The Heaviest Element Known to Science…..

The Heaviest Element Known to Science…..
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element
yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons,
giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be
detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that
would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years
to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay,
but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since
each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming

This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to
believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an
element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it
has half as many peons but twice as many morons.


Democrats Won’t Talk About Freddie And Fannie In The Hearings: “The reason we haven’t scheduled hearings on these two institutions and haven’t requested documents from either is because their demise isn’t someone else’s fault — it’s ours, and we don’t want to own up to it.”

Democrats Won’t Talk About Freddie And Fannie In The Hearings: “The reason we haven’t scheduled hearings on these two institutions and haven’t requested documents from either is because their demise isn’t someone else’s fault — it’s ours, and we don’t want to own up to it.”

October 7, 2008 10:14 AM
Posted By:Pam
Filed in: Economy, Election ’06, Election ’08, Eye on the Left, National News, Subprime Crisis

“Chairman Waxman’s refusal to hold hearings to examine their role says a lot about where the Democrats’ priorities lie.”

Democrats aimed their harshest attacks at deregulation and CEO pay, using former Lehman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Fuld as an example during a recess hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) also released internal documents showing Lehman’s compensation committee recommended $20 million in “special payments” to three departing executives on Sept. 11, four days before the firm filed for bankruptcy.

Republicans, for their part, launched a campaign to pin the financial meltdown on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and attacked Waxman for not holding a hearing to dig into the now-nationalized mortgage giants.

“Any hearing on oversight that does not begin with Fannie and Freddie and [former Fannie Mae CEO] Franklin Raines will be a sham,” said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.). “This is like investigating a train robbery and only talking to the dining car stewards.”

Ed has this video and adds “Christopher Shays ripped the Oversight Committee for its refusal to investigate Congress itself”:

“The reason we haven’t scheduled hearings on these two institutions and haven’t requested documents from either is because their demise isn’t someone else’s fault — it’s ours, and we don’t want to own up to it.”

why I’m voting Democrat

Subject: why I’m voting DemocratI’m voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better
job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I’m voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody
is offended by it.

I’m voting Democrat because when we pull out of

Iraq I trust that the
bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good
I’m voting Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if
it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt
away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I’m voting Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of
millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give
the rest away to the  government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed
elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit
some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don’t
have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don’t want
to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.  

I’m votin g Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry
whatever I want.   I’ve decided to marry my horse.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of
gas at 15% isn’t.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would  EVER vote 

Republican , now doesn’t it

OH !! Now that I think about , I guess I will vote for Mc Cain, I guess I will stay married to Moe after all its been 42 yrs and she has not failed me yet.and I don’t want to be a socialists yet !!!Let the Democrats marry their DOG,s who cares !!! 

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/12/2008 5:37:12 PM

     There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”


     FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.


     The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.


     “I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”


     “Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”


     McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.


     “The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”


     A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.

Big Democratic Union Charged with Corruption

Big Democratic Union Charged with Corruption

Ed Lasky

The Service Employees International Union supposedly represents the interests of low-wage service employees-health care workers, janitorial staff and such. The Union has become one of the most powerful forces on the political level under its President Andy Stern who takes a large chunk of union dues and uses it to support Democratic Candidates especially Barack Obama.
Obama’s ties to the SEIU go back years. Now the local head of the SEIU in California is found to be embroiled in corruption. The union has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by the wife and the mother-in-law of the labor organization’s president. All under the eyes of Andy Stern.

California’s largest union local and a related charity have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to firms owned by the wife and mother-in-law of the labor organization’s president, documents and interviews show.

The Los Angeles-based union, which represents low-wage caregivers, also spent nearly $300,000 last year on a Four Seasons Resorts golf tournament, a Beverly Hills cigar club, restaurants such as Morton’s steakhouse and a consulting contract with the William Morris Agency, the Hollywood talent shop, records show.

In addition, the union paid six figures to a video firm whose principals include a former union employee. And a now-defunct minor league basketball team coached by the president’s brother-in-law received $16,000 for what the union described as public relations, according to the union’s U.S. Labor Department filings and interviews.

Most of the 160,000 people represented by the union, a local chapter of the nation’s fastest-growing labor organization, the Service International Employees Union, earn $9 an hour or slightly more tending to the infirm and disabled in private homes under taxpayer-funded programs.

Maybe he should focus on his own union and their dollars and less on being a political kingpin?

Poll: 69% Support Offshore Drilling, While Nan And The Dem Congress Give Us The Finger

The Rules For Democrats And Republicans

The Rules For Democrats And Republicans
By Doug Patton
July 21, 2008

During his days doing stand-up in the 1960s, Bill Cosby recorded a track for one of his comedy albums about the American Revolution. As only Cosby could tell it, he spun a hilarious version of “the rules” for how the war for American independence was to be fought. The British, Cosby said, had to wear red and march in slow, straight lines, making them targets for the colonists, who were allowed to wear drab clothing that blended into the landscape and who could hide behind hills, trees and rocks as they took aim. It is a bit like this year’s presidential race, with Republicans playing by the British rules and Democrats in the role of the colonists.

Like the hapless British soldiers in their bright red uniforms, today’s Republican candidates for office are marching toward their doom with “shoot me” written all over them. Consider the following rules for the two parties and see if they don’t sound like what is happening this year:

The Rules for Democrats

Democrats (and liberals in general) are allowed to say, write and publish anything they want, regardless of how offensive it is or how much it degrades our political discourse. They can lie, cheat, steal, plagiarize and berate conservatives whenever they like. This is allowed because, of course, liberalism is correct and conservatives are not just wrong, they are evil.

Barack Obama is allowed to take both sides of any issue. As a new type of candidate for president of the United States, he is allowed to talk movingly about “change” and “hope” while offering no specifics of any kind. He can send his wife, Michelle, out onto the campaign trail to spew foul, negative diatribes against America. He can disavow friends, family members, pastors, mentors and other supporters should any of them become an embarrassment to his campaign. And he can use his family as cute campaign props on national television whenever he likes.

Obama is allowed to make outrageous claims about the racist tendencies and tactics of his opponent and his opponent’s surrogates. Because he is half black, he does not have to justify these comments in any way.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all members of the U.S. press corps are required to serve as surrogate press secretaries for the Obama campaign. This will necessitate that when the candidate travels within or out of the country, the media – including the “big three” television anchors – are required to accompany him, reporting positively on his every utterance.

The Rules for Republicans

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, his wife, Cindy, the Republican National Committee, any and all of the fifty state Republican Party organizations and all other McCain surrogates are strictly forbidden to mention Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school or his middle name on the campaign trail.

Conservative talk radio hosts will be threatened by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, with a return to the days of the “Fairness Doctrine” whenever they mention Barack Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school or his middle name.

Any criticism – in fact any negative mention – of Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school or his middle name will be considered racist.

Members of the mainstream media are forbidden to cover stories that are negative to Barack Obama or which present him as inexperienced, unprepared or out-of-the-mainstream of American political thought. Any negative coverage of Obama’s health care plan, plan for withdrawal from Iraq or any other position taken by the Democrat presidential candidate is strictly prohibited.

And finally, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain is expected to help monitor and enforce these rules as he has always done in the past.

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at


Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.