Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Did he lie? You bet he did!

A Congressman shouts "you lie" during Obama's speech. Was he right?

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) issued an apology after his outburst, "you lie," toward President Obama during his health care speech to Congress on Wednesday. "I let my emotions get the best of me," Wilson said in a statement. "I extend sincere apologies to the president." We commend Wilson for his quick humility.

But questions remain: Did Obama tell lies during the speech? Was Wilson right after all? And why doesn't Obama apologize just as quickly for calling conservatives liars?

In their fact-checking, the press confirmed FIVE WHOPPERS told by the President himself: OBAMA LIE #1: "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." THE TRUTH: The Capps Amendment to HR 3200 has a Section 4B that reads: "Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. -- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted."
The Washington Times reported: "You can't get more explicit than that." And FactCheck.org exposed Obama's lie too: "Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans." So President Obama lied, plain and simple.

OBAMA LIE #2: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period." THE TRUTH: The Democrat controlled Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years, but will not succeed at shrinking the overall costs of our nation's health care. Republicans claim it's more like $600 billion increased deficit spending. (Confirmed by Associated Press, 9 Sep 09.) Either way, Obama lied.
OBAMA LIE #3: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut...That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare." THE TRUTH: The Washington Post reports Obama proposes "to squeeze more than $500 billion out of the growth of Medicare over the next decade....[which has] fueled fears that his effort to expand coverage to millions of younger, uninsured Americans will damage elder care. As a result, barely one-third of seniors support a health-care overhaul, several polls found." (Washington Post, 9 Aug 09) Even the Post admits, Obama lied.

OBAMA LIE #4: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage." THE TRUTH: Whether working or not, rich or poor, you will be ordered to get mandatory government-run health-care coverage, or pay a fine a $3800 fine per family, under the new Senate plan being railroaded through the finance committee by Max Baucus (D-MT). (New York Times, 9 Sep 09). Obama pretends you're "able" to get coverage, when he knows it's mandatory (with a big tax increase or "fine" penalty). Obama lied. But the biggest of all...

OBAMA LIE #5: "The claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." THE TRUTH: Mandatory "end of life" counseling in HR 3200 "shall" include counseling every 5 years to the elderly, giving doctors a monetary incentive to persuade you to sign a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order to pull the plug on Grandma, just like the Obama administration already pressures all Veterans to sign them. (Confirmed by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, read extensive details at PrayInJesusName.org.) And under the British NHS government-run health plan, "Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned." (The Daily Telegraph, 2 Sep 09). Dr. Ewing Cook just admitted intentionally killing patients who signed DNR authorizations during Hurricane Katrina. "I gave her medicine so I could get rid of her faster…there’s no question I hastened her demise."

Bottom line: Grandma, don't sign Obama's DNR order, even if your doctor gets a bonus check from the President for talking you into that. Obama lied at least five times during his speech. Congressman Wilson was right after all. ABC NEWS VIDEO: John Stossel destroys Obamacare by explaining Socialism.

Be sure to watch the last minute of this short video...click here to watch video....it would be hilarious if it weren't so sadly true. This video is going viral, watched 300,000 times in just over one month. Forward this video to your friends! OBAMA ACCUSES HIMSELF AND FELLOW DEMOCRATS OF LYING Last month Obama held a conference call with reportedly 140,000 members of the "religious left" and accused himself of lying, saying that anybody who claims his health care plan funds abortion violates Exodus 20:16, "thou shalt not bear false witness." But Obama knows his fellow Democrats supported the Capps Amendment to HR 3200 funding abortions through an accounting-scheme, and defeated pro-life amendments prohibiting abortion funding. On July 17, 2007, Obama himself told Planned Parenthood, "in my mind, reproductive care [abortion] is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. [My] plan…will provide…reproductive services [abortion]." It now appears Obama is calling himself a liar, since he personally believes his own plan must contain funding for abortion.The Capps Amendment has a Section 4B that reads: "Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. -- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted..." As the Washington Times analysis says, "You can't get more explicit than that." But Obama calls a liar anybody who reads the bill aloud, verbatim.Obama further accused as "bearing false witness" anyone who claims his plan will result in "death panels" that ration care to the young at the expense of the elderly. That must first include his own Democrat White House Health Policy Advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel.

In an article entitled "Deadly Doctors," The New York Post just confirmed from Democrat Emanuel's own writings, the White House plan prefers "communitarianism" which should guide decisions on who gets care. Emanuel says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (JAMA, Feb. 27, 2008). NY Post's translation: "Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy." Grandma's memory slipping? Obama's Death Panel convenes to de-fund her care. Emanuel said so, read his quote again, confirming Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich were right after all.Emanuel explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31). EXCUSE ME? Obamacare funds 25 year olds, but excludes 65 year olds? RATIONING, DEATH PANELS, SMOKING GUN.

Don't accuse conservatives of bearing false witness, Mr. Obama, until you first accuse your own Health Policy Advisor. This quote is direct proof that Obama's COMMUNITARIANISM (like Socialism only bigger, on steroids, like Communism), favors treating the young at the expense of the old.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Obama's 10 Commandments.

After watching President Obama these last six months and even leading up to the Presidency, it is obvious that our illustrious President lives and governs according to his own "ten commandments". And these are not what you learned at Church on Sunday. Following each commandment is a link taking you to the source and back up to these claims, right from Obama himself.


I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

I hope you have taken the time to check these sources if you think this is a joke. This IS NOT A JOKE! This IS how our President feels, acts and has governed already!


Thursday, September 3, 2009

Liberal pay-back to gun owners

This is from a letter from the National Association for gun rights.

August 27, 2009
Dear Concerned American,
The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly. Liberals in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them in office, and Barack Obama's H.R. 45 is the first step... ...and it's a big step. I'm writing you today to warn you of the very real threat this gun control bill poses to your liberties.The National Association for Gun Rights has a petition ready for you to sign, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link. Please bear with me for a moment. You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:

Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.
Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database. It gets worse though. Sarah Brady and her allies in Congress want to force you to take a written exam to prove that you are "fit" to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. I'm outraged by this, and I know you are too.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration is the first step on the road toward totalitarian confiscation of all firearms by a federal power. In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes. It was easy work for Hitler's brown-shirt Gestapo to confiscate the firearms of German citizens because years earlier, well-meaning liberals had forced all guns to be registered with the government ... all in the name of safety. When Hitler came to take their guns, he had a list of who owned every gun and where they lived! But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America. The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.

Taken right out of Sarah Brady's Christmas wish list, H.R. 45 includes a laundry list of new restrictions on firearms purchases.
In addition to the outrageous national gun registration requirement, the bill also requires you to:
  • Pass a written examination to purchase a firearm.
  • Release your medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the government to get your "fitness" to own a firearm approved.
  • Observe a two-day waiting period before all firearms purchases.
    Pay a gun tax of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.

  • Moreover, H.R. 45 bans all private firearms sales and maximizes penalties for minor clerical errors in dealing with the national gun registry.

The list goes on and on. It's enough to turn your stomach. I know I don't have to tell you, but these restrictions make a mockery of the Constitution. "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" might as well say: "You have no rights." If a two-day waiting period, a written exam and a gun tax aren't infringing our rights, I don't know what is!

The National Association for Gun Rights is fully committed to stopping H.R. 45, but we need the help of grassroots conservatives like you. You and I must join together, draw a line in the sand, and fight this battle to the end. We must make this gun-grab expensive for the enemies of freedom. If we do, they'll flinch ... and lose. By mobilizing hundreds of thousands of grassroots gun owners across the country, the National Association for Gun Rights can put anti-gun politicians on the hot seat. Are you with me? Are you opposed to national gun registration? Are you opposed to a written examination to buy a gun? Are you opposed to a new $25 gun tax? Are you opposed to a total ban on private firearm sales? If you said, "yes" to any of those questions, I need you to click here to fill out NAGR's HR45 petition and join us in this fight.

Stopping un-Constitutional gun control bills like H.R. 45 may be NAGR's top priority, but we can't do it alone.

The fact is H.R. 45 is just the first step. Sarah Brady and her cohorts in Congress now have the support of a willing White House and won't stop until they've reached their ultimate goal: a national ban on the individual ownership of all firearms.

Thank you in advance for contributing your time and money towards defeating H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act. For Freedom and Liberty,Dudley BrownExecutive Director National Association for Gun Rights P.S. H.R. 45 is the most sweeping gun control proposal ever offered in America, and under this administration, it might just pass -- unless you act today.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

The White House vs. National Security

The White House vs. National Security
On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed veteran federal prosecutor John Durham to investigate nearly a dozen CIA interrogators and contractors suspected of abusing terrorism suspects in 2002 and 2003.

"This is nothing but a an all out war on the CIA by the left at a time when the President desperately needs to shore up trust with his base in the face of his declining poll numbers," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll in Tuesday's Morning Bell.

Reopening the investigation of CIA personnel to settle policy differences could open the door to new threats and attacks against the United States, Heritage national security expert Peter Brooks warns in the Boston Herald. This controversial decision could distract the agency from its national security responsibilities and release highly-sensitive information to those who show no qualms with using it against us.

"That could be very dangerous to our national security," writes Brookes. "It isn't by chance that we haven't been attacked for nearly eight years."

In the Los Angeles Times, Heritage's Robert Alt argues that the investigation could lead to a "chilling effect" among CIA agents.

Prior to Monday's announcement, Alt and Heritage legal expert Todd Gaziano recommended against appointing a special prosecutor. "Holder most definitely should not appoint a special prosecutor, even assuming a criminal investigation is warranted," since such an appointment would be redundant, politically-charged and harmful to our national security.

Brooks warns of the "distasteful political dimension" of the appointment and ensuing investigation. By appointing an investigator "independent" of the administration, the White House can effectively "demonize the Bush administration" and not be held accountable or deemed biased. In addition, the case could prompt drastic policy changes and reversals.
Holder argues the new investigation is warranted in light of "new details" exposed in a 2004 CIA report. However, these "details" are only new to the public. The Department of Justice and heads of the Congressional intelligence committees have had the report since 2004. Even Holder read the report months ago.

Not only is it old information, it's an old case. Department of Justice prosecutors have already investigated the individuals in question and found no reason to bring criminal charges to any of them, with the exception of one contractor. The only thing new, Carroll explains, is that the Obama administration now runs the Justice Department.
A record-breaking deficit

As a result of massive government overspending, "America will run its first ever trillion-dollar budget deficit this year," writes Heritage budget policy analyst Brian Riedl.
Riedl reveals the shocking numbers.

In 2009, the federal government will:
  • Spend $30,958 per household -- the highest level in American history;
  • Tax $17,576 per household; and
  • Borrow $13,392 per household.

These numbers reflect a 22 percent year-on-year increase in spending, Riedl explains. This represents "the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War."

The government's spending spree will likely cause this year's deficit to top 11.2 percent of gross domestic product, nearly double the post-World War II record of six percent.

"The new spending estimates are alarming and absolutely unsustainable -- and are the true cause of these appalling levels of deficit and debt," explains Riedl. "The result will be the highest level of spending -- and debt -- in American history."

President Obama claims to have inherited this staggering deficit of $1.58 trillion -- an amount greater than the combined deficits between 2002 and 2007. But his budget blueprint, which includes $1.4 trillion in tax increases and $9 trillion of new borrowing over the next decade, does little to tame it. And this doesn't even include the President's high-priced health care overhaul.
President Obama also claims he can cut the deficit in half by 2013. But that's not really an improvement: this year's deficit is nearly four times what it was last year, so cutting it in half would still leave a deficit that is double what it was under President Bush.

> Other Heritage work of note
Many Americans are rightfully concerned that a new government-run health care system would cover millions of illegal immigrants at the taxpayers' expense.

While the White House rejects this as a pure myth, Heritage fellow Ernest Istook dissects Section 246 of the health care bill and explains what it actually says. "It says [illegal immigrants] should not receive the bill's new insurance subsidies. It doesn't say they can't receive taxpayer-paid health care. It doesn't say they can't receive other benefits from HR 3200, such as the expanded Medicaid." The language may be vague, but the consequences won't be.

"Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have proposed to cut roughly $150 billion from the highly popular Medicare Advantage program," writes Heritage's Gerrit Lansing. Nearly one in five seniors benefits from this program, which allows them to choose a private health plan. Any savings that can be found in Medicare "need to go toward lowering Medicare's long-term cost" and not fund yet another big-government program.» Watch Heritage's video about how government-run health care would affect Medicare.

As the economy recovers, prices at the pump are likely to surge again, and this could cause economic problems. "Of course, rational solutions, such as unlocking America's restricted oil potential, appear to be off the table for the Obama Administration and the current Congress," writes Heritage energy analyst Ben Lieberman.

Instead, policymakers are looking to regulate energy and impose controls on energy markets. Lieberman notes that when oil prices topped $4 a year ago, "the public was shouting 'drill, baby, drill' not 'regulate, baby, regulate.'"

Dirty Secret No. 4 in Obamacare

Dirty Secret No. 4 in Obamacare
by (more by this author)

Flying under the radar this past week was a new government report that forecasts that the national debt will double over the next decade.

The White House has projected a cumulative $9 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019, while the Congressional Budget Office estimates a more optimistic $7.1 trillion, based upon the expiration of Bush tax cuts. What this means is that Washington's out-of-control spending likely will turn the nation's already-staggering $11 trillion in debt into an astronomical $20 trillion.

But there are at least two ginormous expenses that are excluded in these projections. First, the projections from both the White House and CBO incorporate their belief that the deficit will decline quickly over the next three years, as they assume fewer bailouts are needed and the economy will grow rapidly. But isn't there also the real possibility that the economy will not recover as quickly as they hope?

Every additional bailout or stimulus (large or small) and every margin of error in their three-year prospective climb out of the economic pit will inflate our nation's debt balloon even more. The second expense is far less speculative -- and it has to do with about a fourth of America. The 72 million baby boomers (people born in America from 1946 to 1964), members of the largest generation America has produced, are going into retirement over the next two decades and will face the golden years of declining health and rising medical costs. Under current law, if the government were to add the projected baby boomer costs of Medicare and Social Security to its debt tab, it would send deficit projections into the abyss.

Here's the primary problem. Medicare is bankrupt. Medicaid is bankrupt. And Social Security is bankrupt. Though boomers have paid into these programs via their taxes for decades, there are not enough benefits to offer them now -- and even less in the future. The problem is compounded when one understands that the number of people in the United States who are 65 or older is expected to double by 2030, and so is the amount expected to fund their retirement and health care in their twilight years, which relatively few are prepared to handle themselves.

So what is the U.S. government to do, especially when it already is projected to have $20 trillion worth of debt in 2019? (Let alone what it will be in 2030!) That reform is needed in health care is not a question, mostly because Americans are being raped by the insurance companies. But Obamacare in its present form is not the answer, because it progressively would cut (yes, cut) the care for baby boomers in the future, if not through the reductions and costs of private options then through the mandatory benefit cuts the government would have to make in Social Security and Obamacare (formerly Medicare).

Think about it. If government can't handle the costs of the elderly now in retirement via its Medicare and Social Security programs, do we really expect they will offer the baby boomers better (and more costly) benefits in the future?

According to a CBO report called "Baby Boomers' Retirement Prospects": "Present trends are unlikely to persist indefinitely, however, because total payments to retirees are expected to grow much faster under current law than either the total incomes of workers who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes or the revenues earmarked for those programs. That widening gap will place increasing stress on both programs. Narrowing the gap could involve slowing the future growth of benefits."

Notice the words "under current law" and "slowing the future growth of benefits"? That is key. The only way around this future financial dilemma (according to this administration, at least) is to change "current law" and to "slow" or lower the benefits for baby boomers. That new law (or basic legislation upon which such changes can be amended) is Obamacare.

Look closely at the political prescription from the CBO's same boomer report: "The extent to which baby boomers are providing for their own retirement -- and have time to react to policy changes (emphasis added) -- is thus an important consideration in evaluating proposals to reform the Social Security and Medicare programs." The only way the boomers will "have time to react to policy changes" is if they are enacted before they go into retirement! (Are you catching another reason for the White House's rush to pass this legislation?!)

This is dirty secret No. 4 in Obamacare that our government isn't telling you: Obamacare ultimately is designed to force retiring baby boomers into a much cheaper version of socialized medicine than Medicare, which already is being positioned to be cut to the tune of $500 billion. Obamacare is not merely about reforming health care to aid 47 million Americans who are uninsured. It is about reforming "current law" to ax 72 million retiring Americans, whom the government can't afford to support over the next two decades.

Dirty Secret No. 3 in Obamacare

Dirty Secret No. 3 in Obamacare

by (more by this author)
Posted 08/25/2009 ETUpdated 08/25/2009 ET

Ever heard the saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? That's true for any of the 1,000-plus-page versions of Obamacare.I've informed you in previous columns of two dirty secrets in Obamacare. Dirty secret No. 3 is the sin of omission. It's what the health care bill doesn't say that will bite you in the end.

In 1,000-plus pages, there's surprisingly sparse coverage or complete avoidance of a host of necessary issues. I would cite pages in the bill, as I've done in my other articles, but there aren't any covering them.

These are questions that need specific answers by the Obama administration, as well as by each of our representatives:

--What would the child development methods and values used in training parents during home visitations be?

--To whom or what would the national committee that would oversee the entire health care system be accountable?

--What would the extents of power and limitations or boundaries of the national committee be?

--Would the national and regional health care committees eventually run with the power of the Federal Reserve System, as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the health care adviser to the Obama administration, proposes in his book "Healthcare, Guaranteed"?

--Would Medicare be "phased out," as Emanuel proposes in his book?

--Would Medicaid be "phased out," as Emanuel proposes in his book?

--Would employee-provided health insurance eventually cease, as Emanuel proposes in his book?

--Specifically, how would the nation provide and pay for the additional medical and administrative personnel needed to cover roughly 50 million more people?

--Specifically, how would the nation provide and pay for the additional medical facilities and equipment needed to equip the new medical and administrative personnel?

--What are the specific cost projections for such extensive and extra medical personnel, practices, offices and equipment?

--What about the maldistribution of physicians?

--What about tort reform?

--What about class action suits?

--Would illegal immigrants be covered under this program?

--What about the specifics of abortion services? Would taxpayer funds finance them?

--What types and limitations of end-of-life counsel would be offered?

--Any guarantees that the middle class wouldn't be paying for Obamacare eventually?

--Have you investigated or read any other options for or alternatives to health care reform besides the most recent version of Obamacare? If not, why? If so, what are the pros and cons of each?

--Most importantly, will you write or sign amendments that guarantee the restrictions or explanations of the above points into law before passing any form of Obamacare?

Now read that list more slowly one more time, and ask yourself this: Is it a complete coincidence that all those specifics aren't mentioned already in Obamacare legislation?

Do you want your representative to sign off on a bill that doesn't specify them? (Would you sign a contract to buy a car that didn't discuss financing or even the specifics of the car you were buying?)

Isn't this just the same ol' doubletalk and dirty politics we've seen in Washington? Whatever happened to Obama's campaign promises about the "most sweeping ethics reform" and "unprecedented transparency"?

Why doesn't Washington start telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God? Obama promises that the middle class would not pay for the program, yet the proposed Obamacare legislation would shift progressive onus (beginning on Page 846) for aspects of ongoing health care onto state and local communities -- which, in turn, would pay for those services how? It doesn't say. And if a state were not to meet the criteria to be eligible for federal reimbursement, do we assume the federal government would write it all off, or would we the taxpayers foot that bill, too? It doesn't say. Generalities such as "the State share of the cost" (Page 847) should cause your pocketbook to tremble.

So here's what the specific implementation plan of Obamacare comes down to: "Trust government." A friend of mine who is a California Highway Patrol officer says, "In God we trust; all others we search." And that includes government.

Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his rushing to vote Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that would rein in out-of-control insurance companies and wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens' freedoms in any way.

Watch your back, America! As the adage goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sons & Daughters of Liberty

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

Liberty link

Please visit The Liberty Sphere or any of the links to the right for updated posts on gun control and politics we should be aware of.

And please join the Sons and Daughters of Liberty list by following this blog. Click on the link at the top of this page to follow this blog.