown buildings, all good projects, right?”
    Wrong! Those projects are exempt from property taxes never to pay back the $30 million, or produce a bigger tax base for the city. No new permanent jobs or new property values were created as promised by the experiment in “urban renewal.” The “scam” is in.
    Were the projects good? Certainly paving roads can be good. Repairing a historic rock wall could be good. But using urban renewal money to build City Hall borders on “criminally fiscal negligence,” and any respectable professional urban renewal specialist will agree erecting public buildings with urban renewal dollars is oxymoronic.
    Our former city manager insisted a new city hall would bring “new value” to the surrounding neighborhood. It did not, and it will not. Since 1998 taxable property can only increase 3 percent. There is no “halo” effect. New values come from new construction. Buying and remodeling the city hall building only subtracted the value of the building and land from the tax rolls by becoming “exempt.”
    To add insult to injury, since 2006, a “consulting firm” has been paid more than $1 million for “good advice” on how to spend urban renewal tax money.
    Here’s another way to judge urban renewal. During the same 20-year period, how does the increase in taxable value of Downtown Urban Renewal Plan compare to the rest of Oregon City?
    Urban renewal area taxable values DOUBLED. Taxable values in the rest of Oregon City QUADRUPLED! Taxable values have increased twice as fast outside as within the urban renewal boundaries!
    How did urban renewal backers snooker the voters and misappropriate $30 million? By ignoring the Oregon City charter and using the urban renewal financing mechanism. The charter requires voter approval of any new bonded indebtedness proposed by the City Commission, but, by oversight, the charter omits indebtedness undertaken by the Urban Renewal Commission.
    Successive city commissions (aided by city staff) have turned over many capital improvements, building city hall and paving streets, etc., to the URC to avoid the required public vote. Why not? Why risk voters disfavor when we can use urban renewal taxes? That’s the scam.
    As W.C. Fields advised his niece Gloria in a 1940s motion picture, “My dear, never give a sucker an even break.” He must have been a consultant to the Oregon City Urban Renewal Commission.

    John Williams is a former mayor of Oregon City.