Wednesday, March 31, 2010

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

This is great. Notice how ever since the Climategate Scandal came out and all this data has been backing up what most normal non-leftist people have been saying all along that most - if not all - climate change data is faked. You can Google this and you will see numerous articles every breaking on this story. Like this one - here.

Here's a little snipit from the article:

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.


American Parchment has the overwhelming facts and data that puts this Global Warming Farce to Rest. Thanks to American Parchment for putting all these pieces together for everyone to see in one location. Global Warming lies and the facts.

Click Here and Here and Here

Border Murder Highlights Administration's Failure.

As I've said before, I've never like Napolitano, even when I lived in AZ and I'm a strong believer in securing our borders. I wrote about this story a couple days ago (here)and today came across this great article. Please read.

The tragic murder of a Good Samaritan rancher by an illegal immigrant in Arizona has people yelling for an effective response to this outrage. Although most illegal immigrants are just human beings that are desperately seeking to provide for themselves and their families, this murder shines a spotlight on the Obama administration’s utter failure to secure our borders and uphold the rule of law.

A top story on March 30 is that Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was apparently gunned down by an illegal immigrant. Krentz’s family has maintained a ranch in southern Arizona since 1907, and he was known as a compassionate man who gave water and medical care to illegal immigrants crossing his land from Mexico.

Krentz was found shot to death, slumped over his vehicle on his ranch. Police dogs tracked the shooter to the Mexican border 15 miles away, indicating that the shooter was almost certainly someone in this country illegally from Mexico.

The murder of this good man casts in stark relief the outrageous failure of President Barack Obama and Secretary Janet “the system worked” Napolitano to deal with the enormous problem America faces as a result of illegal immigrants. Perhaps if they weren’t so busy taking over the economy (which the Constitution forbids them from doing), they’d actually secure the border (which the Constitution requires them to do).

This outrage occurred just as the Obama administration plans on pivoting to the immigration issue, at the perfect time to try to create a wedge issue to scare Hispanics into voting Democrat in 2010 in order to mitigate the massive losses in Congress that Democrats are sure to suffer after more than a year of ramming through a far-left agenda with extreme partisanship.

Immigration is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. There are approximately 12 million foreigners in this country illegally, creating serious problems for a whole host of issues, from education, to healthcare, to employment, to law enforcement.

And this issue must be addressed in a humane and compassionate manner. Most illegal immigrants don’t want to break the law. They’re just desperate to find work to provide for themselves and their families, and they know that America is a land of opportunity. So they break our laws to get here and stay here because they’re focused on making a better life for their families.

In tackling immigration, we need to always remember that most of these people don’t want to harm Americans; they just want to help themselves and their loved ones. And they’re desperate to do so.

But the United States is a prosperous land of opportunity only because we live by the rule of law. We’re a country that respects property rights and business contracts, and that encourages free markets and private businesses (at least until President Obama took office).

We’re also a country where lawbreaking is punished, and where violent criminals are held to account. Foreigners who murder innocent Americans in cold blood should receive the ultimate punishment, as a clear statement that such crimes shall be met with swift and sure justice in the United States.

Ronald Reagan once said, “A nation that cannot control its own borders is not a nation.” The Constitution tasks the federal government with controlling our borders, to maintain an effective immigration policy and to protect the property, rights, and lives of American citizens.

The tragic murder of Robert Krentz shows just how abysmally the federal government has failed us all in this regard. Secretary Napolitano needs to admit that the system did not work. And President Obama had better drop the hyper-partisanship to address immigration in a way that meets Republican demands to uphold the rule of law and not reward illegal behavior.

This is not the time for far-left pandering or promises of amnesty in the galling hopes of political gain. Nor is this the time for cramming through a law instead of beginning a long, slow, deliberate conversation with the opposition party and the American people. This is the time for addressing a serious problem for this country, a problem that quite clearly entails a deadly threat to our citizens.

Via: Big Government

Where’s The Outrage From The Left Over The Slain Arizona Rancher?

This is a sad, tragic story. It never should have happened and if we were protecting our borders it probably wouldn’t have happened. Why aren’t the Democrats and the lefty “journalists” in America condemning this heinous act of violence?

Fox News: Theft, robbery, vandalism and drug smuggling have always been part of illegal immigration in Cochise County, but murder is not something the cattle ranchers along the Arizona-Mexico border expected to happen to Robert Krentz.

Police say Krentz, whose family has been ranching in southern Arizona since 1907, was gunned down early Saturday morning by an illegal immigrant while out on his ATV tending to fences and water lines on the family’s 34,000-acre cattle ranch.

Reached by phone early Tuesday at his family’s ranch, Andy Krentz, Krentz’s oldest son, said his father was a churchgoing man who routinely went out of his way to help those in need.

“My father was a very good family man,” Krentz told FoxNews.com. “He supported his kids, supported his family. He went out of his way to help anybody we could without regarding to who they were. It didn’t matter who they were.”

Sue Krentz, Krentz’s wife, said she was “pretty overwhelmed” by her husband’s death, which coincided with her parents’ deteriorating health.


The report goes on to note that Mr. Krentz had been robbed in the past by illegals, but that didn’t stop him from offering water to illegals crossing the border under the scorching Arizona sun. He probably approached his killer with the intention of helping him. How sad.

Fallen Marine Story.

I was reading the AP and Yahoo! this morning about this story of these protesters and how this father sued, won and then it went to Federal Court, got over turned because protesting is part of the 1st amendment and now has to pay their legal fees. He is now taking this to the Supreme Court where I believe he will win. But then I came across this:

No. 1 cable news host Bill O'Reilly said Tuesday that he will personally write a check to cover $16,500 in legal costs for the father of a fallen U.S. Marine who sued the members of a church who picketed his son's funeral.

According to news reports, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, located in Topeka, Kan., believe that God is punishing the United States because of its acceptance of gay people. The church garners attention for its views by protesting high-profile funerals.

On March 3, 2006, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder died in a non-combat related vehicle accident in Al Anbar province in Iraq.

"He was a hero and he was the love of my life," said Albert Snyder, Matthew's grieving father.

During the wake that was held after his son's funeral, family members turned on the television to view coverage of the massive procession involving over 1,500 persons. They saw the church members waving signs and protesting the funeral.

"I just stood there in shock," Albert Snyder told O'Reilly in November 2007.

"I couldn't believe that somebody would do that to somebody else. I mean, I didn't know what to say.

"Finally, somebody yelled, 'Turn off the television.' But I just stood there in shock. I can't believe there's somebody that would actually do that to soldiers."

Albert Snyder filed a federal lawsuit against the church, and a jury awarded him nearly $11 million dollars for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the verdict on the grounds that the church's First Amendment right to free expression must be protected.

Adding insult to injury, the court also ruled that Snyder would have to pay $16,500 to church members, to defray what they spent to defend themselves in court.

From FOX News'

YouTube Vid Here

Joe Biden: Redistribution Of Wealth Is ‘Just Being Fair’

Joe Biden explains how taking what one person has earned and giving it to someone who did not earn it is “just being fair.”



From Aaron Task in Newsmakers on Yahoo!:

"...I asked the Vice President whether we can afford these tax cuts, given the country’s massive federal deficits. Biden’s view is that we can’t afford not to do them: “We can’t afford to leave the middle class behind,” he says. “These things matter to people who are struggling and they matter to people who have lost their jobs as well.”

There’s also the issue of whether these tax cuts, in conjunction with the health care reform bill signed last week, represent a redistribution of wealth in America, as many claim.

“It’s a simple proposition to us: Everyone is entitled to adequate medical health care,” Biden says. “If you call that a ‘redistribution of income’ — well, so be it. I don’t call it that. I call it just being fair — giving the middle class taxpayers an even break that the wealthy have been getting.”

The top quintile of Americans earned 55.7% of pretax income and paid 69.3% of federal taxes in 2006, according to the most recent CBO data. But the Vice President isn’t buying the idea that the wealthiest are already paying their fair share, noting the top 1% of earners get 22% of all income made in the U.S.

“Taxes have been lowered for the wealthy considerably over the years,” he says. “It’s about time we get a little tax equity here.”


He’s right, is about time we get a little tax equity. This certainly isn’t the way to go about it.

Listen to him at the end talking about how the wealthy “get” so much of the income. As if they just reach their hands into the money pie and take all the money. Ridiculous.

Video via Breitbart

Story via memeorandum

Offshore Drilling Part 2

The New York Times: The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.


I’m thinking he’ll allow the oil companies to do the heavy lifting before he swoops in and nationalizes the industry. That, and he’s trying to get moderates to go along with cap and tax.

Update: I should also have pointed out that any drilling that may occur won’t happen for years. So this move is largely symbolic.

Here’s Obama in 2008 talking about offshore drilling.



Via the Washington Times, Rep. Mike Pence released the following statement:

“This Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs overseas at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”

“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.”

“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.

“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”


Moral of the story: Don’t believe anything this man says. He lies!

Da TechGuy linked – Thanks!

Via memeorandum

Offshore Drilling

By including areas of the East Coast, Eastern Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska in its new Five Year OCS Leasing Plan, the Obama Administration would appear to be throwing a bone to the “Drill. Baby, Drill” crowd.

Of course, everyone expects that there’s a quid pro quo in the deal: in exchange for this Open Access, you will support some form of Cap and Trade proposal. Isn’t that about it, Senator Graham?

But don’t mistake oil and gas leasing as a green light for an oil operator to “Drill. Baby, Drill”. An oil and gas lease is full of all kinds of “subject-tos”. Most significantly, an operator’s ability to drill and explore a lease is subject to his ability to secure the requisite approval from the various government agencies that issue permits for that activity.

So, theoretically, the Feds could issue a lease, but if one of the regulatory bodies refuses to issue a permit, there’s no drilling.

But that would never happen, would it?

Well, it did, less than two weeks ago.

Montana oil leases suspended

BILLINGS – A federal judge has approved a first-of-its-kind settlement requiring the government to suspend 38,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Montana so it can gauge how oil field activities contribute to climate change. …

[Note: These are leases that have already been sold by the BLM. Operators have put up their money but have done no drilling pending resolution of this case. - ed.]

Under the deal approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, the Bureau of Land Management will suspend the 61 leases in Montana within 90 days. They will have to go through a new round of environmental reviews before the suspensions can be lifted.

“We view this as a very big deal, if a modest first step, in the BLM addressing climate change in oil and gas development,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Erik Schlenker-Goodrich. “It’s quite a dirty process, but there are ways to clean it up.” …

A parallel lawsuit challenging 70,000 acres of federal lands leased in New Mexico remains pending. …

A BLM spokesman, Greg Albright, said reviewing lease sales for climate change would be a first for the agency. How it will be done was still being worked out, and it was unclear if the BLM would adopt such reviews as a standard requirement.


Bear in mind that these two cases represent 108,000 widely dispersed acres in areas that have been under oil and gas development for decades. These permits are make-work for the bureaucrats and their consultants and allow the environmental “stakeholders” to drag out developemnt and make it easier for the interested operator to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

If it’s this easy in Montana and New Mexico, offshore areas will be a piece of cake.

Via: Red State

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

You Might Be A Liberal If....

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat..
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

Well, I forwarded it to you.

Say it on Seaspook's Rants

A Rant



So I posted this on my brothers FB page as a joke, and my cousin writes his comment which said - "Must have been some leftovers from when Bush and Cheney were in the office".

No that got me going. I have written a few times and have given good reasons why President Obama had not "inherited" this mess, he is responsible for it. Here was my reply:

"That's right, he "inherited" this "mess" but he's made things worse in 2 years than Bush did in 8. Bush didn't blame Clinton for the recession he 'inherited" in 2001 including the countless domestic blunders that lead to 9-11 that people blame Bush for.
It's funny how both he (Obama) and Biden were apart of the congress that keeps saying that, but he (Obama) himself did not. As I have said all along and even written about on my blog, he created it. Before being elected President Barack Obama was a Senator in a party that controlled both houses of Congress with what some call "a lame duck" President. From 2006-present, the economy has faltered increasingly. I was in Title and got laid off twice. His bills haven't helped housing, or jobs, it's worse.
However, the big crash happened while he was a senator at a time when Congress ruled the land (ie a lame duck Presidency). Yes, President Bush still had some power, but the majority of power was with the Democratic Party-controlled Congress (just like today); with Senator Obama’s Congress. Add to that the fact that President Bush was unusually catering to Pres-elect Obama after the November election, and not only did Bush consult with Obama, but at Obama’s urging he authorized the bailouts for insurance company AIG, for car corporations, and for the $700billion TARP fiasco. Obama himself and the transition team URGED the first $700billion, the deficit “his administration” inherited was created by a budget that he and his party created in Congress just prior to his election as President. No, Obama did not inherit the bad economy. He created it, and shame on him for misrepresenting its origin by sly wording rather than honest and genuine admission of mistakes. Bush had enough mistakes to take responsibility for, and the time for scapegoating passed when millions of Democrats (filled with the spirit of hope, change, and bi-partisan unity) booed the figurehead of 46% of the nation as his helicopter left the Inauguration. Obama and the Democrats created the bad economy, it happened on their watch-because of their budgeting, their bailout demands, and their poor choices. How can you "inherit" something you helped create???
And they are still trying to take credit for the surge in Iraq that is working that every Republican was for and said it would work including then President Bush and McCain when he was running, yet there are countless videos from prominent democrats including Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and Obama stating it would not work and Iraq is a lost cause. They need to stop blaming others, stop forcing bills and programs onto the public that they/I/we don't want and bring back capitalism, not destroy it. Every liberal and this administration needs to to man up and quit blaming others for their costly mistakes".

Random Useless Trivia.

Most people who know me, know that I have a lot of useless facts and trivia and know a lot about different things that most would render pointless. Not me. If you are ever on a game show and need help, I'm a good lifeline.

USELESS FACTS

The eight most popular foods to cause food allergies are: milk, eggs, wheat, peanuts, soy, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish.

The early occurrence of a foetus yawning is at eleven weeks after conception.
The average ear grows 0.01 inches in length every year.

The gastric flu can cause projectile vomiting.

The Dutch are known to be the tallest people in Europe.

Studies have shown that the scent of rosemary can help in better mental performance and make individuals feel more alert.

Some brands of toothpaste contain glycerin or glycerol, which is also an ingredient in anti-freeze.

Soaking beans for twelve hours in water before they are cooked can reduce flatulence they cause.

Scientists say that babies that are breastfed are more likely to be slimmer as adults than those that are not breastfed.

Scientists have determined that having guilty feelings may actually damage your immune system.

Research has indicated that approximately eleven minutes are cut off the life of an average male smoker from each cigarette smoked.

People have the tendency to chew the food on the side that they most often use their hand.

Over 600,000 people died as a result of the Spanish influenza epidemic.

Only one out of every three people wash their hands when leaving a public bathroom.

One ragweed plant can release as many as a million grains of pollen in one day.

One out of 20 people have an extra rib.

On average, men spend 60 hours a year shaving.

On average, falling asleep while driving results in 550 accidents per day in the United States.

On average, a person has two million sweat glands.

On average, Americans spend 33% of their life sleeping.

On average a person passes gas 14 times a day.

On average 1,668 gallons of water are used by each person in the United States daily.

Nerve impulses for muscle position travel at a speed of up to 390 feet per second.

Nerve cells can travel as fast as 120 meters per second.

Men in their early twenties shave an average of four times a week.

Medical research has found substances in mistletoe that can slow down tumor growth.

Medical reports show that about 18% of the population are prone to sleepwalking.

Manicuring the nails has been done by people for more than 4,000 years.

Left-handed people are better at sports that require good spatial judgment and fast reaction, compared to right-handed individuals.

When doctors in Los Angeles went on strike in 1976, the daily number of deaths in the city dropped 18%.

In the United States, 8.5 million cosmetic surgical and non-surgical procedures were done in the year 2001.

People with darker skin will not wrinkle as fast as people with lighter skin.

People with allergies can lower allergy reactions by laughing.

People who meet their calcium need reduce their risk of developing kidney stones.

People that smoke have 10 times as many wrinkles as a person that does not smoke.

People still cut the cheese shortly after death.

People over the age of fifty will start to lose their dislike for foods that taste bitter.

People of Ancient China believed that swinging your arms could cure a headache.

The average weight of a newborn baby is 7 lbs. 6 oz. For a triplet baby it is 3 lbs. 12 oz.
The average person spends two weeks of their life kissing.

The average person falls asleep in about 12 to 14 minutes.

There are approximately one hundred million people in the United States that have a chronic illness.

There are approximately 60 muscles in the face.

There are 50% more males that are left handed compared to females.

There are 400 species of bacteria in the human colon.

There are 10 million bacteria at the place where you rest your hands at a desk.

In a lifetime, an average human produces 10,000 gallons of saliva.

In a lifetime, an average driver will release approximately 912 pints of wind inside a car.

In Canada, men are three times more likely than women to have seen a doctor in the last year.

Humans breathe in and out approximately one liter of air in ten seconds.

Girls have more taste buds than boys.

From the age of thirty, humans gradually begin to shrink in size.

Flu shots only work about 70% of the time.

Gases that build up in your large intestine cause flatulence. It usually takes about 30 to 45 minutes for these gases to pass through your system.

Fat is important for the development of children and normal growth.

Every day, the average person swallows about a quart of snot.

Eighty percent of 10 year old girls in the USA go on a diet.

Air is passed through the nose at a speed of 100 miles per hour when a person sneezes.

About twenty-five percent of the population sneeze when they are exposed to light.

A yawn usually lasts for approximately six seconds.

Children who are breast fed tend to have an IQ seven points higher than children who are not.

Children grow faster in the springtime than any other season during the year.

Eating chocolate three times a month helps people live longer as opposed to people who overeat chocolate or do not eat chocolate at all.

Constipation is caused when too much water is absorbed in the large intestine and poops become dry.

An ear trumpet was used before the hearing aid was invented by people who had difficulty hearing.

The average human dream lasts only 2 to 3 seconds. The average person has seven dreams a night.

Bile produced by the liver is responsible for making your feces a brownish, green color.
It takes more muscles to frown than it does to smile.

98% of people want to be more like Trigger. The other 2% just don't know it.

By the time you are 70 you will have easily drunk over 12,000 gallons of water.

A man named Charles Osborne had the hiccups for sixty-nine years.

The average person walks the equivalent of twice around the world in a lifetime.

The average person laughs about 15 times a day.

The vocabulary of the average person consists of 5,000 to 6,000 words.

About 10% of the world's population is left-handed.

McCain: Obama Could Cave And Repeal Health Care

Political pressure might become so intense that President Obama would agree to repeal major portions of the healthcare bill he signed into law recently, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said today.

Even if Republicans win Congress in 2010, Obama could veto any legislation repealing healthcare reform. But McCain suggested the public might feel so strongly that Obama would cave.

"If the intensity level is as high as it is, I can draw you a scenario where the president would be forced to repeal or really replace it with the provisions [Republicans] wanted," McCain said in an interview with KFYI 550.

At the very least, Republicans could refuse to fund healthcare, the Arizona Republican added.

"You could basically repeal major provisions of it" by refusing to fund them, McCain said.

Via: The Hill and memeorandum

Everything Promised By Obama Comes With An Expiration Date

Okay, not everything. When he talks of redistributing wealth, there’s no expiration date. The problem there is, when one sets out to redistribute wealth all one does is destroy wealth, ie: the poor don’t get rich, the rich get poorer. And opportunities for the poor disappear. But I digress.

Jim Geraghty should be commended for his public service, he compiled a pretty long list of Obama Statement Expiration Dates:

By popular demand, a comprehensive list of expired Obama statements…

HEALTH CARE MANDATES

STATEMENT: “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don’t have it is not because they don’t want it but because they can’t afford it.” Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the individual mandate into law.

HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN

STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.

EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”

RAISING TAXES

STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)

EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”


Oh, that’s not all. Like Geraghty said, it’s a long post. Definitely worth bookmarking for later reference. How many other Obama statements have expiration dates? Feel free to add them in the comment section below.

Fausta linked and The Lonely Conservative

O’Reilly Calls Out Al Sharpton On His ‘I’ve Seen The Tape’ Lie

Ha! This is great. Al Sharpton flat out lied and was called on it by Bill O’Reilly. Sharpton looked like a deer in the headlights there for a moment. Had Sharpton told a journalist on any other network that he had seen the tape of someone shouting the “N” word at the Congressional Black Caucus, he would have gotten away with it.

Dick Morris: Wall Street Bill Gives Treasury Secretary Powers Castro Doesn’t Have

It’s pure socialism in the United States. It gives the Treasury Secretary the power – in his sole discretion with no judicial review and no objective standards – the right to seize any financial business he wants simply because he thinks it’s too big to fail and that it’s in danger of failing. And the guy who runs the Treasury is a tax cheat like many prominent Democrats and is even open to the idea of a global currency and abolishing the US Dollar.

Dem. Protesters Are Extremists Not Tea Party Patriots (Vid)


Andrew Breitbart continues to be the epicenter of the truth in journalism today. He is standing up to the corrupt media and doing their jobs for them because they are all incompetent in reporting the truth to protect their liberal interests. Harry Reid Supporters threw eggs at the Tea Party Express bus. So we know what violent protesters look like now. The Obama loving media can't produce one shred of evidence (only lies) that the Tea Party Patriots (Many Millions) have done anything violent. If the eggs had obstructed the drivers view their could have been serious risk, injury or even death(s). The media will sweep Democrat Violence under the rug and continue accusing Tea Party Patriots of being Racist and Violent with Zero Proof. The Slobbering Love Affair with their Messiah gets worse and worse as time goes by. I would bet money that SEIU had some involvement in this too!

Some on the left tried to blame Andrew Breitbart, claiming that it never happened, or that if it did, Breitbart probably threw the eggs himself to make the Reid supporters look bad.

Too bad for them there is video. In this clip, a Reid supporting union man is busted egg handed!



Via: Government Mess

It's Only Business



Democrats believe that if they passed a law that said "pigs can fly," the skies would soon be filled with joyous oinking.

And so they're shocked...shocked!...that the Obamacare bill which was supposed to reduce costs for businesses is already causing costs to skyrocket. AT&T reports increased costs of $1 billion, Caterpillar will pay more than $100 million more, Deere & Company $150 million, and the list goes on and on...totaling nearly $14 billion during the most challenging business environment in memory. New jobs? New investments? Not likely.

The Democrats are responding to this bad news by ordering an investigation of the companies, demanding to know why the real-life numbers aren't adding up the way the Democrats ordained them to.

According to one source, prior to Obamacare's passage several CEO's tried to explain to the president what the bill would do to business and the economy in general: "First the president didn't understand what they were talking about. Then he basically told my boss he was lying. Frankly my boss was embarrassed for him; he clearly had not been briefed and didn't know what was in the bill."

None of which, unfortunately, kept the president or the Democrats from passing the bill. And the buck.

Via: Hope N Change

ACLU Falsely Claims U.S. Has Successfully Prosecuted 400 Terrorists In Civilian Court

Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project, tells Fox News:

Federal courts have successfully prosecuted more than 400 terrorists; military commissions have prosecuted only three.

This claim has been debunked by the mythbusters over at...the ACLU. As Andy McCarthy has pointed out, "On its website, the ACLU pronounces that only 39 cases tried in federal courts were related to terrorism and the median sentence was just eleven months. As the organization elaborates in a "Myth v. Reality" feature:"

Myth: “The Patriot Act’s "new powers have allowed authorities to charge more than 400 people in terrorism investigations since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and convict more than half.”

Reality: …The government’s numbers are also severely inflated. The “400 convictions” claim overstates actual number of convictions and omits a number of key facts related to these numbers. A list obtained by the Justice Department defines only 361 cases defined as terrorism investigations from September 11, 2001 to September 2004. 31 of the entries on the list were blacked out. Only 39 of these individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism. The median sentence for these crimes was 11 months. This figure indicates that the crime that the government equated with terrorism was not serious. A study conducted by TRAC at Syracuse University notes that “despite the three-and-a-half-fold increase in terrorism convictions, the number who were sentenced to five years or more in prison has not grown at all from pre-9/11 levels.” The convictions were more commonly for charges of passport violations, fraud, false statements, and conspiracy. Moreover, the median prison time for a serious offense, such as providing material support to a terrorist organization was only 4 months. [Footnotes omitted — if you want to see them, go to the ACLU link above.]

Via: The Weekly Standard

Here's Some Nice News: Premiums To Go Up 17% For Young People

Obamacare will make it more difficult for young adults to buy their own insurance because restrictions on age-based pricing will shift the costs of insuring the old and infirm to the young and healthy:

Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.

The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.


For the young man featured in the story, it could mean $300-500 more per year. The bill seeks to offset the costs for individuals by subsidizing insurance for young people making up to four times the poverty level, allowing young singles on Medicaid, and allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26.

Young people were the age demographic most likely to support Obamacare during the health-care debate (perhaps because a lot of media didn't write this story until after the bill was passed), and most will likely happily acquiesce in its costs. The AP's study of possible hikes says they'll start around 2014, but one wonders what will happen to companies providing insurance to individual young people as they prepare for the onset of Obamacare's mandates.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, not everything will be static until that date:

The first result will be turmoil in the insurance industry, as small insurers in particular find it impossible to make money under the new rules. A wave of consolidation is likely, and so are higher premiums as insurers absorb the cost of new benefits and the mandate to take all comers.

The individual insurance market, in which many young people buy, is expected to be disproportionately affected by the legislation and see premium hikes between now and 2016. Some of that will happen before Obamacare's subsidies kick in, and of course, some young people will not qualify for subsidies. It will be tough, even for Obama-supporting young people, to pay four years of costs before they see benefits. And, even after benefits kick in, mandates on what kind of insurance young people can have will likely eliminate some of their most appropriate and cheap choices— catastrophic insurance plans with high deductibles paired with HSAs, for instance.

There are those out there who are not thrilled with the prospect:

Jim Schreiber, 24, was once an Obama supporter but now isn't so sure. The Chicagoan works in a law firm and has his own tea importing business.

He pays $120 a month for health insurance, "probably pure profit for my insurance company," he says. Without a powerhouse lobbying group, like AARP for older adults, young adults' voices have been muted, he says. He's been discouraged by the health care debate.

"It has made me disillusioned with the Democrats," he said.


It's nice to see some young people straining at the government dependency bit, if only just a bit. This is a pretty good illustration of how tricky it has always been to insure more people and cut costs at the same time by restricting the market further. These were the specious twin goals of Obamacare, but here, you're jacking up rates for young people, the most easily insurable in the country, making it harder for them to buy insurance in order to make it slightly easier to insure old people, whose care is already subsidized by the rest of us. And, when young people can't afford to buy the health care which should have been cheap but is now expensive, you're subsidizing them. Tell that story to most Americans, and they quite reasonably don't hear "savings."

The young people of the Obama generation are used to being able to change their cell-phone background pictures twice a day, to customize their iPods, cars, and DVRs to their exact specifications on a whim, and in many cases, for free. Obamacare will necessarily mean fewer choices for young people at higher prices, and it will not be the market's fault. Will they always hold the federal government, which takes a third of their income, to such an appreciably lower standard than they hold their $150 smart phones? Democrats are counting on it.

Via: The Weekly Standard

Economics For Dummies - The Nancy Pelosi Edition

Y ou probably missed it. But a new school of economics was unveiled last week shortly after health care reform passed the House of Representatives. Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped to the podium in the House chamber and said the legislation will “unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power” and create millions of jobs. “Our economy needs something new, a jolt,” she said. And she and her Democratic colleagues had just delivered it.

Pelosi, author of the new departure in economic thinking, said we should now “imagine a society and an economy where a person could change jobs without losing health insurance, where they could be self-employed or start a small business.” With health care reform, “their entrepreneurial spirit will be unleashed.”

That’s not the half of it. While insuring 32 million more people, making insurance “more affordable for the middle class,” producing “a healthier America through prevention, through wellness and innovation,” and a whole lot more—in addition to all that, the legislation creates “4 million jobs in the life of the bill and [does] all that by saving the taxpayer $1.3 trillion.”

The proper response if you believe Pelosi even a little bit is, “Thank you, Nancy!” or perhaps simply, “Wow!” But restrain yourself. Pelosi has a gift for economic lunacy. This wouldn’t be especially worrisome, except Pelosi is second in line to the presidency and would be prime minister if we had a parliamentary system.

So far as I know, Pelosi is the first person in the universe to regard the lack of portability of health insurance as a deathblow to entrepreneurship. This idea is, to put it mildly, farfetched. Is there evidence that budding entrepreneurs have been deterred by the fear of losing health insurance for a spell? Don’t bet on it. Are future Michael Dells or Ted Turners or Pierre Omidyars suppressing their entrepreneurial juices because their doctor visits aren’t covered? Please.

Pelosi, as is the habit of Democrats, cited an uncheckable and probably imaginary case. “If they had a child with diabetes who was bipolar  …  they would be job-locked,” she insisted. Maybe so. But a job-locked entrepreneur? It’s surely overkill to revolutionize our entire health care system for the sake of that rare bird. Besides, there’s COBRA, the federal law that permits an employee who quits to stay insured for months.

The prospect of 4 million new jobs as a result of health care reform is also fanciful. It’s based on a study by two economists sponsored by the Center for American Progress (CAP), an advocacy group for liberal Democratic legislation. The study claims the reform legislation will modernize the health care system, generate administrative savings, slow the growth in insurance premiums, and allow businesses to hire between 250,000 and 400,000 employees a year for a decade. On the basis of this, Pelosi acts as if 4 million new jobs are a slam dunk. She actually appears to believe it.

The problem is the assumption about savings. Any savings from modernization are likely to be more than offset by medical breakthroughs that balloon the cost of care. The Beacon Hill Institute in Boston, using a less rosy scenario than CAP, reached the more realistic conclusion that health care reform will destroy 120,000 to 700,000 jobs over the next 10 years.

The CAP study echoes one of Obama’s cherished claims. Since his days as a presidential candidate, he’s been insisting reform will “bend” health spending downward. But this is more than a stretch. It’s a dream. History tells a different story. When free or subsidized health care is offered by the government (Medicare, Medicaid), the cost far exceeds initial (and later) projections. This has been the case for state as well as federal programs. Indeed, it’s a worldwide phenomenon. The one exception is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which uniquely relies on free market competition. Pelosi, true to form, wants to replace that competition with price controls.

Pelosi is a faithful believer in the notion you can defy the laws of economic gravity and get more for less, once government steps in. Logic suggests otherwise. Health insurers will be forced to offer more benefits, including free preventive care, no annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and insurance for those with preexisting conditions. That’s just for starters. New taxes will be imposed on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers. A package of new benefits and tax hikes is hardly a recipe for cheaper premiums and lower overall health care costs.

Companies have already begun to figure out that their cost of doing business will rise, which means they won’t be hiring. Layoffs are more likely. Medtronic, which makes medical implements, said it might have to cut 1,000 jobs. It’s not only what businesses will pay for health insurance that is bound to increase. They’ll lose a tax break for providing drug coverage for retirees. And they’ll pay a higher Medicare tax for each employee.

There is one potential cost-cutting measure in the health reform legislation. High-cost, “Cadillac” insurance plans will face a 40 percent tax, which is certain to kill such plans and trim insurance costs.

But wait a minute. Pelosi didn’t like that tax. Four days after the reform bill passed, the Senate and House passed a second measure, dubbed “reconciliation.” Among other things, it delayed the 40 percent tax until 2018, a pretty good indication that the tax will never be levied.

Pelosi was in a joyful mood when reconciliation sailed through the House. It boosted health care spending, increased regulation, raised doctors’ fees, and added new taxes. Nonetheless, she asserted: “With this legislation in place, families will have access to even more affordable care” [emphasis added]. Her perverse school of economics had been vindicated again.

Via: Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Political Correctness Needs To Stop. Here's A Classic Example Why

Because of stupid crap like this.

The city of Davenport, Iowa, tried to remove Good Friday from its calendar and name it Spring Holiday instead. The reason: Why, separation of church and state of course! Not everyone celebrates Good Friday, so it’s discriminatory.

This is political correctness at its best: Using the guise of “separation of church and state,” those in power attempt to eradicate something they believe offends people. But council members say the administrator took matters into his own hands by not reporting to the Davenport city council — which is required to change any policy. Plus phones rang off the hook from people who complained.

So God-fearing Americans in Davenport can relax now: Good Friday will remain Good Friday.

500th Post!

Here it is, number 500! May not seem like a lot, but it is to me. The story below is something that I'm going through and many others are right now. I'm not working, but this article is about being unemployed, working part time and then having you benefits cut off and people who decided to take work, are actually making less. Read below:

Via Yahoo!: Roberta Hanson of North Haven, Conn., had been searching for work for 22 months when she landed a part-time job weekend afternoons and nights for a nearby municipal parks and recreation department.

But now Ms. Hanson rues the day she took that work. Why? The Connecticut Department of Labor used her negligible earnings in her part-time job as the new baseline for Hanson's unemployment benefits. She went from receiving $483 a week to getting nothing.

"Afterwards, unofficially, they said I shouldn’t have taken the job," Hanson says.

It's a twist in the law that may affect thousands of other workers, given that the ranks of the long-term unemployed are now so high. Many people who have been out of work for a year are picking up work as temps or part-timers, unaware that state agencies will recalculate their unemployment benefits after a year – and use their most recent work history and pay level to do it.

"What is going on for these workers is that because their most recent wages are much lower than the wages they earned in their prior full-time job, they are facing substantial cuts in their weekly unemployment benefits," says George Wentworth, a consultant at the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in New York.

Benefits recalculated after a year

Most of the people caught in this snag are on Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), a federal program to help those who have exhausted their state benefits. However, after workers have been jobless for 52 weeks, states are required to check to see if a worker has requalified for state benefits. If someone is eligible for state benefits – no matter how small – federal law requires that he or she stop collecting EUC and go back onto state benefits. The states, many with unemployment pools that are borrowing from the federal government, are dramatically reducing the amount paid out to individuals.

Mr. Wentworth cites the example of a Massachusetts woman who had been getting $540 a week in unemployment benefits and, when returned to state benefits, saw her weekly benefit cut to $103. To make matters worse, her husband, also unemployed, saw his benefit drop from $600 a week to $199 a week. Each cut came as a result of having taken a short-term job.

Hanson’s situation is even worse. Connecticut's formula for parttime workers is to take two-thirds of their gross salary (in her case $130 a week, which is $87) and subtract that amount from $39, which would be her weekly benefit based on the parttime job. This gives her a negative $48, or no benefit at all.

“Something is wrong,” Hanson says. “I am allowed to get nothing!”

Temp jobs on the rise

The potential reduction in benefits for parttimers and temps comes as temp services are starting to hire more workers because businesses don’t want to add fulltimers until they're sure the economic recovery is permanent. In February, temporary help services added 48,000 jobs, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Since September, jobs at temp services have risen by 284,000.

In the 1990s, the last time America saw high long-term unemployment among a sizable share of its work force, Congress changed the law to prevent the unemployed from being penalized for taking up parttime work. However, that change expired.

Now, Sen. Jack Reed (D) of Rhode Island is sponsoring legislation to accomplish the same thing today. Senator Reed attached his proposal to a bill that extended several tax provisions, plus farm disaster assistance, unemployment benefits, and COBRA health benefits.

“We need to incentivize people to find work, not unfairly punish folks who were able to find short-term, temporary employment,” said Reed in a statement.

However, the legislative package, which passed the Senate on March 10, is in limbo because the House version is different.

Reed argues that his change could potentially help states, because the long-term unemployed would receive benefits from the US Treasury. Many state unemployment funds are now insolvent and have had to borrow from the US government.

It could also help people like Hanson, who worked for 28 years for a Connecticut social services program that was eliminated. She is trying to support her elderly father as well as herself on her parttime job, credit cards, and Social Security. “I have written everyone from President Obama – from whom I [have] heard nothing back – to my local representative [in Congress], Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D), who is very supportive,” she says.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Black Tea Partiers To The Leftocracy: Enough With The Slanderous Race-Baiting

Three patriotic black conservative Americans tell the race-obsessed Democrat party and lib mainstream media to stop slandering the Tea Party movement as racists and instead report the news accurately for a change:

A Black President, the Progressive’s Perfect Trojan Horse
Lloyd Marcus



… I defend my fellow patriots who are white by stating, “These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama’s skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama’s race is not an issue”.

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama’s race not being an issue. In reality, Obama’s presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator’s virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama’s race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care,which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said “no” to both presidents’ proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer. He is black.

The mainstream media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be “played” and intimidated by Obama’s race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama’s progressive agenda must be stopped.


Democrats Lawyer Up
Kevin Jackson



The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Republicans remain the party of civil rights and Democrats are still slave owners. We find ourselves in a similar situation as in the mid 1800’s, and nothing has changed. This is why I call the year 2010, Emancipation II – This time even the white folks get freed. Freedom will again come by the hands of a Republican. This time it may be a black Republican who is America’s new Superman!

Black Republicans will be called on to stem the tide of Liberalism in black communities, or Democrat will continue to use black people to pass legislation that will not help black people or anybody else for that matter. Democrats have watered-down health care, just like they watered-down black people past and present. ...


Sunday, March 28, 2010 | Townhall
Demonizing Everyday Americans
Ken Blackwell



...Try the decaf, people.

Agents of big government and their boosters in the mainstream media seem determined to throw cold water on this growing grassroots movement that is a reaction to the Obama administration’s power grab of the growth and expansion of this country’s central government.

There’s a great deal of diversity among tea party people. Some just want lower taxes, and some also want less regulation. Still others are pro-life voters or Christian conservatives that also want fiscal responsibility. Many others push for conservative judges, while still others hold up signs calling for a restoration of American sovereignty, or protecting America’s borders, or defeating cap and trade or card check.

But they all have two things in common: They all want smaller government, and oppose the trampling of the Constitution embodied in these efforts to radically expand the size and scope of government. And as part of that desire, they want this utterly-ludicrous spending binge to end before it bankrupts all of us.

There’s nothing extremist about that agenda, because common sense is never extreme...


These three patriotic Americans are exactly right. Do not let the hateful, unprincipled, race-mongering Left shut us down. As Sarah Palin said the other day in Searchlight, Nevada: We're not going to sit down and shut up!

Oh, and by the way, there is a man named Col. Allen West, who served in Iraq. West is running on the Tea Party ticket in a Congressional district in Florida.

And Allen West is African-American



Via: Vocal Minority

Arizona Rancher Is Murdered Hours After Confrontation With Illegals

I used to live in Arizona and I also have a friend that works for the Border Patrol in South Arizona and these kind of stories just irritate me because it is wrong for this man to lose his life because of illegal immigrants taking advantage of our country. Violence is slowly spilling into our country in south Texas and in San Diego.

I remember recently there was a rancher in AZ who caught some illegals on his property, detained them until the border patrol got there and then, the illegals hired an American lawyer (probably from the ACLU) and sued the rancher because "accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch". I don't remember if the illegals won or not, but knowing our justice system now days, I'm sure they did. This guy had every right to defend his property and is being sued by people who have no right being here and are not legal citizens. Where's the justice in that??? Article here from the Washington Times 2009


Via: Breitbart TV

For some reason I can't get the code to work, just follow the link and it is also on KPHO's website.

As one person wrote:

As a native of Tucson, AZ, I am all too familiar with the illegal immigration issues that haunt the area.

Sadly, Mr. Krentz’ pity may have led to his death – like wild animals who have become accustomed to people, illegals only become more brazen and demanding as they come to expect assistance when they cross the border; those who defy them become the victims of their hostility, vitriol and spite.

Illegals and smugglers burglarize assault and murder people (both civilian and Border Patrol agents) along the border on a regular basis. Homes in the area are regularly ransacked, burglarized and shot up.

What is far more frightening is the fact that many of the intrusions into our country are at the hands of Mexican soldiers and police, who often assist in drug, gun and human smuggling. In 2008, there were nearly 300 (documented) incursions by Mexican officers and soldiers

Mr. Obama hopes to welcome these people into our country with open arms. I predict, here and now, that illegal immigration will be one of Mr. Obama’s next big pushes, and it will be his political suicide


And Another:

Gotta love those Poor illegals, Killing our citizens, Mexican Drug-lords smuggling drugs across the boarder, kidnapping American citizens, Taking over our national parks growing Pot and killing any hiker unlucky enough to stumble upon a pot farm in our own parks on our land. We have a new Islamic building being put up every day, many of them preaching death to america etc etc… But its nice to know the FBI is putting its efforts to good use going after Christian groups that own guns. The FBI must be taking orders directly from the white house. With Obama Care, and the promise of Amnesty, Illegals have never had more incentive to cross our boarders.

Illegal emigration is going to triple, Drug smuggling and violence is going to do the same. The united states will be a horrible place to live come 10 years. Socialism, Totalitarianism and Severe Poverty is what we will be known for. Soon, it will be other countries that will be dealing with Americans crossing into their countries illegally to escape the Hell hole formerly known as the United States of America. The losers that leach off of the people that actually work for a living and pay their own way are nothing but leaches that are killing their host and themselves in the process, but are too stupid to see it.

But hey, glad to see our law enforcement is focused on going after these pesky Christians.

CNN Poll: Big Shift On Closing Of Guantanamo Bay Facility.

Attitudes about the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have changed dramatically since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new national poll.

Support for closing the facility has dropped 12 points over the past 14 months, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates.

Shortly before Obama's inauguration, 51 percent of Americans said they thought the facility in Cuba should be closed. Now that number is down to 39 percent, and six in ten believe the United States should continue to operate Guantanamo.

The poll, released Sunday, suggests independent voters are contributing to the 12 point overall drop.

"Just Democrats still think that Guantanamo should be closed, but Independents have completely changed - from an even split in January 2009 to three-quarters who want to keep the facility open today," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

More than three out of four Republicans questioned in the poll think that the facility should stay open.

Upon taking office in January 2009, President Obama said he intended to shut down the controversial detention facility in a year. That deadline has slipped, with no specific date announced for closing Guantanamo.

"I believe we're going to get there, but it's complicated," White House senior adviser David Axelrod told CNN's Candy Crowley Sunday on "State of the Union," adding that there has been progress toward closing the facility.

Since 2001, the United States has used the facility to detain suspected terrorists from other countries.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted March 19-21, with 1,030 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Via: CNN

The Silent Entitlements Monster: Social Security, Medicare And Interest On The Debt Will Gobble Up Every Single Tax Dollar By 2020

There is a silent monster that looms menacingly over U.S. government finances. Every politician knows about it, but very few of them ever want to talk about it. This silent monster grows larger every year, and yet nobody seems to know quite what to do about it. Those who have closely analyzed this monster all seem to agree that one day it will create a financial tsunami of a magnitude that is absolutely unprecedented, but there is vast disagreement about how to escape this financial tsunami or if it is even possible to escape it.

The name of this monster is "entitlements" - Social Security, Medicare and other social Ponzi schemes that the U.S. government has locked itself into funding. It would be hard to understate the seriousness of the problem that entitlements present. In fact, according to an official U.S. government report, rapidly growing interest costs on the national debt together with spending on major entitlement programs will absorb approximately 92 cents of every dollar of federal revenue by the year 2019.

By 2020, that figure will be up around 100 cents of every dollar of federal revenue. So that means that interest on the debt and spending on entitlement programs will eat up everything the U.S. government takes in before a penny is spent on anything else. That is a recipe for national financial suicide.

And unfortunately, the problem is only going to get far, far worse when you project things out beyond the year 2020. Right now, interest on the debt and spending on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare eat up only about 10 percent of GDP. By 2080, they are projected to eat up approximately 50 percent of GDP. In fact, things are even more dire than the chart below indicates. This chart is based on previous government figures that projected that mandatory spending will exceed government revenues at some point between 2030 and 2040, but the latest government figures now project that this will happen right around 2020. So as mind blowing as this chart is, keep in mind that it actually understates the problem we are facing....



This week, there was news that the Social Security system is in much worse shape than previously projected. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this year the Social Security system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. This was not supposed to happen until at least 2016.

Now it is happening in 2010.

It turns out that the "recession" that we have just been through has hit Social Security revenues really hard.

And unfortunately, as waves of Baby Boomers start retiring, these "Social Security deficits" are going to get even worse.

So where will the money come from to pay the benefits that are owed?

For now, the money will come from the $2.5 trillion Social Security Trust Fund that has been accumulated.

But keep in mind that the $2.5 trillion figure is extremely misleading.

There are not $2.5 trillion dollars sitting around in a bank account somewhere to pay these benefits.

The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund does not contain any actual assets.

The only assets the Social Security Trust Fund has are IOUs from the U.S. government.

So basically the U.S. government owes the Social Security Trust Fund $2.5 trillion dollars, and now it turns out that the Social Security system is going to start needing that money.

So where will the U.S. government get that money?

Well, they will borrow it of course.

The reality is that the Social Security program is simply not sustainable.

Back in 1950 each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers. Today, each retiree's Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers. By 2025 it is projected that there will be about two workers for each retiree.

As a society, we simply have not been producing enough new workers to sustain the current system.

Of course the politicians all say the right things to make us think that they are going to do something about this crisis. For example, Barack Obama recently had the following to say about the massive deficits the U.S. government keeps piling up: "It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink".

But the truth is that neither political party would dare propose a dramatic restructuring of Social Security or Medicare that would significantly reduce benefits.

Why?

Because it would be political suicide.

Say what you want about old people - the truth is that they vote more than the rest of us do.

Anyone who would dare "take away" their Social Security or Medicare would suddenly find hordes of old people voting against them in the next election.

But something has to be done.

The 2009 Financial Report of the U.S. Government was recently released, and it basically says that the U.S. government is facing financial Armageddon if something drastic is not done....

Absent a change in policy, under this scenario, the interest costs on the growing debt together with spending on major entitlement programs could absorb 92 cents of every dollar of federal revenue in 2019.

Keep in mind that this is before anything is spent on defense, health care, education, homeland security, job creation or anything else.

The following chart was pulled right out of the report. These aren't the projections of some Internet wacko. These projections are in an official U.S. government report. The implications of the chart below are absolutely mind blowing...

Keep in mind that the U.S. government and the U.S. economy are already on the verge of financial oblivion in 2010. So what is going to happen if these projections are anywhere close to accurate?

In addition, the report also admitted that the present value of projected scheduled benefits exceeds earmarked revenues for entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare by about $46 trillion over the next 75 years.

$46 trillion!

Either the U.S. government is going to have to radically slash Social Security and Medicare benefits or they will have to come up with tens of trillions of extra dollars from somewhere.

And remember, the $46 trillion figure is just the "present value" of those future payments.

Because of inflation, the "actual value" of those future payments will be far greater.

In a section about Social Security and Medicare, the authors of the report confessed that "it is apparent that these programs are on a fiscally unsustainable path".

Obviously something has got to give.

These programs cannot keep on paying the same level of benefits.

It is financially impossible.

But what are we going to do? Millions upon millions of elderly Americans rely on these programs.

Are we going to reduce payments to a level where they can only afford dog food to eat and a shack to live in?

As a society, we are really between a rock and hard place.

If we continue on the same path, the United States government is going to go bankrupt.

But any politician who tries to cut benefits or raise taxes will likely face the wrath of the voters at the ballot box.

So for now the U.S. government just continues to spend even more money and continues to go into increasing amounts of debt - apparently hoping that somehow everything will just turn out okay.

But things are not going to turn out okay. We are headed for a financial mess of horrifying proportions.

The truth is that it doesn't matter how much the U.S. government cuts spending in other areas if it does not get entitlement spending and interest on the national debt under control. If those expenditures are not addressed, it is absolutely guaranteed that the U.S. government will be swamped in red ink for many years to come.

But until severe financial pain starts happening, a large percentage of the American people are not going to be motivated to do anything about this problem.

But by then it will be too late.

Via: The Economic Collapse

Climategate Shows "Big Science In It's Natural State"

Global warming alarmists are now alarmed because they cannot account for the cooling trend that has been evident since the late 1990s in contradiction to their climate models. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the planet has entered a cooling cycle that could persist for decades. Dr. Don Easterbook, for instance, a geologist and professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has concluded that sea surface temperatures will experience a drop that could last for the next 25 to 30 years based on his observations of the Pacific Decadal Oscilliation or PDO, a weather phenomenon that reverts between warm and cool modes.

Researchers who have long questioned the premise of man-made global warming theories point out that alarmist claims are driven more by computer models that omit key variables than they are by actual observations. The growing “climategate” scandal goes a long way toward vindicating the scientific skeptics who have been ostracized in the media and the academic community. Emails that have been leaked to the Internet from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia show that researchers have deliberately fudged and manipulated data in an effort to account for predicted catastrophic warming that has not materialized.

In his testimony before the British Parliament, Phil Jones, the CRU director, suggested that he would be cleared of any wrongdoing once a fuller body of evidence is presented. The emails that have been made public were only a “tenth of one percent” of his correspondence, Jones said.

If anything, the more recent email revelations serve to invalidate the use of climate models that figure prominently into the reports issued through the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC author wrote in an email addressed to other alarmists in October of last year. “The CERES data published in August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data surely are wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

In another email addressed to Tom Wigley, a physicist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Trenberth makes the following comment:

“Hi Tom — How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

This exchange is particularly significant because it demonstrates that climate models that have been used to rationalize expansive regulatory schemes are in error, Steve Milloy editor and founder of JunkScience.com said in interview.

“We’ve had no warming for the past 10-15 years, even though carbon dioxide emissions have increased,” he observed. “The upper atmosphere should be warming at a much greater rate than the lower atmosphere but this is not happening. It means that we don’t understand energy flows, and if you don’t understand how something works it cannot be modeled. It’s insanity to go forward with regulations that are not based on something we understand, but that’s what is being proposed.”

Although “climategate” is properly viewed as an “unexpected gift” to skeptics in that it shows “Big Science in its natural state,” it is not exactly new, laments David Berlinski, a senior fellow with The Discovery Institute.

“In the 1970s, the Club of Rome was on everyone’s lips with their hysterical warnings of mass disasters that were shortly to arrive,” he wrote in an email message. “My first book, On Systems Analysis, which I wrote for the MIT press, was an expose and a denunciation of the kind of stuff then current. I cannot see that anything has changed. Then as now, the people doing the hustle were doing it for money. Phil Jones and the CRU, after all, took 23 million dollars of public funds to fudge their data and the Club of Rome in their time took in as much.”

Berlinski continues:

“The overwhelming consensus is, as it always is, utter nonsense because it is in the first place an illusion: There are very many scientists who dissent from global warming. And it is utter nonsense because it is based on nothing more than a trend line. No one has the faintest idea what the trend represents or whether it will continue or whether even the trend itself was based on data so fudged as to be meaningless. The latter, I think.”

“What is at work deep down is a delusion as striking as various Zulu beliefs and no more credible: To wit, that because there is something that might for the sake of convenience be designated as the global atmosphere, there is as well a science of the global atmosphere, one in which for various initial conditions of the GA, laws of its evolution might be adduced from which explanations and predictions would flow. There is no such science; there are no such laws. To be sure one can say with easy confidence that the GA is determined by fundamental physics.”


Berlinski appeared in the 2008 documentary “Expelled : No Intelligence Allowed,” which probes into the mistreatment of scientists who have raised questions about Charles Darwin’s 150 year old theory of evolution. Ben Stein, the former Nixon speechwriter turned Hollywood actor, served as the film’s narrator. The film is built around the idea that free thinkers who dissent from the orthodoxy of “Big Science” are being silenced and marginalized. In light of the “climategate” scandal, “Expelled” now appears quite prescient.

Berlinski, who is also a noted mathematician, is not himself a proponent of Intelligent Design theory, but he does defend biologists and astronomers appearing in the documentary who are open to the idea as an alternative to Darwinian views that continue to dominate the scientific academy.

In reality, science has never operated by consensus. Over time, prevailing views are either substantiated or dismissed as new evidence emerges. The momentum is now very much with Easterbrook and other researchers who have identified natural forces as opposed to human activity as the primary driving force behind warming and cooling trends. Ideally, they should find greater expression.

But Berlinski is not so confident over the long term.

“Climate science stands exposed but only for the moment,” he wrote. “It will be back. I cannot see much difference between evolutionary science and climate science and I have no expectation that the winds of dissent will ever blow from the one to the other. Why should they? In just the past few years, large scale econometric models have, once again, been shown to be unreliable and intellectually worthless. The world-wide economy tanked and not one — not one! — econometric model predicted it.”

Global warming alarmism as a movement appears to have peaked; that’s the good news. A new Gallup Poll shows the American public now dismisses catastrophic claims. Unfortunately, the political agenda that always stood behind the man-made global warming scare remains in motion. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding aimed against greenhouse gasses could open the way to centralized planning and government control that irrevocably transforms American society.

Sen. Lisa Murkowsi (R-Alaska) has introduced a resolution to block EPA action under the Congressional Review Act. It deserves the full support of small government activists. But the economic case against new regulations, as important and compelling as they are, may be insufficient standing alone.

The grand designs of the statists who now hold sway in Washington D.C. can only be uprooted and defeated by attacking the nexus that exists between Big Government and Big Science. Swollen federal agencies that have victimized private property owners, business owners and private citizens in the name of environmentalism could become quite vulnerable in short order.

Via: Big Government

The Death Threat Against Eric Cantor That the Left is Ignoring, Who is Norman Leboon? Updated: Norman LeBoon, Obama Donor? Shia Muslim?

Follow this link and watch the disturbing videos and much more updates to this story on this link from The Left Coast Rebel. Some F'd up stuff from this nut job.

How did I miss this? Why isn't this a leading thread at Memeorandum? Wouldn't this be huge news if it had been directed towards Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Frank, any leftist politician?

This being a death threat made against Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA). Hadn't heard about it? Neither had I. The U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia released a statement today and affidavit as well:

PRESS RELEASE

PHILADELPHIA - Today, a two-count complaint and warrant was filed charging Norman Leboon with threatening to kill United States Congressman Eric Cantor and his family, and threatening to kill Congressman Eric Cantor, who is an official of the United States, announced United States Attorney Michael L. Levy and FBI Special Agent in Charge Jan Fedarcyk. As set forth in the affidavit to the complaint and warrant, in or about late March, 2010, Leboon created and then transmitted a YouTube video to Google over the internet, in which he threatened to kill Congressman Cantor and his family. No harm came to the Congressman or his family as a result of Leboon's threats.

"The Department of Justice takes threats against government officials seriously, especially threats to kill or injure others," said Levy. "Whether the reason for the threat is personal or political, threats are not protected by the First Amendment and are crimes."

INFORMATION REGARDING THE DEFENDANT

NAME ADDRESS AGE
Norman Leboon Philadelphia, PA 33 years old

If convicted of all the charges, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of 15 years imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, a fine up to $500,000, and a $200 special assessment.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Philadelphia Police Department, and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Robert K. Reed.

"You receive my bullets..." The money shot from the affidavit, referencing the video that LeBoon threatened Cantor in:

"Remember Eric ... our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy [expletive] pig. You're an abomination. You receive my bullets in your office. Remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations."

Scroll down to the bottom of the TPM article on this for the affidavit as well. Main stream press - why are you ignoring the violence against Republican politicians? I'd like to know more about this Norman Leboon guy too. Did the leftist press motivate him to do this?

Double Suicide Bombings Kills 37 On Moscow Subway - UPDATED

I can't believe this crap. More suicide bombings and it seems like women are now doing it more than the men. What is up with that? I don't condone violence especially terrorism. I think that is a cowardly way of handling your business.

Two female suicide bombers blew up a train in Russia, killing 37 people.

Fox News: Two female homicide bombers blew themselves up on Moscow’s subway system as it was jam-packed with rush-hour passengers Monday, killing at least 37 people and wounding 102, officials said.

The head of Russia’s main security agency said preliminary investigation places the blame on rebels from the restive Caucasus region that includes Chechnya, where separatists have fought Russian forces since the mid-1990s.

The first explosion took place just before 8 a.m. at the Lubyanka station in central Moscow. The station is underneath the building that houses the main offices of the Federal Security Service, or FSB, the KGB’s main successor agency.

A second explosion hit the Park Kultury station about 45 minutes later.

Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu said the toll was 37 killed and 102 injured, but he did not give a breakdown of casualties at each station, according to Russian news agencies.

“I heard a bang, turned my head and smoke was everywhere. People ran for the exits screaming,” said 24-year-old Alexander Vakulov, who said he was on a train on the platform opposite the targeted train at Park Kultury.

“I saw a dead person for the first time in my life,” said 19-year-old Valentin Popov, who had just arrived at the station from the opposite direction.


Michelle Malkin has more information and links, as well as the following observation:

Here’s a reminder of how the MSM whitewashes jihad from news coverage of Muslim jihadi terrorism in Russia. And another one. And more. Note the difference in how religion is played up in the headline coverage of the FBI raids of obscure Christian militia groups in Michigan versus the headline coverage of the generic “female suicide bombers” who subscribed to the Religion of Pieces. And be prepared to be called an “Islamophobe” for pointing out the striking differences.

No doubt the media will down play the religion of these terrorists, or ignore it all together.

Via: memeorandum and The Lonely Conservative and Yahoo!

Good description from Right Pundits:

A pair of coordinated attacks on subway stations in Moscow during rush hour this morning was responsible for the deaths of dozens of commuters. Russian police have speculated that the terrorists were Chechen rebels. The attacks today were alleged to have been conducted by ‘Black Widows’, women whose husbands or other relatives have died during the long-running Chechen Wars.

Chechnya has always had an uneasy relationship with first the Soviet Union, then Russia. Located in the southwestern corner of the vast nation, in the Caucasus Mountains, there have been numerous uprisings there against Russian control. Currently, the main problem is that Chechens seek autonomy from the Russian nation. Russia, though, claims that they are not entitled to independence, since they were not an independent entity within the Soviet Union prior to the nation’s breakup in the early 1990’s. This differs from other the Baltic States or other nations which have evolved in the last 20 years. Other reasons for Russia fighting the independence is that they fear that other regions would also succumb and that much of the oil wealth of the nation is located in Chechnya.

In the mid-1990’s, a war was fought between the two sides, which resulted in a massive level of deaths, both among the military on both sides, but also a high number of Chechen civilians. Since then, the Chechens have fought a guerrilla style confrontation, such as the one that occurred today. These guerrilla attacks led to a second Chechen War in late 1999. Eventually, Russia overwhelmed the Chechen loyalists, killed many governmental officials, and installed Russian federal control of the area.


Raw and news videos from Hot Air Pundit:







UPDATE: Moscow vows to "wipe out" those behind bombings. More here