Breathalyzer at the voting booth !!!!!!!

Sound like a strange idea?  There was a right wing political commentator today advocating a drink before voting for Republicans by Independents.

No lie.

Traveling is wonderful, I get to listen to a lot of radio.  Today, it blew me away.  No, no, not the storm, the female right wing commentator.

She was speaking to an Independent voter while on the air.  She wanted to know whom he was going to vote for.  He stated he wasn't sure, but, he thought it would be a Republican.  He voted for President Obama last time.

She stated he absolutely could not vote for President Obama this.  This Independent Voter was an African American Man.  She stated if the voter looked around the area at the voting place, there had to be a bar within walking distance and rather than back sliding, he needed to go to the bar and take a shot of courage.

She advocated that voting for a Republican in 2012 would require an African American man to have his senses dulled in order to prevent him from voting his conscience. 

That was a new one on me and it made me realize, while Republicans were demanding Photo IDs for balloting, they thought it was okay to be inebritated.  Not only okay to be inebriated, but, the 'choice' for voting for Republicans in 2012.  She was NOT joking.  She was making the point that taking a drink before balloting would make it easy to vote Republican.

I could not believe my ears, so I thought it most appropriate to not only expect people to provide photo IDs, but, to be sure they weren't drunk.

Dead serious.  The truth.  Right Wing Commentators are suggesting a drink to change an Independent's vote for a Republican.  You can't make this stuff up.

Now, if a minority heard HER commentL, it would have a special meaning as there sometimes is cited as an unnecessary evil in the inner city many bars and liquor stores.  Seriously.  It is a racist comment.  She probably knew it, but, didn't care.  If she didn't know it, then what is she doing on the air?

"The Dream Act"

Pro-Life

Anti-Abortion

There are many babies born within the USA and want their dream, too!

If this is showing on the blog it is because I haven't finish my traveling for the day.

Until later.

The story is incredible, but, the reality is so very difficult to accept.

What is even more difficult to accept is the fact there has been little to nothing done to stop the thriving gun culture of the USA that allows them to find their way into the hands of drug dealers that kill and wound the finest police officers in the world.  There is something very, very wrong with that.  

Gabrielle Giffords: An example for all of us (click title to entry - thank you)

by reneeschaferhorton on Jan. 06, 2012, under Life

I was late going to my birthday brunch on Jan. 8 last year because my youngest daughter wanted to play me some songs on her guitar. Because of that, I hopped in my car about 30 minutes late to meet friends at the just-opened Beyond Bread at the corner of Ina and Oracle roads. I picked up one of my friends along the way, explaining my tardiness and telling her about my two resolutions for 2011: Make more time for girlfriends and accept that my life as a newspaper reporter was over. The birthday brunch was a celebration of new beginnings.

Driving toward the sandwich shop, we discussed how only cool people are born on Jan. 8 (The King, for instance), and the great weather. I was explaining my new teaching assignment when my phone rang. It was about 10:45 a.m. and the other friend we were meeting explained that she was detoured away from Beyond Bread by police surrounding the intersection.

“They’re saying someone was shot,” she said. To which I replied, “A few weeks ago they said there was a bomb threat or something and it turned out to be nothing.” We moved the birthday celebration to another restaurant.

Fewer than 5 minutes later, sitting at the stoplight across the street from the newly chosen venue, my phone buzzed. I flipped it open to see a message from a local priest: “There are reports that Gabrielle Giffords has been shot up where you live. Do you know anything?” I handed the phone to my friend, a volunteer with the local Democratic Party. “Oh my God,” she said, “this can’t be right.”...

Representative Ron Paul is a statesman. I can't say the of other candidates for the Republican nomination.

His problem is his past.  We have witnessed newsletters blatantly bigoted coming from his political camp.  The question with an older statesman that sincerely expresses concern for the country is, did he ever act on those bigoted statements or did he ONLY use those opportunities to win over an electorate?  A man with a vision if you will.


If citizens want to overlook the past; or maybe overlook is not a good word; but, forgive the past of an ambitious man that once elected did no harm and instead found a great deal of loyalty among his constituents using his methodology, how much do we forgive?  Do we now consider him a leader enough to give his point of view brevity?


I believe there is a legitimate stand to take with Paul's former political rant and what his approach to his constituent and indeed a nation as a federal representative has been.  He is one of the only candidates, if not the only candidate, I remember willingly and openly stated he is concerned about the huge discrepancy of incarceration and death penalties involved with the African American community in the USA.  That is a huge statement.  Is it redeeming?  If it brings about a solid resolve to seek justice for our minorities it can be that redeeming.


Ron Paul is one of the steadfast candidates with a track record that has not varied.  He has impressed me in his answers being founded in 'the law.'  Not rhetoric.  Not unrealistic social resolves, but, sincere law and government.  His answer about contraceptives is rock solid.  Rock solid is what the citizens of the USA are looking for and not simply rant after rant to win faux favor.  Ron Paul does not play 'the carrot and stick' politics the others do.  He makes his expertise known and lives with it.


The real danger in allowing redemption of a former bigoted dialogue is that others will see it as an opportunity to win favor and not sincerely be reformed.  There is a real danger to allow the same to happen again.  Is it realistic it will happen again?  Will the American electorate allow the hatred, that status quo exist for existence sake rather than sincerely do 'the hard work' of destroying bigotry, racism and bias when it is inconvenient or the 'dollars' are working in the 'right' direction.


Ron Paul should carry brevity and if he is not to be President he needs to address his leadership after he leaves the House.  I don't blame him for leaving the House, it has become silly and irrelevant.  I would like to see him continue his dialogues and work for sincere justice in this country.  I believe the model he brings to the debates should carry brevity as well.  


Decisions to make and discussions to have.  How do we stop the racism, the hatred, the phobias, the stigmatizing and sincerely have a country where people care about and for each other?  He could be pivotal.  


Paul exhibits the difference between a statesman and a politician. That is worth exploring if nothing else is.  He never needed 'the job,' he chose it.

I am somewhat bothered by Governor Romney's statement about religious bigotry regarding abortion.

...The debate prompted (click title to entry - thank you) by the childern minister's views on white adopters and black children is misleading and unhelpful (Inter-racial adoption should be promoted – minister, G2, , 3 November). European and UK legislation requires adoption agencies to take into account a child's ethnicity, culture, religion and language. Adoption agencies have long recognised the importance of promoting and supporting a child's identity in all its aspects when a child is placed for adoption. For most children from minority ethnic backgrounds, successful placements have been made with families which have reflected the child's background – and that achievement should be celebrated. But the profiles of children have changed over the past 10 years, as has the demography of certain ethnic groups in the population, affecting the chances of them being successfully placed for adoption....


He speaks too quickly and in bias to his own point of view.  The article above is from the Guardian, a British paper.


I didn't know Catholic Charities didn't offer adoptions in Massachusetts because they will not adopt into same sex relationships.  Quite surprised, actually.  


See, the State of Massachusetts legislated very simple language about adoption that did not discriminate.  The law has definitions as all good laws do.  The definitions below in very simple terms defines the parents of adopted children.

Adoptive Parent.  (click here) An individual who has been approved by the licensee to adopt a child.


Adoptive Parent Applicant.  An individual who has applied to be an adoptive parent


No forced Catholic Charities to close its doors.  That was not the goal of any law, but, due to the religious affiliation of the organization it 'self-determined' to stop those services to perspective parents.  So. let's get that much straight.


This is a country where all people are considered to be equal.  I think that is a Constitutional provision.


With that comes the question as to where do religious organizations fall when laws are clear and decisive and what legitimate problems will they cause if they are noted to be exempt from the state laws.


If Catholics are allowed special provisions to allow discrimination based in 'faith' then will other agencies be allowed special provisions based in race?  When exemptions are provided to religious organization to conduct a PUBLIC SERVICE, should there not be a clear understanding that THE PUBLIC applies to all the people and not just the religious people.  


Then there is the idea that the church conducts legislation without being elected.  If there are exceptions to the rule for religious organization, what other organizations get exceptions and how can a state legislature make exceptions if they were elected to office to treat all people equally.


If same sex couples cannot adopt, then why would a SINGLE PARENT of a single gender be allowed to adopt?  What if the adoptive parents complete there adoption and either the husband or wife dies for some reason, does that mean that is no longer a family and they have to give the child back?


The questions that arise for exceptions to any law can become bizarre and burdensome.  I am quite surprised that Governor Romney could not discern the problem with exclusive language in a State law, one especially sensitive law concerning children.


I think Gingrick brought up this fact, but, Romney expanded the discussion.  Gingrick blamed the media for bias and religious bigotry.  He might think that through once more actually.  The decision of Catholic Charities did receive newsprint.  It was no secret.


Is the Catholic Church a private club?  Can it conduct business in a closed manner that would allow it to only service Catholics?  If it were a private club whereby they only had contact and services for Catholics I could envision Catholics giving children to adoption for other Catholics to adopt.  But, the religion is not a private club.  They minister to the pubic and IN THE USA that means all the people.  


This is the same problem the Catholic Church runs into in criticizing their flock that serve in office for allowing abortion.  The Catholic Church DOES NOT 'GET IT.'  They have congregations in a free country, where every person has equal rights under the law.  The Catholic Church never 'got it.'  They never 'got it' because Freedom of Speech allows them to say anything they want to without retribution, so they over step their authority and try to impose religious doctrine into the public rhelm. 


The Catholic Church owns this problem, not the people of the USA.  Their very competent services to adoptive parents are dearly missed, but, if they insist on carrying out their religious doctrine to over ride state law, they are not seeking a democracy to live in, they are seeking a theocracy.  That is not allowed in the USA.  Someone needs to clue them in and maybe, just maybe, they will finally 'get it.'  


Not all children are born to Catholics.  Not all adoptive parents are Catholic.  Not all adoptive parents want white children and if I understand children for adoption the ONLY quality they are seeking is LOVE.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, a Supreme Court Judge has a 'special demand' before they can recuse themselves.

It would seem as though the calls from the political left and right for two Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves regarding the Affordable Care Act is such that Chief Justice Roberts needed to speak about the fact neither Justice would be asked to recuse themselves.

By JOANNE KENEN 

11/30/11 11:44 PM EST

From the right and left, (click here) Washington is awash in demands that two Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from this spring’s review of the health law....

JUDICIAL ETHICS AND REGULATION (click here)

Below is a paragraph from the 2011 report.

2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary  (click here)

...Although a Justice’s process for considering recusal is similar to that of the lower court judges, the Justice must consider an important factor that is not present in the lower courts. Lower court judges can freely substitute for one another. If an appeals court or district court judge withdraws from a case, there is another federal judge who can serve in that recused judge’s place. But the Supreme Court consists of nine Members who always sit together, and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership.  A Justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy.  Rather, each Justice has an obligation to the Court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case....

While I believe it is highly unlikely the decision regarding The Affordable Care Act will result in any recusals by the simple fact 'opinions' should be as broadly based as possible to bring insight, it is more than sad to realize a report of the Federal Judiciary is relying on a 1920 precedent to begin the approach to Supreme Court Recusal.  Here as in most modern day dilemmas regarding ethics and legal standing these precedent occurred before computers and especially before a powerful plutocracy dominates American life.  While precedent is always helpful, the dynamics of such can only be a guide post to the modern era we now live.

In 1920, American baseball fans were jolted by allegations that Chicago White Sox players had participated in a scheme to fix the outcome of the 1919 World Series.  The team owners responded to the infamous “Black Sox Scandal” by selecting a federal district judge, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to serve as Commissioner of Baseball and restore confidence in the sport....

...Judge Landis resolved his situation by resigning his judicial commission in 1922 to focus all his efforts on the national past-time.  The controversy, however, prompted organized efforts to develop more guidance for judges.  That same year, the American Bar Association asked the Nation’s new Chief Justice, former President William Howard Taft, to chair a Commission on Judicial Ethics. 

In the 21st Century of the USA there are problems with 'power over the people' that cause gross distortions to the citizens of this country by a plutocratic principle alive within the Supreme Court.  I hardly find myself resolved regarding divided political loyalties among the Supreme Court Justices when such ancient precedent is called upon to inhibit legitimate concerns 'of the people' now faced with oppression of First Amendment Rights due to the disparity of wealth among citizens and corporations.  The USA's Justice System is supposed to be where all social and political pressures are nullified to bring about 'justice,' but, considering the poor outcomes of The Citizen United decision the quality of 'leveling the playing field' is absent.  It is my opinion, not The Courts opinion, there is profound loss of justice for the citizen invoked by one person majorities that side with Commerce vs Justice.

A citizen has the power to cast a vote and where corporations and currency are viewed to stand equally with citizens there is literally dual representations at the ballot box.  One for the actual vote of 'a superpac player' and one for those influencing that vote with heavy handed monetary pressure brought about through 'faux' rights established by Supreme Court precedent.  Money doesn't vote.  Corporations don't cast votes.  The influence by The Court is warped that causes democratic processes to be nullified by plutocratic influence.  I propose The Robert's Court is unable to discern what Democratized Freedom of Speech of a 'citizen vote' actually is in the digital age of power married to money.  

If a citizen has one vote, why does money and corporate officers and employees have more than one?  And why does 'unknown sources' of money become influential in sovereign elections.  I sincerely believe there is a compromise of the nation's sovereignty by the Citizens United decision.

...Roberts released his 16-page report (click title to entry - thank you) Saturday. It is his seventh since he was appointed as the nation's top justice in September 2005.

The chief justice uses most of his report to address the issue of judicial recusal, in hopes of dispelling "some common misconceptions."

Though Roberts does not cite specific cases or names, he could be addressing partisan urgings that Kagan and Thomas not hear the health care lawsuit....

The pride of the USA has a strong hand on where the national defense is most impacted.

There is no doubt the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense has a united understanding of where the challenges to our national security exist.


I am confident retired members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Chairmen knows all to well of military spending that was frivolous, unnecessary and DID NOT serve our country well.  There has been plenty of past spending legislated that never was a demand or requirement of any of our branches of service.


I would hope that with the cuts in spending, while keeping vital services, the frivolous spending would be the top priority of General Dempsey and his league of experts under his command.  I am quite confident President Obama would be more than happy to entertain these cuts while providing sound fiscal policy in return that will keep the military robust and engaged in all areas necessary.  It is time to do the 'hard stuff' and own up to exploitative political legislature of the past and the better dynamics of the future.


The USA has the largest military and largest military budget in the world.  It is time to reassess how legislative politics and our 'readiness' don't necessary match reality and the problems of the country.  


Tricare does need to be looked at, but, only while realizing how financially challenged military families can be.  It is bold of me to say, but, perhaps First Lady Michelle Obama can work with military wives to better understand the family needs of our military and how best to provide their healthcare.  No military child should ever be faced with any health issue that cannot be addressed.  The peace of mind of our soldiers, of their families at home, has to be a comfort and not a distraction to their careers.


Perhaps, General Dempsey can commission a study to provide vastly needed insight as to how the country can meld an effective military with its political and legislative systems and how best to support our troops and their families.  It would be nice to know there is efficiency in all areas of the military and all needs are being met.


Thank you.

Shrinking the military was the choice of the Republicans.

They would not compromise with the Super-Committee and that is a fact. The Democrats have been trying to bend over backwards without destroying entitlements to the citizen whom paid for them for their lifetime.

The Republicans will not increase taxes on the wealthy and the defense budget was cut $750 billion over ten years. They are going to scream bloody murder and there are those within the Pentagon that have sacred cows and of course, according to them, the USA is going to be in danger no matter what fiscal difficulty the USA may have.

I would like the Pentagon to cut their retirements and health care while expecting the same of the citizens that pay their salaries.

The Defense Department has sacred cows throughout the country. Both Democrats and Republicans are going to running home to their constituents to raise hatred of the President, but, they need to be reminded of the priorities of a nation returning its economy from fiscal collapse of other Republican sacred cows which required bailouts.

I am confident the military will find a way to protect us all while downsizing a HUGE fiscal burden on the USA that simply acts as the global police. The military refuses to rework itself in a way that is realistic and yet secure for the country. The military believes the fiscal challenges of the country is a national security issue. That is a fact. But, they and the Republicans don't seem to realize that means cutting the defense spending as well as domestic spending.

Hello?

The President and First Lady and every Democrat elected to office will be under attack for trimming the military budget. Perhaps the real villains to Wall Streets 'fiscal pain' should be sought in the Republican House of Representatives and the Senate.

Cutting the military budget is going to receive growing resistance and more so than legislating tax reform and/or taxes on the wealthy. I found really interesting 50% of broadband is utilized by the top 1% in the USA. Very interesting.

And, of course, every Republican nominee would never cut the military or raise taxes on the wealthy, but, they will gut Medicare and Social Security and hand over trillions to Wall Street to invest rather than secure the elderly's future.

It's an election year and the First Lady is fair game, ONCE AGAIN !

Michele Obama (click title to entry - thank you) was privately fuming, not only at the president’s team, but also at her husband....


I don't believe Michelle was jealous of Rahm. But, she is an attorney and no different than Hillary Clinton she was very loyal to her understanding of the needs of her husband.  Power is a difficult thing to manage and evidently when it comes to understanding powerful women the 'gossip driven' press is not good at it!


It would be helpful if the Mayor of Chicago and First Lady Michelle Obama would get together for an appearance and perhaps an interview to dispel the rumors of Michelle being The First Lady from Hell.

Superpacs change the best efforts of candidates in debates, so why conduct debates?

If anyone cares to, when looking at the recent history of debates as a means of impacting the electorate, as opposed to the spending of Superpac money there is a definite phenomena that reveals itself.  At least it does to me.


ABC News (click title to entry - thank you) has learned that a SuperPAC which supports Rick Santorum, the Red, White and Blue Fund, is going up with TV ads in South Carolina. This will be the first time the SuperPAC is on the air in the “First-in-the-South” state. The total outlay is $190,000, according to people familiar with it and it will air in Greenville, Charleston and Columbia....


During the elections of 2004, after every debate Senator Kerry had an increase in voter interest following his debates.  Every one of the debates convinced more voters he was the best choice for President.  However, after the debates the Superpacs turned up the heat and people fled loyalty to what they learned and found at the debates for Bush.  The tactics were based in character assassination of a Vietnam Veteran and his spouse's wealth. His spouse received a lot of pressure during those elections and it showed.  Of course she was viewed as aloof and arrogant, yet Mrs. Kerry is one of the most generous charitable providers through her families good fortune.


Recently, in the current Republican field we witnessed the demise of Michele Bachmann by Rick Perry entering the race.  Governor Perry has a sizable superpac.  


Then during the debates with Republicans still seeking an Anti-Romney alternative it was Newt Gingrick that found a foothold of loyalty from the primary voters.  What followed the former speakers debates were Romney superpac ads viciously attacking him.  HIs approval fell post debate and he has yet to recover.


I believe if election results were examined across the spectrum, including the first televised debate with John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, a very clear 'impact trend' line would emerge.  A trend line that directly relates monetary influence post debates that is palpable effecting the electorate in ways a candidate can not overcome when relying on debate performance.


Debates are democracy in action.  Superpac ads are the plutocracy in action.  This is not freedom of speech, it is propaganda and it should never be protected by the First Amendment.  Monies and corporations are not citizens.  Citizens of the USA are organic human beings that breath Oxygen.  They are not a legal entity, they live.  They are not inanimate objects, as currency is, they are living, thinking, organic and emotional beings.  


The inanimate object called money that never appears in any religious text as being created by God, is influencing the outcome of elections and adversely effecting the paradigm of the government of the USA.

I am disgusted with Santorum's sex fixation. (click title for video - thank you)

Santorum Discusses Gay Marriage In NH

POSTED: 6:40 pm EST January 5, 2012
UPDATED: 6:46 pm EST January 5, 2012

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum engages in a discussion of gay marriage with an audience member in New Hampshire. 

I suggest Mr. Sanatorium is building an intolerance to immorality with his fixation on sex, due to the fact Romney is a Mormon.  

When I said Santorum was a religious bigot, I meant he is a religious bigot.  He may be a racial bigot as well, but, this guy likes to terrorize the electorate to believe he can prevent immorality at all levels of 'thought.

By aligning homosexuality with polygamy, he further drives home the point everyone has a lot to fear of the Gay Community in the USA.  It is a fear tactic and it is directly leveled at Romney.  Polygamy is illegal in the USA.  It is illegal in Utah, yet Santorum would have everyone believe we cannot be saved from these demons of polygamists.  

There is a method to his madness and it is to instill fear, if not into young minds, into their parents!  It is an election tactic.

Even if a person is bisexual or heterosexual and wants a harum, they can't.  It isn't legal.  There is no way Santorum can stop consentual sex in the USA.  His 'perfect world' is unattainable and unwanted in the USA and he needs to get his mind around that reality!

Inmost countries, (click here) bigamy is illegal. However, in some countries - including America and Canada - the practice of polygamy is tolerated largely because

• it is done as a religious practice (and thus involves issues of religious freedom), and
• the people involved do not actually marry before the law. Rather, a man will legally marry one woman, and 'marry' additional wives in what they consider to be a 'spiritual' sense

Members of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) - theologically, a cult of Mormonism (which itself is, theologically, a cult of Christianity) - use the latter approach to then obtain social security benefits, in a practice they refer to as "bleeding the beast."

[T]he American taxpayer pays for much of this lifestyle. Recent records show in one year residents here collected more than $8-million from social services — including food stamps, welfare, health care — but the entire town paid less than $100,000 in income taxes.

"They are told to go on welfare," Jessop said. "It's called, "bleeding the beast." They find it amusing that Satan is supporting God's work."

- Source: One Woman's Crusade, ABC News, Mar. 4, 2004 (Ah, yes, a Bush election year.)...

200,000 jobs in December. Good. I am grateful to President Obama for supporting hometown efforts.

That is the way the USA is going to recover its economy.  One SUSTAINABLE job at a time.  Americans have an opportunity to move their country forward and they are doing it.  "Keep on, keepin' on."

...In the past year, the economy has added 1.6 million jobs. (click title to entry - thank you)

“We think these trends augur well for 2012 and we look for job creation of around 200,000 per month through the year,” wrote John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros ofRDQ Economics. “There is nothing in these data to support further easing actions by the Federal Reserve and we continue to expect that the Fed will not launch QE3.”...

OPA News Release: [01/06/2012]
Contact Name: Bennett Gamble
Phone Number: (202) 639-4667
Release Number: 12-0033-NAT

Statement by Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on December employment numbers

WASHINGTON — Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis issued the following statement on the December 2011 Employment Situation report released today:

"Our nation's strengthening labor market posted broad-based growth in the month of December. Nonfarm payroll employment added 200,000 jobs, exceeding expectations, and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, its lowest level in nearly three years.

"Month by month, industry by industry, and state by state, America's labor market grew stronger in 2011. We're now seeing sustained job growth across almost every industry. We created nearly 2 million private sector jobs in 2011, and the unemployment rate fell in 45 states and the District of Columbia last year. Additionally, the number of mass layoffs continued to decline, with 14 of 19 industries reporting a decrease in layoffs over the year.

"In December, job creation in the transportation industry rose sharply, and we saw significant employment gains in retail trade, manufacturing, health care, and leisure and hospitality. Initial Unemployment Insurance claims have been well below 400,000 for the past month, the first time this has happened since June 2008.

"We've now created more than 3.2 million jobs over 22 consecutive months of private sector growth. But our hard-won progress cannot be compromised. Congress wisely extended Unemployment Insurance benefits and the payroll tax cut for two months, but if we're going to see our economy reach a self-sustaining path to durable and long-term economic growth, Congress will need to extend both programs for at least a full year.

"The American public has spoken loud and clear that it rejects the political gamesmanship that has created uncertainty for businesses around the country. Congress should do the right thing and extend middle class tax relief and Unemployment Insurance benefits through 2012 to keep our economy on the path to full recovery."

They are correct, even though THE TRUTH is unpopular. I'll prove it to you now!

January 3, 2012
1615gmt
The temperature map of the USA.


It is cold isn't it?  Right? Very cold in some places. There were predictions that the cold would keep Iowans at home.  Could not be further from the turth, because, just like the continuing drought in the middle of the USA, these temperatures even though cold are not normal.  They are above average.

January 3, 2012
1607 gmt


This is the change that occurred in temperatures across the USA in 24 hours.  What that means is that there were drops or increases based on air movement across the country, but, that isn't the entire picture.  The fluctuations are incredible' from an increase of 34 degrees in the upper midwest of all places to minus 25 in Florida.  Huh?

January 03, 2012 
00 gmt


These were the actual high temperatures across the country.  


But, the 'Departure from Normal' temperatures below is where it really gets interesting.

January 3, 2012

00 GMT


There are degree changes from 29 degrees F in the upper midwest to -21 F in Florida.  There is something very wrong with this picture.

Janaury 3, 2012
00GMT


These were the actual low temperatures for the third of January 2012.  

January 3, 2012
00 GMT


This is the departure from normal temperatures in degrees fahrenheit.


This is climate change, it is a climate crisis.  Growing patterns can literally change and the outcomes for the country is dangerous.  A majority of the country is getting warmer while the east coast of the USA is seeing changes in temperature that are colder.  The reason there is more coldness in the eastern part of the country is because the ground is saturated with water and the chill of the air has penetrated the ground and caused residual cold.  The ground is keeping the east coast colder, but, the air isn't.  The air temperatures are higher than normal for this time of year and we are in winter in the northern hemisphere.


There are lots of evidence, but, the everyday lives of people can measure the change in their own recollection of years past.  If one notices, as soon as the cloudy, cold air leaves for higher latitudes, the air gets warm very quickly.  It is only the arctic blasts that come across the mid-latitudes that is causing any kind of winter, not the fact the planet is actually in winter.


It is here.  The Climate Crisis is upon us.

Janaury 3, 2012
Current Snowcover