I had intended to write a longer article to go with this list but chose not to, as I feared such an article would take away from the full impact of this list itself. I will just say that the votes for or against this bill where votes for or against socialism. I say that because nationalized healthcare has always been the last nail in the coffin of freedom.

It is imperative that in order to avoid this free fall into the abyss of slavery to want that we elect leaders and legislators at all levels of government who are strong Constitutional Conservatives and who will bring us back to the path of freedom our founders intended us to follow when first they gave us a Democratic Federal Republican form of government unlike any other the world has ever known.

I firmly believe, as did Ronald Reagan that the goal can be attained only by revitalizing the carcass of the Republican Party. Yes, I said carcass and that is what I meant, for our Republican leadership over the years since Reagan have consistently lead us down the road of socialism that was being charted by the modern day liberal Democrat Party.

If we do not turn our country around in the 2010 elections, we stand to completely lose the freedom our founders. That is to say, the 2010 elections are our last chance, short of armed rebellion, to take back our country and put it on the path of freedom as outlined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

If you do not have a copy of these documents, you will find good copies of them here. Read them. Other than the Holy Bible, they are the most important documents for our guidance as a nation. The world needs us to win this battle, else where will they be able to look for leadership. We must restore our status as the shinning city on the hill.

As further reading in the interests of maintaining our freedoms, I recommend Sean Hannity’s Conservative Victory and David Barton’s Original Intent. Both of these are very informative, relatively short, easy reads. The former is about Obama and defeating his radical agenda, and the second is about the intent of our founders, regarding the courts, the constitution, and religion. I believe that at the cost of very little time and money these two books will inform you without wearing you out.

Educate yourselves. Your elected political leaders and legislators and, with one lone exception, the entrenched national media will not properly educate you. That lone exception is Fox News.

Fox News, like Americans in general and much like our founding fathers before us, is right-leaning, and conservative to out-right libertarian. It is because Fox is a conservative network that prides itself on covering all the more popular sides of the issues in depth that it is the lone national network we can trust to give us most of what we need to know or gives us an idea where to find what is lacking, so we can better preserve the patrimony given us by our founders.

It must be said that we, the people, have not always done a good job of preserving our patrimony, but then we have not always had a network that tells-it-like-it-is as does Fox News.

Inform yourself, then vote your conscience in 2010. A vote for a Constitutional Conservative is a vote for freedom.

Remember in November how your legislators voted.

Failure is not an option. The time is the 2010 election. The 2012 election is too late.

(Y=Yes, N=No)

ALABAMA

Democrats – Bright, N; Davis, N.

Republicans – Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Griffith, N; Rogers, N.

ALASKA

Republicans – Young, N.

ARIZONA

Democrats – Giffords, Y; Grijalva, Y; Kirkpatrick, Y; Mitchell, Y; Pastor, Y.

Republicans – Flake, N; Franks, N; Shadegg, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats – Berry, N; Ross, N; Snyder, Y.

Republicans – Boozman, N.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats – Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Garamendi, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.

Republicans – Bilbray, N; Bono Mack, N; Calvert, N; Campbell, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McCarthy, N; McClintock, N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.

COLORADO

Democrats – DeGette, Y; Markey, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y; Salazar, Y.

Republicans – Coffman, N; Lamborn, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats – Courtney, Y; DeLauro, Y; Himes, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.

DELAWARE

Republicans – Castle, N.

FLORIDA

Democrats – Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, Y; Grayson, Y; Hastings, Y; Klein, Y; Kosmas, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y.

Republicans – Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Posey, N; Putnam, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Stearns, N; Young, N.

GEORGIA

Democrats – Barrow, N; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, Y; Marshall, N; Scott, Y.

Republicans – Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.

HAWAII

Democrats – Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Democrats – Minnick, N.

Republicans – Simpson, N.

ILLINOIS

Democrats – Bean, Y; Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Halvorson, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, N; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans – Biggert, N; Johnson, N; Kirk, N; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Schock, N; Shimkus, N.

INDIANA

Democrats – Carson, Y; Donnelly, Y; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, Y; Visclosky, Y.

Republicans – Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, N.

IOWA

Democrats – Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans – King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS

Democrats – Moore, Y.

Republicans – Jenkins, N; Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats – Chandler, N; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans – Davis, N; Guthrie, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA

Democrats – Melancon, N.

Republicans – Alexander, N; Boustany, N; Cao, N; Cassidy, N; Fleming, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats – Michaud, Y; Pingree, Y.

MARYLAND

Democrats – Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Kratovil, N; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans – Bartlett, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats – Capuano, Y; Delahunt, Y; Frank, Y; Lynch, N; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats – Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, Y; Schauer, Y; Stupak, Y.

Republicans – Camp, N; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, N.

MINNESOTA

Democrats – Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, Y.

Republicans – Bachmann, N; Kline, N; Paulsen, N.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats – Childers, N; Taylor, N; Thompson, Y.

Republicans – Harper, N.

MISSOURI

Democrats – Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, N.

Republicans – Akin, N; Blunt, N; Emerson, N; Graves, N; Luetkemeyer, N.

MONTANA

Republicans – Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans – Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N.

NEVADA

Democrats – Berkley, Y; Titus, Y.

Republicans – Heller, N.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Democrats – Hodes, Y; Shea-Porter, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats – Adler, N; Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans – Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; Lance, N; LoBiondo, N; Smith, N.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats – Heinrich, Y; Lujan, Y; Teague, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats – Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maffei, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McMahon, N; Meeks, Y; Murphy, Y; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Tonko, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.

Republicans – King, N; Lee, N.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, N; Watt, Y.

Republicans – Coble, N; Foxx, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.

NORTH DAKOTA

Democrats – Pomeroy, Y.

OHIO

Democrats – Boccieri, Y; Driehaus, Y; Fudge, Y; Kaptur, Y; Kilroy, Y; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Space, N; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans – Austria, N; Boehner, N; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, N; Schmidt, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats – Boren, N.

Republicans – Cole, N; Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.

OREGON

Democrats – Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans – Walden, N.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats – Altmire, N; Brady, Y; Carney, Y; Dahlkemper, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, N; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.

Republicans – Dent, N; Gerlach, N; Murphy, Tim, N; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, N; Thompson, N.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats – Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.

Republicans – Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Democrats – Herseth Sandlin, N.

TENNESSEE

Democrats – Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, N; Gordon, Y; Tanner, N.

Republicans – Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Roe, N; Wamp, N.

TEXAS

Democrats – Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Edwards, N; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, Y.

Republicans – Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.

UTAH

Democrats – Matheson, N.

Republicans – Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats – Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA

Democrats – Boucher, N; Connolly, Y; Moran, Y; Nye, N; Perriello, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans – Cantor, N; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, N.

WASHINGTON

Democrats – Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, Y.

Republicans – Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats – Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.

Republicans – Capito, N.

WISCONSIN

Democrats – Baldwin, Y; Kagen, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.

Republicans – Petri, N; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING

Republicans – Lummis, N.

The one recent event that grabbed everyone’s attention was the stunning upset victory by Republican Scott Brown in the race for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts long held by Ted Kennedy. That victory is being hailed across this land as a national victory for political conservatives. It appears some of the first fallout from that Republican victory is the refocusing of President Obama’s view on what America says is job one: the U.S. economy.

It took a cataclysmic event to do it, but if you choose to believe him this time, President Obama is signaling a change in his economic policy.

Here is what the president said in his announcement of his economic policy change.

I’m proposing a simple and common-sense reform, which we’re calling the “Volcker Rule”–after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that’s something they’re free to do. Indeed, doing so–responsibly–is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.”

Sounds good, doesn’t it. Now let’s look at who this Paul Volcker fellow is. He is a brilliant economist. I remember Paul Volcker from when he was the Fed Chairman in the Jimmy Carter administration. Making him the Fed Chairman is just about the only good thing I can remember Jimmy Carter doing during his presidency. I remember how Mr. Volcker showed his willingness to do the difficult things that had to be done to change the economic direction the country was headed in when he came into office. He swiftly moved to put a stop to the raging inflation that was threatening at the time. You may recall if you are old enough that Mr. Volcker was successful in stopping that inflationary trend. It took a recession to do it, but he stuck to his guns and got the job done.

So, at first blink, it would appear from that scenario we should expect tough times ahead—as if we haven’t had enough tough economic times already. Assuming Mr. Volker can walk on the economic hot waters we find ourselves in presently, I don’t expect he’ll see much need for making things get much worse before they get better, although that may well be in the offing rather we like it or not.

What I do foresee is that, since this man knows his job, we can expect he will see to it that what needs to be done is done, if, that is, the president gives him the power to do the job by appointing him his Fed Chairman. There are rumblings around Democratville that the present Fed Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, may be on the way out but that does not assure that Mr. Volker will get the job in his stead. So that is the big question, will the president give Paul Volcker the power to do the job or is he just kidding us again.

I say we can hope the president will keep his word this one time, but I won’t count on it. The man is an ideologue and the latest wind out of his mouth indicates he is not going to step back from what he sees as the best socialistic policies yet devised to turn America into just another failed European-style socialist country.

Gosh, I hope I am wrong about that. I hope he got a call from President Clinton telling him it is time to change course if he wants to be a two term president and that he took that advice to heart. I hope but not that much that he got the call and that he listened and understood, and took to heart that sage advice from the savviest political mind to live in the Whitehouse since President Ronald Reagan.

Still, I will be one happy fellow and a strong supporter of the president on this one issue, if he does keep his promise this one time to strengthen our republic by being tougher on banks and other financials, but only if he does it for all the right reasons.

We need a true believer in the Whitehouse; a true believer in the republican way the founding fathers of our republic gave us in the Constitution of these United States. When he is not spewing hate, Mr. Obama appears to be a nice American gentleman. We need to see more of that nice American gentleman and less of the hatemonger we have so often seen in the past.

If I could speak with the president, I would tell him to join in with us in our victory celebration. I would say that he has said more than once that what is good for America is good for him. I would tell him now is the time to show the truth of that statement before his time has run its course.

The president should appoint Paul Volcker Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.

Related articles by Zemanta

• More Democrats Oppose Bernanke (online.wsj.com)
• Obama to Cut Size, Power of Banks (abcnews.go.com)
• Obama’s Rough Week: Jobs, Wall Street, Health Care Loom Over White House (abcnews.go.com)
• As Their Ultimate Guarantors We Have Certain Rights: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• Bernanke losing some support in Senate (money.cnn.com)
• Paul Volcker: US economist advising presidents from Nixon to Obama (guardian.co.uk)
• Bernanke’s Nomination in Trouble (meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)
• Paul Volcker: the ‘big man’ behind Barack Obama’s bank reform (telegraph.co.uk)

With a lot of journalists, plus delegates and advocates heading for the big meet up there, Copenhagen is being billed as the Earth’s last chance to curb the carbon footprint we humans are accused of exacerbating everyday by using of common everyday conveniences and conveyances like cheap coal-generated electricity and gasoline- and diesel-fueled cars and trucks.

The organizers of this extravagant outing to Copenhagen hope to produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanage everyone’s choices of almost everything; and what they forget to micromanage this time, they will surely not overlook at next opportunity.

Just to give you a hint of how the players are lining up to help, here is what the top two players on the world stage have in mind. China will give a tiny bit by promising to reduce its carbon footprint, which means in effect its emissions will continue to rise; while, on the other hand, our lord-high, ultraliberal ruler, B. Hussein Obama, understanding well the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If that happens, it will mean 2050 emissions will be equal to those of 1910, when there were about 92 million Americans. But there will be closer to 420 million American in 2050, which means that for Obama’s promise to be fulfilled per capita emissions then will have to be about what they were in 1875. Folks. That. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. So why will B. Hussein promise that? Well, that’s just the measure of man; that’s why

Newly discovered emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain—a collaborator with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—reveals some scientists’ willingness to deliberately exclude or knead data and manipulate the peer-review process and publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials reveal how their paranoid scientists believe that in trying to engineer a consensus about global warming, they are a brave and persecuted minority. This is without a doubt the first time in peacetime history that the government-media-academic complex has been in such an enduring propaganda-mongering lockstep about any subject.

An odd lesson is to be found in the CRU materials: Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.” Do you think these scientists overstated and censored because they were “goaded” by skepticism?

If their science as undisputable as they insist it is, and if the consensus among scientists is as broad as they say it is, and if they were brave as they claim to be, they would not be “goaded” into such intellectual depravity. Nor would they gaudily bandy the word “deniers” to decry skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From time immemorial down to the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and ever since, climate change has always been a certainty. Skeptics doubt that scientists’ models, which cannot explain the present, can infallibly map the distant future.

In a peculiar response to the CRU materials, The Financial Times wrote: The scientific case for alarm about global warming “is growing more rather than less compelling.” Meanwhile the CRU wrote in an email that: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”—this “moment” is in its second decade—”and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models that are partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. It is on such models they want us to wager trillions of dollars—and a substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes; supposing themselves a small intelligentsia entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. That being the case, some of them consider it virtuous to embellish facts, exaggerate certainties, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments’ attempts to manipulate Earth’s temperature now comprise one of the world’s largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic, and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (claimed) consensus that is driving the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of repelling global warming.

Copenhagen is the culmination of all the prior maneuvering by people determined to fix the world’s climate by breaking the world’s—and especially America’s—resistance to the ever-more-minute supervision by governments. It is not as if Copenhagen will be the last chance of the climate-change crowd; Copenhagen is meant to be a prologue for the 2010 climate change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth’s last chance, until the next one.

Folk, do you suspect a one-world collectivist government is the real endgame being played out by the liberals in this government-media-academic complex, which hopes to deliver binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanage everyone’s choices of almost everything? All of a sudden there appears to be an international consensus gaining momentum that believes this is the endgame of all this climate-change hysteria that has been espoused by such liberals as, former V.P. Albert Gore.

Think about it; it is true that almost to a man, everyone involved in this government-media-academic complex has a liberal bias, and it is true that liberals—like Obama, Albert Gore, and, don’t forget, Jimmie Carter and Bill Clinton—always think that government is the answer to all our ills, and they are sure we can not survive, much less flourish, without their help and guidance.

It would appear that “Climate-change” or “Global Warming,” as it is frequently known has now been shown for “The Great Mockery” it is and quite possibly the greatest mockery the world has ever known.

I have an idea that this farce is far from over. Let us hope though that its defeat is in the offing.

Background: The climate-change travesty by George F. Will

Related articles by Zemanta

• ‘Climate change’ group think and the heretics (tech.bl0x.info)
• Climate research chief Phil Jones stands down pending inquiry into leaked emails at East Anglia university (guardian.co.uk)
• Obama Adviser Pushes Climate Action (online.wsj.com)
• Scientists Respond to “Climategate” E-Mail Controversy (scientificamerican.com)
• University in climate flap details inquiry (msnbc.msn.com)
• ClimateGate III: The Mystery of the Missing Data (meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)
• United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Deniers in denial over climate information (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• The Guardian’s carbon calculator: this is how we did the maths (guardian.co.uk)
• This week: slippery surfaces, greenhouse heaters and house plant care (telegraph.co.uk)
• Obama shifts visit to climate summit (msnbc.msn.com)