5 hours ago
Thursday, December 31, 2009
AKA Obama ends the decade with a whimper, not a bang - minus 18
Rasmussen produces the most accurate polls because it employs "a single, digitally-recorded, voice to conduct the interview while traditional firms rely on phone banks, boiler rooms, and operator-assisted technology." That eliminates the possibility of interviewers influencing the results and encourages poll-takers to answer honestly since they respond anonymously to nonjudgmental computers.
What Happened to the Hominids Who Were Smarter Than Us?
In the autumn of 1913, two farmers were arguing about hominid skull fragments they had uncovered while digging a drainage ditch. The location was Boskop, a small town about 200 miles inland from the east coast of South Africa.
These Afrikaner farmers, to their lasting credit, had the presence of mind to notice that there was something distinctly odd about the bones. They brought the find to Frederick W. FitzSimons, director of the Port Elizabeth Museum, in a small town at the tip of South Africa. The scientific community of South Africa was small, and before long the skull came to the attention of S. H. Haughton, one of the country’s few formally trained paleontologists. He reported his findings at a 1915 meeting of the Royal Society of South Africa. “The cranial capacity must have been very large,” he said, and “calculation by the method of Broca gives a minimum figure of 1,832 cc [cubic centimeters].” The Boskop skull, it would seem, housed a brain perhaps 25 percent or more larger than our own.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Aristotle the Hun Has added Another Blog
Aristotle the Hun Has added Another Blog
Astro-Physics - Sub-Atomic Physics - Religion - Philosophy - Psychology - History
All in 20 typewritten pages
Pew and Pulpit Disagree on Immigration
http://www.cis.org/ReligionAndImmigrationPoll
In contrast to many national religious leaders who are lobbying for increases in immigration numbers, a new Zogby poll of likely voters who belong to the same religious communities finds strong support for reducing overall immigration. Moreover, the poll finds that members strongly disagree with their leaders’ contention that more immigrant workers need to be allowed into the country. Also, most parishioners and congregants advocate for more enforcement to cause illegal workers to go home, while most religious leaders are calling for putting illegal immigrants on a path to U.S. citizenship. The survey of Catholic, mainline Protestant, born-again Protestant, and Jewish voters used neutral language and was one of the largest polls on immigration ever done.
Among the findings:
Most members of religious denominations do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration, as many religious leaders do; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.
Catholics: Just 11 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 78 percent said it was caused by inadequate enforcement efforts.
Mainline Protestants: 18 percent said not enough legal immigration; 78 percent said inadequate
enforcement.
Born-Again Protestants: 9 percent said not enough legal immigration; 85 percent said inadequate enforcement.
Jews: 21 percent said not enough legal immigration; 60 percent said inadequate enforcement.
Unlike religious leaders who argue that more unskilled immigrant workers are needed, most members think there are plenty of Americans to do such work.
Catholics: 12 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill such jobs; 69 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do such jobs, employers just need to pay more.
Mainline Protestants: 10 percent said increase immigration; 73 percent said plenty of Americans available.
Born-Again Protestants: 7 percent said increase immigration; 75 percent said plenty of Americans available.
Jews: 16 percent said increase immigration; 61 percent said plenty of Americans available.
When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants to go home over time or a conditional pathway to citizenship, most members of religious communities choose enforcement.
Catholics: 64 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 23 percent support conditional legalization.
Mainline Protestants: 64 percent support enforcement; 24 percent support conditional legalization.
Born-Again Protestants: 76 percent support enforcement; 12 percent support conditional
legalization.
Jews: 43 percent support enforcement; 40 percent support conditional legalization.
In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high.
Catholics: 69 percent said immigration is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.
Mainline Protestants: 72 percent said it is too high; 2 percent said too low; 11 percent just right.
Born-Again Protestants: 78 percent said it is too high; 3 percent said too low; 9 percent just right.
Jews: 50 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said is too low; 22 percent just right.
In contrast to many national religious leaders who are lobbying for increases in immigration numbers, a new Zogby poll of likely voters who belong to the same religious communities finds strong support for reducing overall immigration. Moreover, the poll finds that members strongly disagree with their leaders’ contention that more immigrant workers need to be allowed into the country. Also, most parishioners and congregants advocate for more enforcement to cause illegal workers to go home, while most religious leaders are calling for putting illegal immigrants on a path to U.S. citizenship. The survey of Catholic, mainline Protestant, born-again Protestant, and Jewish voters used neutral language and was one of the largest polls on immigration ever done.
Among the findings:
Most members of religious denominations do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration, as many religious leaders do; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.
Catholics: Just 11 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 78 percent said it was caused by inadequate enforcement efforts.
Mainline Protestants: 18 percent said not enough legal immigration; 78 percent said inadequate
enforcement.
Born-Again Protestants: 9 percent said not enough legal immigration; 85 percent said inadequate enforcement.
Jews: 21 percent said not enough legal immigration; 60 percent said inadequate enforcement.
Unlike religious leaders who argue that more unskilled immigrant workers are needed, most members think there are plenty of Americans to do such work.
Catholics: 12 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill such jobs; 69 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do such jobs, employers just need to pay more.
Mainline Protestants: 10 percent said increase immigration; 73 percent said plenty of Americans available.
Born-Again Protestants: 7 percent said increase immigration; 75 percent said plenty of Americans available.
Jews: 16 percent said increase immigration; 61 percent said plenty of Americans available.
When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants to go home over time or a conditional pathway to citizenship, most members of religious communities choose enforcement.
Catholics: 64 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 23 percent support conditional legalization.
Mainline Protestants: 64 percent support enforcement; 24 percent support conditional legalization.
Born-Again Protestants: 76 percent support enforcement; 12 percent support conditional
legalization.
Jews: 43 percent support enforcement; 40 percent support conditional legalization.
In contrast to many religious leaders, most members think immigration is too high.
Catholics: 69 percent said immigration is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.
Mainline Protestants: 72 percent said it is too high; 2 percent said too low; 11 percent just right.
Born-Again Protestants: 78 percent said it is too high; 3 percent said too low; 9 percent just right.
Jews: 50 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said is too low; 22 percent just right.
Detroit Bomber Linked to Fort Hood shooter
The Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner had his suicide mission personally blessed in Yemen by Anwar al-Awlaki, the same Muslim imam suspected of radicalizing the Fort Hood shooting suspect, a U.S. intelligence source has told The Washington Times.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/awlaki-personally-blessed-detroit-attack/
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/awlaki-personally-blessed-detroit-attack/
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Birth of a Party-Tea party movement grows
Efforts could shake up 2010 elections
It could be the birth of a party.
Fueled by anger at politicians and distrust of the government, the rapidly growing tea party movement could upend the political establishment in the 2010 elections -- ultimately becoming a permanent, game-changing force in American politics.
Or, it could fizzle.
Even supporters aren't sure. Joyce Kaufman, a talk-show host on WFTL, AM 850, thinks the answer will come in the November elections. "If nothing happens in 2010, it falls apart," she said.
But she doesn't see that happening.
"It's going to be a huge dynamic. I don't think it's going to be easily defused. I think what you're going to see is an energized voice. What they will do is come out and vote. The tea party movement is going to make a difference," Kaufman said.
From its start in February with an on-air rant by CNBC analyst Rick Santelli, who said he was organizing a "Tea Party" for those opposed to the president's proposed homeowner bailout plan, the tea party brand has become formidable. Protesters turned out for tea party demonstrations in cities across the country on April 15, then again to voice their opposition to health care legislation at town hall meetings throughout the summer.
Now, tea party supporters and related groups have picked up where the demonstrations left off. They are active throughout the United States and in South Florida, where they're holding regular protests, preparing to register voters and recruiting more and more followers.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this month showed more than four in 10 Americans have a favorable view of the movement, significantly more than the 24 percent with a negative opinion. That was better than the 35 percent positive rating for Democrats and the 28 percent Republicans got. In a Rasmussen poll in December, more people said they would vote for tea party movement candidates than for Republican ones -- 23 percent to 18 percent, respectively.
Supporters disagree over how to best harness the movement's energy.
Charlotte Beasley, a Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic Palm Beach County Commissioner Burt Aaronson in 2008, said she thinks a tea party third party would be strong -- and she's a member of the Republican Executive Committee, the governing body of the Palm Beach County Republican Party.
She thinks it would get something done. "It would hurt the Republican Party absolutely, but I think it's a good idea. People have a bad taste for Democrats and a bad taste for Republicans," she said.
Danita Kilcullen, of Fort Lauderdale, co-leader of the tea party group that protests every Saturday afternoon at the intersection of Oakland Park Boulevard and Federal Highway, said she thinks a tea party "third party" is a bad idea.
"I know that there's talk," she said. "I'm not for any third party that splits the [Republican] Party. I just want the Republican Party to get back on track. That's really what we want."
Political science professor Robert Watson, director of American studies at Lynn University in Boca Raton, said a third party won't happen.
"Everybody wants a third party, and everybody says the time is right, but it just doesn't happen," he said. " Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were interesting and enigmatic, but even they couldn't get a third party going."
So far, the movement is loosely organized, and it's impossible to say how many tea party supporters there are in South Florida. Activities depend on participants' energy and interests.
In Broward, tea partiers have gathered, rain or shine, with signs and American flags every Saturday for more than 40 straight weeks at the intersection of Oakland Park Boulevard and Federal Highway. Demonstrators can bring signs addressing whatever issues they consider most important.
In Palm Beach County, tea party organizers are conducting voter registration drives, looking for an office and seeking volunteers who speak Hebrew, are willing to make phone calls, and are able to knock on doors.
So are members of related groups, such as the 9-12 Project, whose members in Miami-Dade have been lobbying state legislators. Spawned by Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, 9-12 members say they're dedicated to returning the United States to the sense of unity felt the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"For far too long the silent majority has been silent," said Beth Culbertson, of Parkland. Culbertson, who has participated in the Fort Lauderdale protests and is starting similar weekly events in her city, said her goal is "awareness, for Americans to wake up. We have corruption. We have big taxing, big spending, big government. Enough. Stop with the spending. Just stop with the spending. Just stop it. This administration is driving us over a cliff. It's not all this administration. It's the one before it, too. We have had enough. It's not about left. It's not about right. Our common ground is freedom."
Sid Dinerstein, chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, said he thinks the tea party movement ultimately will help his party. "While we can't predict how this will play out, the country needs the discussion that the tea party people are asking us to have."
A growing and vibrant tea party movement could also threaten the Republican Party, by stealing away voters from its base.
"How do you really manage these things? It's like trying to put the genie back in the bottle," said Watson, the political science professor. "You've released the rats to terrorize your enemy, but how do you get them back in the pen?"
Anthony Man can be reached at aman@SunSentinel.com or at 954-356-4550.
It could be the birth of a party.
Fueled by anger at politicians and distrust of the government, the rapidly growing tea party movement could upend the political establishment in the 2010 elections -- ultimately becoming a permanent, game-changing force in American politics.
Or, it could fizzle.
Even supporters aren't sure. Joyce Kaufman, a talk-show host on WFTL, AM 850, thinks the answer will come in the November elections. "If nothing happens in 2010, it falls apart," she said.
But she doesn't see that happening.
"It's going to be a huge dynamic. I don't think it's going to be easily defused. I think what you're going to see is an energized voice. What they will do is come out and vote. The tea party movement is going to make a difference," Kaufman said.
From its start in February with an on-air rant by CNBC analyst Rick Santelli, who said he was organizing a "Tea Party" for those opposed to the president's proposed homeowner bailout plan, the tea party brand has become formidable. Protesters turned out for tea party demonstrations in cities across the country on April 15, then again to voice their opposition to health care legislation at town hall meetings throughout the summer.
Now, tea party supporters and related groups have picked up where the demonstrations left off. They are active throughout the United States and in South Florida, where they're holding regular protests, preparing to register voters and recruiting more and more followers.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this month showed more than four in 10 Americans have a favorable view of the movement, significantly more than the 24 percent with a negative opinion. That was better than the 35 percent positive rating for Democrats and the 28 percent Republicans got. In a Rasmussen poll in December, more people said they would vote for tea party movement candidates than for Republican ones -- 23 percent to 18 percent, respectively.
Supporters disagree over how to best harness the movement's energy.
Charlotte Beasley, a Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic Palm Beach County Commissioner Burt Aaronson in 2008, said she thinks a tea party third party would be strong -- and she's a member of the Republican Executive Committee, the governing body of the Palm Beach County Republican Party.
She thinks it would get something done. "It would hurt the Republican Party absolutely, but I think it's a good idea. People have a bad taste for Democrats and a bad taste for Republicans," she said.
Danita Kilcullen, of Fort Lauderdale, co-leader of the tea party group that protests every Saturday afternoon at the intersection of Oakland Park Boulevard and Federal Highway, said she thinks a tea party "third party" is a bad idea.
"I know that there's talk," she said. "I'm not for any third party that splits the [Republican] Party. I just want the Republican Party to get back on track. That's really what we want."
Political science professor Robert Watson, director of American studies at Lynn University in Boca Raton, said a third party won't happen.
"Everybody wants a third party, and everybody says the time is right, but it just doesn't happen," he said. " Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were interesting and enigmatic, but even they couldn't get a third party going."
So far, the movement is loosely organized, and it's impossible to say how many tea party supporters there are in South Florida. Activities depend on participants' energy and interests.
In Broward, tea partiers have gathered, rain or shine, with signs and American flags every Saturday for more than 40 straight weeks at the intersection of Oakland Park Boulevard and Federal Highway. Demonstrators can bring signs addressing whatever issues they consider most important.
In Palm Beach County, tea party organizers are conducting voter registration drives, looking for an office and seeking volunteers who speak Hebrew, are willing to make phone calls, and are able to knock on doors.
So are members of related groups, such as the 9-12 Project, whose members in Miami-Dade have been lobbying state legislators. Spawned by Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, 9-12 members say they're dedicated to returning the United States to the sense of unity felt the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"For far too long the silent majority has been silent," said Beth Culbertson, of Parkland. Culbertson, who has participated in the Fort Lauderdale protests and is starting similar weekly events in her city, said her goal is "awareness, for Americans to wake up. We have corruption. We have big taxing, big spending, big government. Enough. Stop with the spending. Just stop with the spending. Just stop it. This administration is driving us over a cliff. It's not all this administration. It's the one before it, too. We have had enough. It's not about left. It's not about right. Our common ground is freedom."
Sid Dinerstein, chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, said he thinks the tea party movement ultimately will help his party. "While we can't predict how this will play out, the country needs the discussion that the tea party people are asking us to have."
A growing and vibrant tea party movement could also threaten the Republican Party, by stealing away voters from its base.
"How do you really manage these things? It's like trying to put the genie back in the bottle," said Watson, the political science professor. "You've released the rats to terrorize your enemy, but how do you get them back in the pen?"
Anthony Man can be reached at aman@SunSentinel.com or at 954-356-4550.
Taste of what's to come - The 5.0 is back! The 2011 Ford Mustang GT
Watch this site for other 5.0 excitement next week:
Monday, December 28, 2009
Midnight Review has changed URL - Google shut down my Midknight Review on Dec 26.
Google shut down my Midknight Review on Dec 26.
Read about it:Google purges Midknight Review from the Internet for bogus reasons.
My opinion is that a renegade agent (Google employee) is responsible for this rather than it being the policy of Google.
Read about it:Google purges Midknight Review from the Internet for bogus reasons.
My opinion is that a renegade agent (Google employee) is responsible for this rather than it being the policy of Google.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
No pastels in Florida
No pastels in Florida
Donald Lambro
Conservative challenger Marco Rubio has surged into a dead heat in his Florida Senate campaign against establishment-backed Charlie Crist in a primary battle that is the first major test of the growing power of the "tea party" movement.
Mr. Rubio's once-underdog candidacy, which has been trailing far behind the better-financed Republican governor for months, is suddenly catching fire, helped by the conservative Club for Growth and an army of tea party activists drawn by his unequivocal anti-tax, anti-big government campaign.
The latest Rasmussen telephone poll showed Mr. Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and Florida's former speaker of the House, was tied among Republican primary voters, 43-43 percent.
Mr. Crist, in his first term as governor, is the hand-picked candidate of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, recruited and all but endorsed by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the NRSC's chairman. His decision to run was widely seen as nailing down the open Senate seat for the Republican Party, and Mr. Rubio's challenge was dismissed as a lost cause by the party's right flank.
But Mr. Rubio unleashed a relentless barrage of attacks that challenged Mr. Crist's conservative credentials, charging he had raised taxes to balance the state's budget and embraced President Obama's nearly $800 billion, waste-ridden, economic spending stimulus that was overwhelmingly opposed by Republicans in Congress.
For months, the nonstop attacks seemed to throw Mr. Crist on the defensive. So much so that at one point he denied he had endorsed Mr. Obama's big-spending plan to get the economy moving again. But then the Club for Growth came in, running TV ads across the state showing Mr. Crist standing next to Mr. Obama at a Florida rally, fully endorsing the big spending pork-barrel bill.
The TV ads drew blood and elevated Mr. Rubio into a major candidate to be reckoned with, boosting his support from the Republican Party's conservative base and tea party activists and organizers in particular.
Things went from bad to worse this month when Mr. Crist was asked if he would support Mr. Obama's recent call - in the face of a 10 percent jobless rate - for a second similar stimulus spending bill. "It depends what's in it," he said.
Mr. Crist has badly underestimated the growing conservative mood of his state's electorate toward Mr. Obama's big-government policies, even for a so-called jobs bill in the midst of a deepening recession.
"What's really exceptional at this stage of Mr. Obama's presidency is the extent to which the public has moved in a conservative direction on a range of issues," writes veteran pollster Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center at PewResearch.org.
Surprisingly, this trend has "emanated as much from the middle of the electorate as from the highly energized conservative right," Mr. Kohut says - producing a "backlash against Obama policies that have expanded the role of governnment."
The latest Rasmussen poll in the Crist-Rubio contest reflect Mr. Kohut's findings. Earlier this year, soon after Mr. Crist announced his candidacy, he was flying high and all but assured of the GOP's nomination for the Senate.
But as Mr. Rubio and the Club for Growth stepped up their fall ad campaign, Mr. Crist's support began dropping from 53 percent in August to 49 percent in October. "The fact that Mr. Crist has fallen below 50 percent in a primary against a lesser known opponent suggests potential vulnerability," Mr. Rasmussen said at the time.
Mr. Rubio is now viewed "very favorably" by 34 percent of likely primary voters, up from 18 percent who said that this summer. Mr. Crist, on the other hand, has seen his "very favorable" ratings drop to 19 percent.
"I believe voters are starting to realize that there are vast differences between me and Charlie Crist on a number of important issues," Mr. Rubio said in a statement.
A few national party leaders have begun to break for Mr. Rubio, including South Carolina Jim DeMint. Republican campaign strategist Karl Rove noted in his Wall Street Journal column last week that he has donated to Mr. Rubio's campaign, but says either Mr. Crist or Mr. Rubio "will likely hold the seat."
But there is an even larger political struggle going on here for the soul of the Republican Party and its future ideological direction.
The party's base has, to a large degree, turned against candidates that are too often willing to water down party principles for the sake of political expediency - as Mr. Crist has done on Mr. Obama's failed stimulus plan. Like the campaign theme struck by Ronald Reagan in his 1976 campaign against President Gerald Ford, the Republican bedrock base wants the party's policy positions to be drawn in bold colors, not "pale pastels."
Andrew Kohut's polling analysis accurately portrays the rightward trend of the nation's electorate. There is a huge backlash building against the far-left policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress.
Mr. Obama's job approval numbers fell this month into the 40s. Congress' approval ratings are in the teens. The current outlook in the House is a Democratic loss of 20 to 30 seats, and elections handicapper Stuart Rothenberg says "Republican Senate gains are now looking likely."
Donald Lambro
Conservative challenger Marco Rubio has surged into a dead heat in his Florida Senate campaign against establishment-backed Charlie Crist in a primary battle that is the first major test of the growing power of the "tea party" movement.
Mr. Rubio's once-underdog candidacy, which has been trailing far behind the better-financed Republican governor for months, is suddenly catching fire, helped by the conservative Club for Growth and an army of tea party activists drawn by his unequivocal anti-tax, anti-big government campaign.
The latest Rasmussen telephone poll showed Mr. Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and Florida's former speaker of the House, was tied among Republican primary voters, 43-43 percent.
Mr. Crist, in his first term as governor, is the hand-picked candidate of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, recruited and all but endorsed by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the NRSC's chairman. His decision to run was widely seen as nailing down the open Senate seat for the Republican Party, and Mr. Rubio's challenge was dismissed as a lost cause by the party's right flank.
But Mr. Rubio unleashed a relentless barrage of attacks that challenged Mr. Crist's conservative credentials, charging he had raised taxes to balance the state's budget and embraced President Obama's nearly $800 billion, waste-ridden, economic spending stimulus that was overwhelmingly opposed by Republicans in Congress.
For months, the nonstop attacks seemed to throw Mr. Crist on the defensive. So much so that at one point he denied he had endorsed Mr. Obama's big-spending plan to get the economy moving again. But then the Club for Growth came in, running TV ads across the state showing Mr. Crist standing next to Mr. Obama at a Florida rally, fully endorsing the big spending pork-barrel bill.
The TV ads drew blood and elevated Mr. Rubio into a major candidate to be reckoned with, boosting his support from the Republican Party's conservative base and tea party activists and organizers in particular.
Things went from bad to worse this month when Mr. Crist was asked if he would support Mr. Obama's recent call - in the face of a 10 percent jobless rate - for a second similar stimulus spending bill. "It depends what's in it," he said.
Mr. Crist has badly underestimated the growing conservative mood of his state's electorate toward Mr. Obama's big-government policies, even for a so-called jobs bill in the midst of a deepening recession.
"What's really exceptional at this stage of Mr. Obama's presidency is the extent to which the public has moved in a conservative direction on a range of issues," writes veteran pollster Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center at PewResearch.org.
Surprisingly, this trend has "emanated as much from the middle of the electorate as from the highly energized conservative right," Mr. Kohut says - producing a "backlash against Obama policies that have expanded the role of governnment."
The latest Rasmussen poll in the Crist-Rubio contest reflect Mr. Kohut's findings. Earlier this year, soon after Mr. Crist announced his candidacy, he was flying high and all but assured of the GOP's nomination for the Senate.
But as Mr. Rubio and the Club for Growth stepped up their fall ad campaign, Mr. Crist's support began dropping from 53 percent in August to 49 percent in October. "The fact that Mr. Crist has fallen below 50 percent in a primary against a lesser known opponent suggests potential vulnerability," Mr. Rasmussen said at the time.
Mr. Rubio is now viewed "very favorably" by 34 percent of likely primary voters, up from 18 percent who said that this summer. Mr. Crist, on the other hand, has seen his "very favorable" ratings drop to 19 percent.
"I believe voters are starting to realize that there are vast differences between me and Charlie Crist on a number of important issues," Mr. Rubio said in a statement.
A few national party leaders have begun to break for Mr. Rubio, including South Carolina Jim DeMint. Republican campaign strategist Karl Rove noted in his Wall Street Journal column last week that he has donated to Mr. Rubio's campaign, but says either Mr. Crist or Mr. Rubio "will likely hold the seat."
But there is an even larger political struggle going on here for the soul of the Republican Party and its future ideological direction.
The party's base has, to a large degree, turned against candidates that are too often willing to water down party principles for the sake of political expediency - as Mr. Crist has done on Mr. Obama's failed stimulus plan. Like the campaign theme struck by Ronald Reagan in his 1976 campaign against President Gerald Ford, the Republican bedrock base wants the party's policy positions to be drawn in bold colors, not "pale pastels."
Andrew Kohut's polling analysis accurately portrays the rightward trend of the nation's electorate. There is a huge backlash building against the far-left policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress.
Mr. Obama's job approval numbers fell this month into the 40s. Congress' approval ratings are in the teens. The current outlook in the House is a Democratic loss of 20 to 30 seats, and elections handicapper Stuart Rothenberg says "Republican Senate gains are now looking likely."
Did NASA Blow Up Its Own Carbon Detecting Satellite?
How did I miss this BLOG? Really great writing. I have added this to my BLOG roll.
Did NASA Blow Up Its Own Carbon Detecting Satellite?
NASA's 280 million dollar Orbiting Carbon Observatory fell into the Antarctic after it failed to make orbit.
Now, I'm not a Truther who believes 9/11 was an inside job produced by George Bush, nor am I certain BO is a U.S. citizen, but where there's smoke, there's fire from a burning birth certificate somewhere . . .
NASA's carbon checking satellite was launched with the intention of definitively mapping the amount and effects of that evil atom, carbon, on the earth, which has alone been responsible for loading western universities with a non diversity of well funded junk scientists, who have discovered such amazing things as "global warming has caused an increase in prostitution in the Philippines."
And how, you might ask, is the faux heating of the earth heating up the street girls in the Philippines? It seems, according to some junk science reports, that the hotter earth has deprived Filipino fisherman of a good catch, thus forcing their wives back in the village to snag Johns to make up for the lack of income.
You just hear the craziest things in Copenhagen.
NASA has been at the forefront of the global warming, ne climate change, slam down ever since the reduction of its significance (and budget) after many stellar years of admirable and successful missions, which have accomplished everything from landing on the moon (Yes, I believe it) to discovering Velcro and Teflon. The list of inventions and innovations emanating from NASA in its heyday goes on and on, but something happened.
Despite many successes, the space shuttle Challenger blew up in 1986, killing 7 astronauts, due to the failure of a giant O-Ring which allowed explosive fuel to be leaked out of the rocket. The entire space program was placed on hold for several years, while the American public grieved and learned that science involves experimentation, and is never perfect, and often deadly.
Sadly, again in 2003 another 7 American astronauts were killed during reentry of the shuttle Columbia. This is where junk science starts to intrude its ugly head. During the launch of Columbia, a chunk of the rocket's insulating foam fell onto a wing of the shuttle, thus harming the insulating properties of the craft. Obviously, the shuttle needs the insulation for withstanding the several thousand degrees of heat it is exposed to during reentry from space.
Prior to Columbia's crash, a non Environmental Protection Agency approved insulating foam was employed, and it did a good job of both insulating the rocket, and not falling off. That was not good enough for the EPA which demanded a more "environmentally friendly foam," which also had the tendency to break apart, thus endangering the shuttles. And, they knew this. Junk Science kills again!
NASA's and the Goddard Space Center's James Hansen has been at the forefront of the Global Warming debacle, and I think, in part simply because NASA has been in desperate need of new missions since the signing off of the Space Shuttle Program. Hansen has been the most notoriously whorish hawk of promoting the Climate Change scare, and has even called for public trials condemning CEOs and others who doubt carbon caused global super-warming.
And, he (NASA) needs money, and a future. With the public's waining interest in all things spacial, NASA has been ramping up its junk science, just like the many universities and green business, which have "seen the light" of the vast amount of monies that may be extorted by getting on the all-electric powered bandwagon.
Just this past week, it has been reported that the Obama administration may be paying off one of its largest campaign supporters - NASA - with a hefty 20 billion dollar budget, which will, no doubt "discover" even more science - proving how hot, hot, hot its going to get on planet earth - primarily due to man's carbon footprint.
One has to wonder, with all this "trick" science going on, as proven by the East Anglia emails, if NASA may have scuttled its Carbon detecting satellite for fear that it would verify that carbon is not so much a problem. NASA's own satellites have shown that the earth's average temperature has declined by almost a degree since Al Gore filmed Inconvenient Truth. See satellite cooling data at AlGoreLied.Com. See also Eight Year Downtrend Continues In Global Temps.
Even before the East Anglia email explosion this past year, NASA was caught red-hot handed in falsifying temperatures by blatantly assigning September 2008's temperatures to October 2008, just to make October of that year look warmer.
One of the most overlooked stories of 2009, which further proves the sham of excessive global warming, was the journey of 3,000 NASA-sponsored undersea robots which roamed the sea for 5 years recording ocean temperatures.
Guess what? No global sea warming! Why wasn't this great revelation printed by the state controlled media? I guess they just wanted to "hide the decline."
Did NASA Blow Up Its Own Carbon Detecting Satellite?
NASA's 280 million dollar Orbiting Carbon Observatory fell into the Antarctic after it failed to make orbit.
Now, I'm not a Truther who believes 9/11 was an inside job produced by George Bush, nor am I certain BO is a U.S. citizen, but where there's smoke, there's fire from a burning birth certificate somewhere . . .
NASA's carbon checking satellite was launched with the intention of definitively mapping the amount and effects of that evil atom, carbon, on the earth, which has alone been responsible for loading western universities with a non diversity of well funded junk scientists, who have discovered such amazing things as "global warming has caused an increase in prostitution in the Philippines."
And how, you might ask, is the faux heating of the earth heating up the street girls in the Philippines? It seems, according to some junk science reports, that the hotter earth has deprived Filipino fisherman of a good catch, thus forcing their wives back in the village to snag Johns to make up for the lack of income.
You just hear the craziest things in Copenhagen.
NASA has been at the forefront of the global warming, ne climate change, slam down ever since the reduction of its significance (and budget) after many stellar years of admirable and successful missions, which have accomplished everything from landing on the moon (Yes, I believe it) to discovering Velcro and Teflon. The list of inventions and innovations emanating from NASA in its heyday goes on and on, but something happened.
Despite many successes, the space shuttle Challenger blew up in 1986, killing 7 astronauts, due to the failure of a giant O-Ring which allowed explosive fuel to be leaked out of the rocket. The entire space program was placed on hold for several years, while the American public grieved and learned that science involves experimentation, and is never perfect, and often deadly.
Sadly, again in 2003 another 7 American astronauts were killed during reentry of the shuttle Columbia. This is where junk science starts to intrude its ugly head. During the launch of Columbia, a chunk of the rocket's insulating foam fell onto a wing of the shuttle, thus harming the insulating properties of the craft. Obviously, the shuttle needs the insulation for withstanding the several thousand degrees of heat it is exposed to during reentry from space.
Prior to Columbia's crash, a non Environmental Protection Agency approved insulating foam was employed, and it did a good job of both insulating the rocket, and not falling off. That was not good enough for the EPA which demanded a more "environmentally friendly foam," which also had the tendency to break apart, thus endangering the shuttles. And, they knew this. Junk Science kills again!
NASA's and the Goddard Space Center's James Hansen has been at the forefront of the Global Warming debacle, and I think, in part simply because NASA has been in desperate need of new missions since the signing off of the Space Shuttle Program. Hansen has been the most notoriously whorish hawk of promoting the Climate Change scare, and has even called for public trials condemning CEOs and others who doubt carbon caused global super-warming.
And, he (NASA) needs money, and a future. With the public's waining interest in all things spacial, NASA has been ramping up its junk science, just like the many universities and green business, which have "seen the light" of the vast amount of monies that may be extorted by getting on the all-electric powered bandwagon.
Just this past week, it has been reported that the Obama administration may be paying off one of its largest campaign supporters - NASA - with a hefty 20 billion dollar budget, which will, no doubt "discover" even more science - proving how hot, hot, hot its going to get on planet earth - primarily due to man's carbon footprint.
One has to wonder, with all this "trick" science going on, as proven by the East Anglia emails, if NASA may have scuttled its Carbon detecting satellite for fear that it would verify that carbon is not so much a problem. NASA's own satellites have shown that the earth's average temperature has declined by almost a degree since Al Gore filmed Inconvenient Truth. See satellite cooling data at AlGoreLied.Com. See also Eight Year Downtrend Continues In Global Temps.
Even before the East Anglia email explosion this past year, NASA was caught red-hot handed in falsifying temperatures by blatantly assigning September 2008's temperatures to October 2008, just to make October of that year look warmer.
One of the most overlooked stories of 2009, which further proves the sham of excessive global warming, was the journey of 3,000 NASA-sponsored undersea robots which roamed the sea for 5 years recording ocean temperatures.
Guess what? No global sea warming! Why wasn't this great revelation printed by the state controlled media? I guess they just wanted to "hide the decline."
Factual History of Terror Test-Runs on Airlines
Terror Test-Runs on Airlines?
By John Leonard
After my article on the biazarre incident on AirTran Flight 297 was published, one reader going by the initials VHG said something that immediately caught my attention. The comment referred to an apparently similar occurrence that happened on United Airlines flight #227 in Denver on December 9th,, only two days before my article appeared.
While the story of that flight continues to unfold, I believe it is time again to update American Thinkers with the current state of the developments surrounding these stories.
Chris Vanderveen from 9News.com in Colorado interviewed passengers from the plane that was reportedly delayed because of the suspicious behavior by a group of men during pre-flight preparations. Although the one passenger from the flight with whom I spoke that agreed to be quoted on condition of anonymity described the incident from his vantage point as "not that big of a deal," the fact that passengers were removed from the plane and not allowed to re-board, plus that bomb-sniffing dogs checked the luggage before the plane was allowed to depart from the gate, simply suggests that the action that caused the flight delay occurred outside his line of sight.
Bad behavior causing flight disruptions is not uniquely limited to individuals belonging to certain ethnic groups. Flights have been rerouted or delayed by the actions of drunken or stupid travelers of practically every nationality. The most famous security breach at Hartsfield airport in Atlanta involved a 32-year-old caucasian man who forced temporary closure of the entire airport while trying to evade security in order to make his flight in time to attend a football game. However, those incidents tend to be isolated, not repeated.
Given the differences between the official AirTran account of the incident and those of multiple passengers allegedly on the flight, I contacted Christopher White of AirTran hoping to resolve those discrepancies. Specifically, I asked Mr. White if AirTran planned to revise its official statement describing the incident as simply a customer service issue that occurred due to a relatively minor miscommunication involving a single passenger. I referred Mr. White to the interview of a passenger named Brown by WSB TV. In that interview, Mr. Brown indicated that multiple passengers were engaged in behavior significantly more disconcerting than that described by the rather innocuous account given by AirTran.
Mr. White's response to the questions I posed regarding Mr. Brown's version of what happened was confusing to say the least. Mr. White had no problem reiterating the point that the story originated from an e-mail attributed to one specific passenger. AirTran took great pains to discredit this individual. They refused to discuss comments made by other passengers of a similar nature but without the sensational details.
When asked to reconcile the difference between Mr. Brown's statement (that his experience was one of the most alarming he'd undergone in twenty years of frequent flying) against the "customer service" issue characterization by AirTran and the TSA, Mr. White responded:
I believe Mr. Brown is accurately portraying his perception of what happened. His perspective is limited to the cabin. For example. He suggested we contact the police and "expected blue lights to meet the plane. [e-mail 12/16/09 2:46 pm from Christopher White of AirTran to me]
On the other hand, when I wrote,
I'm not trying to accuse AirTran of any wrongdoing, but I am saying it appears your official report appears to have some serious factual discrepancies with the accounts already out there, from Mr. Brown in particular. Have you spoken to Mr. Brown or are you familiar with his account? [same email]
Mr. White's answer was simply "No."
No what? No, he's not familiar with Brown's account or no, he hasn't spoken with him? Mr. White's answers to the remainder of my questions were equally blunt: No, I may not speak with the flight crew. No, AirTran won't revise its story no matter what people actually on the plane have said. In other words, that's our story, and we're sticking to it.
Saying Mr. White provided more information than United Airlines' spokeswoman regarding flight 227 to this point isn't saying much. United says they are still investigating the incident a week after it happened. Their spokeswoman wrote back,
[W]e have not publicly reported what may or may not have happened onboard. As part of our commitment to safety, any conversation we have with another airline about security is a private matter.
Her last sentence is a response to my question as to whether any common denominators between the incidents on Flight #297 and Flight #227 have been discussed with either TSA officials or AirTran.
In Vanderveen's article on Flight #227, he reported that bomb-sniffing dogs were brought aboard the plane, which was confirmed by the passenger with whom I spoke. The men forced to deplane were described as "attempting to change seats with other passengers," and another said "the men were trying to move luggage around while the plane was getting ready to push back."
In both cases, the planes were delayed, passengers were inconvenienced and unduly alarmed, and by most accounts, the flight crews on both planes were frightened out of their wits.
Common Denominators
The situation that allegedly occurred on United flight #227 seems to have a few common denominators with what apparently happened on AirTran. In both cases, a group of men apparently of Middle Eastern descent exhibited enough strange behavior to concern the pilots, flight crew, and other passengers enough into delaying the flight, resulting in inconvenience to the passengers and unnecessary expense for the airlines.
Chronology of Pattern Behavior
Once the point had been reached where additional information is no longer forthcoming about these two flights in the foreseeable future, I didn't know where to look for more information. An experienced reporter working on these stories suggested I turn my attention backwards to seeing whether any dots could be connected to incidents on past flights.
America West Flight 90 -- Nov 19, 1999. In this pre-September 11th incident, two passengers speaking Arabic roamed the plane without permission and attempted to enter the cockpit in what has been described by the 9/11 commission in their report as a dry run. "Students" Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi were placed in custody and removed from the flight. Bomb-sniffing dogs were brought to search the plane. The airline was sued for discrimination, but the case was dismissed.
Northwest Flight 327 -- Jun 29, 2004. Described by flight marshals as a terrorist dry run, thirteen men of Syrian descent changed seats, congregated in the aisles, used the bathrooms excessively, appeared nervous, and behaved in a strange manner long enough to draw attention and concern from fellow passengers. Air marshals on the plane instructed the flight crew to radio ahead for law enforcement to meet the plane when it landed in Los Angeles.
US Airways Flight 300 -- November 20, 2006. The infamous case of the flying imams, who allegedly changed seats in order to take control of every entry and exit route from the plane, ignored their assigned seats, requested unnecessary seat belt extensions, and disrupted the flight. The unused seat belt extenders were left lying on the airplane floor. Hmmm. Webbed strap belts with metal heads attached -- why would anyone be concerned about that? Who worries about customers acting strangely who make obviously unnecessary and unusual special requests?
The imams were removed from the plane but cried discrimination after the fact. They sued the airline and received an undisclosed settlement. CAIR and the imams declared victory.
AirTran Flight 175 -- Jan 1, 2009. According to an article published by the Atlanta Business Chronicle, nine Muslims traveling to an Islamic conference were removed from the plane after two members of the group allegedly engaged in a debate about the safest location to sit in the event of a bombing on the plane. The conversation alarmed other passengers, who alerted the flight crew and caused the plane to be diverted. According to Doug Hagmann in the Canada Free Press:
[N]one of the remaining 95 passengers made it to their ultimate destinations on time, AirTran refunded some tickets and made other booking arrangements due to the incident, which cost the airline dearly in time, money, and passenger goodwill.
A press release from AirTran found at EuroInvestor.co.uk incredibly reported that AirTran actually rewarded the nine Muslims who disrupted the flight, saying:
The airline has refunded the air fares of the nine passengers detained for questioning, has agreed to reimburse the passengers for expenses incurred by taking another airline and has also offered to transport the passengers home to Washington, DC, free of charge.
So let me get this straight: the nine Muslims who caused the flight delay and scared other passengers profited from their misconduct? Their airfare was refunded and they got a free flight home? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me...is this a great country, or what?
United flight 22 -- September 28, 2009. According to the KTLA.com, two men of apparent Middle Eastern descent were removed from a flight at LAX, and the flight was delayed while the bomb squad searched the plane. An article in the LA Times reported the incident as follows:
A law enforcement source said at least one of the men ran into a restroom on the plane and appeared to hide while the New York-bound jet was taxiing on the runway, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing.
AirTran 297 -- Nov 17, 2009. A group of ethnic passengers used electronic devices on tarmac preparing for takeoff, changed seats, moved around, ignored flight attendants' instructions, and caused flight delay as the plane returned to terminal.
UA 227 -- Dec 9, 2009. A group of passengers believed to be of Middle Eastern descent changed seats and allegedly moved other passengers' luggage at the gate while the plane prepared for departure, prompting their removal from the flight and bomb-sniffing dogs to check the baggage.
Two possibilities that come immediately to mind are either that these incidents are orchestrated as a ploy to create a scenario to litigate for profit like the imams from US Airways Flight 300 -- or something more sinister is in the works. In the aftermath of Fort Hood, can we afford to ignore warning signs of abnormal or pattern behavior any longer?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/terror_test_runs_on_airlines.html
By John Leonard
After my article on the biazarre incident on AirTran Flight 297 was published, one reader going by the initials VHG said something that immediately caught my attention. The comment referred to an apparently similar occurrence that happened on United Airlines flight #227 in Denver on December 9th,, only two days before my article appeared.
While the story of that flight continues to unfold, I believe it is time again to update American Thinkers with the current state of the developments surrounding these stories.
Chris Vanderveen from 9News.com in Colorado interviewed passengers from the plane that was reportedly delayed because of the suspicious behavior by a group of men during pre-flight preparations. Although the one passenger from the flight with whom I spoke that agreed to be quoted on condition of anonymity described the incident from his vantage point as "not that big of a deal," the fact that passengers were removed from the plane and not allowed to re-board, plus that bomb-sniffing dogs checked the luggage before the plane was allowed to depart from the gate, simply suggests that the action that caused the flight delay occurred outside his line of sight.
Bad behavior causing flight disruptions is not uniquely limited to individuals belonging to certain ethnic groups. Flights have been rerouted or delayed by the actions of drunken or stupid travelers of practically every nationality. The most famous security breach at Hartsfield airport in Atlanta involved a 32-year-old caucasian man who forced temporary closure of the entire airport while trying to evade security in order to make his flight in time to attend a football game. However, those incidents tend to be isolated, not repeated.
Given the differences between the official AirTran account of the incident and those of multiple passengers allegedly on the flight, I contacted Christopher White of AirTran hoping to resolve those discrepancies. Specifically, I asked Mr. White if AirTran planned to revise its official statement describing the incident as simply a customer service issue that occurred due to a relatively minor miscommunication involving a single passenger. I referred Mr. White to the interview of a passenger named Brown by WSB TV. In that interview, Mr. Brown indicated that multiple passengers were engaged in behavior significantly more disconcerting than that described by the rather innocuous account given by AirTran.
Mr. White's response to the questions I posed regarding Mr. Brown's version of what happened was confusing to say the least. Mr. White had no problem reiterating the point that the story originated from an e-mail attributed to one specific passenger. AirTran took great pains to discredit this individual. They refused to discuss comments made by other passengers of a similar nature but without the sensational details.
When asked to reconcile the difference between Mr. Brown's statement (that his experience was one of the most alarming he'd undergone in twenty years of frequent flying) against the "customer service" issue characterization by AirTran and the TSA, Mr. White responded:
I believe Mr. Brown is accurately portraying his perception of what happened. His perspective is limited to the cabin. For example. He suggested we contact the police and "expected blue lights to meet the plane. [e-mail 12/16/09 2:46 pm from Christopher White of AirTran to me]
On the other hand, when I wrote,
I'm not trying to accuse AirTran of any wrongdoing, but I am saying it appears your official report appears to have some serious factual discrepancies with the accounts already out there, from Mr. Brown in particular. Have you spoken to Mr. Brown or are you familiar with his account? [same email]
Mr. White's answer was simply "No."
No what? No, he's not familiar with Brown's account or no, he hasn't spoken with him? Mr. White's answers to the remainder of my questions were equally blunt: No, I may not speak with the flight crew. No, AirTran won't revise its story no matter what people actually on the plane have said. In other words, that's our story, and we're sticking to it.
Saying Mr. White provided more information than United Airlines' spokeswoman regarding flight 227 to this point isn't saying much. United says they are still investigating the incident a week after it happened. Their spokeswoman wrote back,
[W]e have not publicly reported what may or may not have happened onboard. As part of our commitment to safety, any conversation we have with another airline about security is a private matter.
Her last sentence is a response to my question as to whether any common denominators between the incidents on Flight #297 and Flight #227 have been discussed with either TSA officials or AirTran.
In Vanderveen's article on Flight #227, he reported that bomb-sniffing dogs were brought aboard the plane, which was confirmed by the passenger with whom I spoke. The men forced to deplane were described as "attempting to change seats with other passengers," and another said "the men were trying to move luggage around while the plane was getting ready to push back."
In both cases, the planes were delayed, passengers were inconvenienced and unduly alarmed, and by most accounts, the flight crews on both planes were frightened out of their wits.
Common Denominators
The situation that allegedly occurred on United flight #227 seems to have a few common denominators with what apparently happened on AirTran. In both cases, a group of men apparently of Middle Eastern descent exhibited enough strange behavior to concern the pilots, flight crew, and other passengers enough into delaying the flight, resulting in inconvenience to the passengers and unnecessary expense for the airlines.
Chronology of Pattern Behavior
Once the point had been reached where additional information is no longer forthcoming about these two flights in the foreseeable future, I didn't know where to look for more information. An experienced reporter working on these stories suggested I turn my attention backwards to seeing whether any dots could be connected to incidents on past flights.
America West Flight 90 -- Nov 19, 1999. In this pre-September 11th incident, two passengers speaking Arabic roamed the plane without permission and attempted to enter the cockpit in what has been described by the 9/11 commission in their report as a dry run. "Students" Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi were placed in custody and removed from the flight. Bomb-sniffing dogs were brought to search the plane. The airline was sued for discrimination, but the case was dismissed.
Northwest Flight 327 -- Jun 29, 2004. Described by flight marshals as a terrorist dry run, thirteen men of Syrian descent changed seats, congregated in the aisles, used the bathrooms excessively, appeared nervous, and behaved in a strange manner long enough to draw attention and concern from fellow passengers. Air marshals on the plane instructed the flight crew to radio ahead for law enforcement to meet the plane when it landed in Los Angeles.
US Airways Flight 300 -- November 20, 2006. The infamous case of the flying imams, who allegedly changed seats in order to take control of every entry and exit route from the plane, ignored their assigned seats, requested unnecessary seat belt extensions, and disrupted the flight. The unused seat belt extenders were left lying on the airplane floor. Hmmm. Webbed strap belts with metal heads attached -- why would anyone be concerned about that? Who worries about customers acting strangely who make obviously unnecessary and unusual special requests?
The imams were removed from the plane but cried discrimination after the fact. They sued the airline and received an undisclosed settlement. CAIR and the imams declared victory.
AirTran Flight 175 -- Jan 1, 2009. According to an article published by the Atlanta Business Chronicle, nine Muslims traveling to an Islamic conference were removed from the plane after two members of the group allegedly engaged in a debate about the safest location to sit in the event of a bombing on the plane. The conversation alarmed other passengers, who alerted the flight crew and caused the plane to be diverted. According to Doug Hagmann in the Canada Free Press:
[N]one of the remaining 95 passengers made it to their ultimate destinations on time, AirTran refunded some tickets and made other booking arrangements due to the incident, which cost the airline dearly in time, money, and passenger goodwill.
A press release from AirTran found at EuroInvestor.co.uk incredibly reported that AirTran actually rewarded the nine Muslims who disrupted the flight, saying:
The airline has refunded the air fares of the nine passengers detained for questioning, has agreed to reimburse the passengers for expenses incurred by taking another airline and has also offered to transport the passengers home to Washington, DC, free of charge.
So let me get this straight: the nine Muslims who caused the flight delay and scared other passengers profited from their misconduct? Their airfare was refunded and they got a free flight home? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me...is this a great country, or what?
United flight 22 -- September 28, 2009. According to the KTLA.com, two men of apparent Middle Eastern descent were removed from a flight at LAX, and the flight was delayed while the bomb squad searched the plane. An article in the LA Times reported the incident as follows:
A law enforcement source said at least one of the men ran into a restroom on the plane and appeared to hide while the New York-bound jet was taxiing on the runway, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing.
AirTran 297 -- Nov 17, 2009. A group of ethnic passengers used electronic devices on tarmac preparing for takeoff, changed seats, moved around, ignored flight attendants' instructions, and caused flight delay as the plane returned to terminal.
UA 227 -- Dec 9, 2009. A group of passengers believed to be of Middle Eastern descent changed seats and allegedly moved other passengers' luggage at the gate while the plane prepared for departure, prompting their removal from the flight and bomb-sniffing dogs to check the baggage.
Two possibilities that come immediately to mind are either that these incidents are orchestrated as a ploy to create a scenario to litigate for profit like the imams from US Airways Flight 300 -- or something more sinister is in the works. In the aftermath of Fort Hood, can we afford to ignore warning signs of abnormal or pattern behavior any longer?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/terror_test_runs_on_airlines.html
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Clobal Cooling - I already said "I told you so", but I'll say it again!
Five Decades Of Cooling Ahead
As Americans dig out from another bout of global warming, a new, peer-reviewed study sees decades of lower, not higher, temperatures ahead. AP View Enlarged Image
Climate Change: A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.
Much of the nation got a white Christmas this year, some in unprecedented quantities. A record-breaking storm deposited 12 to 30 inches of snow in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. Many places set records for the most snow in a single December day as more than 50% of the U.S. was covered by the white stuff.
Scientists (and here we use the word loosely) at Britain's Climate Research Unit may have tried to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, but it's hard to hide two feet of snow. Their motto seems to be the immortal words of Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."
In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.
In a speech in September at the U.N.'s World Climate Conference in Geneva, Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, one of the world's foremost climate modelers and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue to do so the next couple of decades.
According to research conducted by Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University, the oceans and global temperatures are closely related and have a natural cycle of warming and cooling that affects the planet.
The most important ocean cycle is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). Professor Easterbrook notes that in the 1980s and 1990s it was in a warming cycle, as was the earth. The global cooling from 1940 to 1975, which had some warning of an ice age, coincided with a Pacific cooling cycle.
"The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of three decades of global cooling," said Easterbrook.
Such solar and ocean cycles explain why the Earth can cool and polar ice thicken even as carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.
We will leave it to better minds to decide for what reason and for how long the earth is cooling. We have some global warming to shovel.
As Americans dig out from another bout of global warming, a new, peer-reviewed study sees decades of lower, not higher, temperatures ahead. AP View Enlarged Image
Climate Change: A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.
Much of the nation got a white Christmas this year, some in unprecedented quantities. A record-breaking storm deposited 12 to 30 inches of snow in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. Many places set records for the most snow in a single December day as more than 50% of the U.S. was covered by the white stuff.
Scientists (and here we use the word loosely) at Britain's Climate Research Unit may have tried to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, but it's hard to hide two feet of snow. Their motto seems to be the immortal words of Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."
In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.
In a speech in September at the U.N.'s World Climate Conference in Geneva, Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, one of the world's foremost climate modelers and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged that the Earth has been cooling and is likely to continue to do so the next couple of decades.
According to research conducted by Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University, the oceans and global temperatures are closely related and have a natural cycle of warming and cooling that affects the planet.
The most important ocean cycle is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). Professor Easterbrook notes that in the 1980s and 1990s it was in a warming cycle, as was the earth. The global cooling from 1940 to 1975, which had some warning of an ice age, coincided with a Pacific cooling cycle.
"The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of three decades of global cooling," said Easterbrook.
Such solar and ocean cycles explain why the Earth can cool and polar ice thicken even as carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.
We will leave it to better minds to decide for what reason and for how long the earth is cooling. We have some global warming to shovel.
Election 2008 - Facts and Causes - How the hell did we get into this mess?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
Square miles of land won by:
Population of counties won by:
Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2
McCain: 2.1
The map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Young people have been taken in by a big city con man and will pay for it for the rest of their lives:
Stupid is as stupid does - IMPORTANT!
Uninformed voted Obama - Informed voted McCain - Poll...Who Elected Obama?http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html
AKA Obama Editorial - There is still sanity in Oklahoma
Read full article here:
Political Party Fouls
Written by David Arnett, Publisher
Tulsa Today
Yesterday afternoon’s hurried conversation in line at Borders Bookstore in midtown was interesting. A mom with four adult daughters in line to check-out were discussing trinkets within reach when mom chided one of her own saying, “If you would do a better job as a teacher America wouldn’t be in the mess we are in.”
I turned and said, “Maybe it’s my fault. As a journalist I should have written more and in more ways made clear the fundamentals of our nation, why and how they are now at risk.”
“They are pushing us into Socialism,” she whispered softly – as if she feared the Gestapo might be listening.
“I believe they have made it to Marxism,” was my reply, but it was not an argument. It was a difference in degree and she looked sad.
How bad have we been betrayed by Barack Hussein Obama and Democrat Leftists now controlling America? Stampeded into continual concocted crisis caused by government, but blamed on everyone and everything else – Obama blames capitalism, but Hitler blamed Jews successfully with the help of his media contemporaries. Regardless, as administration officials say, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also see:
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a NationBy Aristotle the Hun, The Rev. Big Goon and Good Shepherd Sam
Note: It will quickly be obvious to the reader why details have been obscured, omitted or fictionalized in this narrative of events that began nearly forty years ago.
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is an absolutely brilliant piece by Jim Simpson that details the connection of Barack Obama to those who practice the Cloward-Piven strategy of creating crisis to manipulate political goals.
“Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis”
Political Party Fouls
Written by David Arnett, Publisher
Tulsa Today
Yesterday afternoon’s hurried conversation in line at Borders Bookstore in midtown was interesting. A mom with four adult daughters in line to check-out were discussing trinkets within reach when mom chided one of her own saying, “If you would do a better job as a teacher America wouldn’t be in the mess we are in.”
I turned and said, “Maybe it’s my fault. As a journalist I should have written more and in more ways made clear the fundamentals of our nation, why and how they are now at risk.”
“They are pushing us into Socialism,” she whispered softly – as if she feared the Gestapo might be listening.
“I believe they have made it to Marxism,” was my reply, but it was not an argument. It was a difference in degree and she looked sad.
How bad have we been betrayed by Barack Hussein Obama and Democrat Leftists now controlling America? Stampeded into continual concocted crisis caused by government, but blamed on everyone and everything else – Obama blames capitalism, but Hitler blamed Jews successfully with the help of his media contemporaries. Regardless, as administration officials say, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also see:
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a NationBy Aristotle the Hun, The Rev. Big Goon and Good Shepherd Sam
Note: It will quickly be obvious to the reader why details have been obscured, omitted or fictionalized in this narrative of events that began nearly forty years ago.
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is an absolutely brilliant piece by Jim Simpson that details the connection of Barack Obama to those who practice the Cloward-Piven strategy of creating crisis to manipulate political goals.
“Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis”
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Naples Tea Party - The Composition Of The Tea Party Movement
The Composition Of The Tea Party MovementNaples Tea Party
By Barry Willoughby
We've discussed the modern day phenomena known as the Tea Party movement and the events which sparked the disgust towards those representatives in Washington supposedly accountable to we the people. Why the grassroots Tea Party took off so rapidly, and has made such a difference in slowing down the socialist takeover of America, is clear.
But, just who are those people or groups that participate in a Tea Party?
What are they like?
What are their values and vision for America?
Is the Tea Party movement part of a grand political machinery, well financed and dripping with elitism and power?
Those on the Left like to label them as part of an angry mob bent on obfuscating progress. They have been called radical right-wing racists because of a refusal to accept the first black president. Then, there are those who define them as religious fanatics trying to force their religious moral values upon society as a whole.
When these definitions fell flat, the Left is now content with calling them a lewd and offensive name right out of the pages of liberal accepted culture. How ironic…..what the liberal is really defining is their own acceptance towards engaging in debauchery and crass behavior.
The Tea Party movement is made up of individuals from all walks of life and a wide variety of political persuasions. The common thread that binds everything together is their love for America and the belief that individual freedom and liberty is the cornerstone of our Republic. This truth is self-evident and along with freedom comes the responsibility to protect and defend what the Founders envisioned for America when they wrote the U.S. Constitution and the concept of our nation governed by the rule of law.
In general, Tea Party members are devotees of private property rights, a competitive free market hinged to capitalism, less spending and taxes from a limited and smaller government and taking away the power of the government to redistribute wealth. They defend the rights of all Americans to bear arms and pursue their own individual religious path.
In summary, I guess one could read the Constitution and pick and choose the parts that are most dear to their heart as the reasons for attending a Tea Party. An ever expanding government and piling on public debt is not the answer to solving problems and socialism should be stopped in its tracks if we are willing to preserve what made America great.
As for the well greased machinery working behind the scenes running the Tea Party movement, let me share with you the local groups and organizations that support the Naples Tea Party.
Patriots For Freedom Foundation plans to fund educational activities helping to organize and maintain projects in the U.S. that foster acts of patriotism under an umbrella of freedom and liberty. Contact: asevva@aol.com for more information.
The SW Florida 9-12 Project, inspired by Glen Beck to stop extreme government spending and a march towards socialism. The Project endeavors to protect the Constitution and the principles and values that have made America the land of opportunity. Contact: naples912@aol.com for more information.
One Nation Under God, U.S.A. promotes rediscovery of American history and renewal of the vision and covenant of the Founding Fathers. Contact: www.onug.us for more information.
The Council For Constitutional Principles has presented talks about the Constitution for several years. With a growing membership, the organization has begun pushing for three focused outcomes: (1) defense of the U.S. Constitution; (2) preventing the U.S. from becoming a socialist nation; and (3) electing people who support the first two outcomes. Contact: naplesconservative4@gmail.com for more information.
Change For 2012 and Save America wants to take back Washington, including the White House and Congress. Some wish to change America…..we wish to preserve it. Contact: changefor2012@comcast.net for further information.
There you have it. Those are the main local organizations that are united with the Naples Tea Party, along with the thousands of individuals not affiliated with any group. I’m so sorry to inform the Left that we do not receive any funding from a national body like OFA (Organizing For America), ACORN or MoveOn. We are not paid to protest and do not take an oath of allegiance to anyone or anything other than to defend and protect the United States Constitution.
If this sounds like a movement you would like to participate in, don’t wait any longer. 2010 is an election year and there is much work to be done in order to eliminate the waste, fraud and special interests running things in Washington. Contact: bareftbj@comcast.net for more information.
Facts on comparison of US - Canadian - and British Health Care Systems
There is a bogus email going around claiming to be published by "Investor's Business Daily" that gives false information about how bad socialized medicine is in Britain and Canada. The real facts are bad enough; no need for invented statistics.
By Deroy Murdock
Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: “Maybe I should pick up smoking.”
The fact that America is even considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.
Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:
* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
* The U.K.’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”
* “Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets,” Daniel Martin wrote last year in London’s Daily Mail. “Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking’ was putting patients’ health at risk.”
Things don’t look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.
* Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.
* “In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem.”
* Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks – nearly nine months – to visit an orthopedic surgeon.
* Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, “This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”
Obamacare proponents might argue that their health reforms are neither British nor Canadian, but just modest adjustments to America’s system. This is false. The public option – for which Democrats lust – would fuel an elephantine $1.5 trillion overhaul of this life-and-death industry. Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?
A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: “The best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power.”
Barack Obama seconds that emotion.
“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision [single payer] a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health-care coverage. . . . That’s what I’d like to see.”
And why a public option just for medicine? Wouldn’t government clothing stores be best suited to furnish the garments Americans need to survive each winter? And why not a public option for restaurants? Shouldn’t Americans have universal access to fine dining?
All kidding aside, government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies’ experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.
Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
By Deroy Murdock
Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: “Maybe I should pick up smoking.”
The fact that America is even considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides health care for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.
Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:
* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
* The U.K.’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”
* “Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets,” Daniel Martin wrote last year in London’s Daily Mail. “Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking’ was putting patients’ health at risk.”
Things don’t look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.
* Canada has one-third fewer doctors per capita than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.
* “In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the [Fraser] Institute first started quantifying the problem.”
* Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks – nearly nine months – to visit an orthopedic surgeon.
* Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, “This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”
Obamacare proponents might argue that their health reforms are neither British nor Canadian, but just modest adjustments to America’s system. This is false. The public option – for which Democrats lust – would fuel an elephantine $1.5 trillion overhaul of this life-and-death industry. Having Uncle Sam in the room while negotiating drug prices and hospital reimbursement rates will be like sitting beside Warren Buffett at an art auction. Guess who goes home with the goodies?
A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: “The best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power.”
Barack Obama seconds that emotion.
“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision [single payer] a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health-care coverage. . . . That’s what I’d like to see.”
And why a public option just for medicine? Wouldn’t government clothing stores be best suited to furnish the garments Americans need to survive each winter? And why not a public option for restaurants? Shouldn’t Americans have universal access to fine dining?
All kidding aside, government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies’ experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.
Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
AKA Obama gets a lump of coal - WOW! - Minus 21
25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recordedI've said so myself - Journalism in America is Public Enemy # 1
Recently, I sat down with a friend who has spent almost three decades working as an intelligence operative in the defense of our nation. During the course of our conversation, I asked him what -- based on his vast experience -- was the number one threat facing our nation? Without even pausing to think about it, he forcefully answered, “Our mainstream media.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/DouglasMacKinnon/2009/12/22/a_warning_and_a_ray_of_hope_from_an_intelligence_operative?page=full&comments=true
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rewriting Shakespeare:
"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."
"The first thing we do," said Aristotle the Hun, "is kill all the journalists."
http://townhall.com/columnists/DouglasMacKinnon/2009/12/22/a_warning_and_a_ray_of_hope_from_an_intelligence_operative?page=full&comments=true
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rewriting Shakespeare:
"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."
"The first thing we do," said Aristotle the Hun, "is kill all the journalists."
Monday, December 21, 2009
Your Tax Dollars Used for Bribes - Payoffs for Senators Typical in Health Care Bill
While Sen. Ben Nelson got a particularly juicy concession -- permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population -- in the health care bill, support from a slew of other senators likewise came with its price.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sen. Ben Nelson's hardly the only lawmaker extracting sweetheart deals out of the health care reform bill.
While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a "yes" vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package -- permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population -- support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price.
Western states got more money for hospitals that serve Medicare patients. Louisiana got up to $300 million in Medicaid benefits. The list goes on.
Senate Republicans lined up Saturday to decry the latest deal targeted toward Nebraska, which was decried as the "cornhusker kickback."
"Votes have been bought," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.
But Senate Democrats said the payoffs are nothing unusual, and in fact typical.
"People fight for their own states. That's the nature of a democracy," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said on "Fox News Sunday," defending Nelson against withering attacks from the GOP.
"This is just part of the normal legislative process," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
As a measure of just how typical they are, a slew of payoffs and concessions have been struck over the past several months.
-- Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state's Medicaid population. The deal, secured before she cast her critical vote in favor of bringing the health bill to the floor, was immediately dubbed the "Louisiana Purchase," though the actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.
-- Vermont and Massachusetts got $1.2 billion in Medicaid money -- a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two states because they have robust health care systems. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also boasted Saturday that he requested and won an investment worth between $10 and $14 billion for community health centers.
-- Western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. The provision covers the low-population "frontier" states and applies to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming -- the latter two states are both represented by two Republicans, but ended up as beneficiaries anyway since they qualify. The legislative language defines frontier states as states where at least 50 percent of the counties have fewer than six people per square mile. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the "special deal," telling "Fox News Sunday" that those five states were getting an increase in reimbursements because they get the lowest amount in the country. "That doesn't offend me at all," he said. "It's in fact, fair."
-- Florida, New York and Pennsylvania -- where five of six senators are Democrats -- will have their seniors' Medicare Advantage benefits protected, even as the program sees massive cuts elsewhere.
-- Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Mont.
-- One unknown state is receiving $100 million for a "health care facility" affiliated with an academic health center at a university that contains the state's only "public academic medical and dental school." It's unclear for which state that language was written.
-- Nebraska's Nelson won permanent federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population, a benefit worth up to $100 million over 10 years. Other states get the federal aid for three years, but Nebraska's benefit is indefinite. His state also got an exemption for nonprofit insurance companies from a health insurance company tax. Many believe this was targeted at Mutual of Omaha, but senior Democratic aides would not confirm that.
Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman didn't extract any payoffs for Connecticut. Rather, he succeeded in stripping the government-run insurance plan from the Senate health bill, along with a proposed expansion of Medicare that he recently said he opposes.
Fox News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sen. Ben Nelson's hardly the only lawmaker extracting sweetheart deals out of the health care reform bill.
While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a "yes" vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package -- permanent and full federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population -- support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price.
Western states got more money for hospitals that serve Medicare patients. Louisiana got up to $300 million in Medicaid benefits. The list goes on.
Senate Republicans lined up Saturday to decry the latest deal targeted toward Nebraska, which was decried as the "cornhusker kickback."
"Votes have been bought," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.
But Senate Democrats said the payoffs are nothing unusual, and in fact typical.
"People fight for their own states. That's the nature of a democracy," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said on "Fox News Sunday," defending Nelson against withering attacks from the GOP.
"This is just part of the normal legislative process," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
As a measure of just how typical they are, a slew of payoffs and concessions have been struck over the past several months.
-- Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state's Medicaid population. The deal, secured before she cast her critical vote in favor of bringing the health bill to the floor, was immediately dubbed the "Louisiana Purchase," though the actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.
-- Vermont and Massachusetts got $1.2 billion in Medicaid money -- a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two states because they have robust health care systems. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also boasted Saturday that he requested and won an investment worth between $10 and $14 billion for community health centers.
-- Western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. The provision covers the low-population "frontier" states and applies to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming -- the latter two states are both represented by two Republicans, but ended up as beneficiaries anyway since they qualify. The legislative language defines frontier states as states where at least 50 percent of the counties have fewer than six people per square mile. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the "special deal," telling "Fox News Sunday" that those five states were getting an increase in reimbursements because they get the lowest amount in the country. "That doesn't offend me at all," he said. "It's in fact, fair."
-- Florida, New York and Pennsylvania -- where five of six senators are Democrats -- will have their seniors' Medicare Advantage benefits protected, even as the program sees massive cuts elsewhere.
-- Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Mont.
-- One unknown state is receiving $100 million for a "health care facility" affiliated with an academic health center at a university that contains the state's only "public academic medical and dental school." It's unclear for which state that language was written.
-- Nebraska's Nelson won permanent federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population, a benefit worth up to $100 million over 10 years. Other states get the federal aid for three years, but Nebraska's benefit is indefinite. His state also got an exemption for nonprofit insurance companies from a health insurance company tax. Many believe this was targeted at Mutual of Omaha, but senior Democratic aides would not confirm that.
Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman didn't extract any payoffs for Connecticut. Rather, he succeeded in stripping the government-run insurance plan from the Senate health bill, along with a proposed expansion of Medicare that he recently said he opposes.
Fox News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.
War Game or Training for the Inevitable?
It is the year 2011. The United States has become saturated with suspicion and unrest. Since early 2010, President Barack Obama, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and Prime Minister Stephan Harper of Canada have been conducting private meetings with each other and various political heads of the U.N. None of the meetings are open to the media, let alone the public.
Americans, thoroughly disgusted with the socialistic programs that have been thrust upon them over the last few years, vote out seventeen of the nineteen Democrats in the Senate and 178 in Congress that were up for reelection.
The secrecy of the President became an issue tacked onto the political platforms of candidates running for the Senate and Congress in the November 2010 elections. When asked for his opinion on this monumental power shift in favor of liberty-minded Republicans during the November elections, President Obama is quoted as saying the elections were "ultimately inconsequential;" he allowed the cryptic statement to stand alone and said nothing more on the subject until January's swearing-in ceremony.
In January 2011, two days prior to the swearing-in of the new Senators and Congressmen, President Obama holds an emergency conference that interrupts the regular broadcasting of every station in the United States, and is replayed on major news networks throughout the day. The news is horrifying, and the ramifications of what the president has said have a numbing effect on the public.
Private Ownership of firearms has been outlawed, and Obama has promised a new era of equality and peace. Unfortunately for Obama, Americans would not act like the sheep he had taken them for.
Revolution begins!
Americans, thoroughly disgusted with the socialistic programs that have been thrust upon them over the last few years, vote out seventeen of the nineteen Democrats in the Senate and 178 in Congress that were up for reelection.
The secrecy of the President became an issue tacked onto the political platforms of candidates running for the Senate and Congress in the November 2010 elections. When asked for his opinion on this monumental power shift in favor of liberty-minded Republicans during the November elections, President Obama is quoted as saying the elections were "ultimately inconsequential;" he allowed the cryptic statement to stand alone and said nothing more on the subject until January's swearing-in ceremony.
In January 2011, two days prior to the swearing-in of the new Senators and Congressmen, President Obama holds an emergency conference that interrupts the regular broadcasting of every station in the United States, and is replayed on major news networks throughout the day. The news is horrifying, and the ramifications of what the president has said have a numbing effect on the public.
Private Ownership of firearms has been outlawed, and Obama has promised a new era of equality and peace. Unfortunately for Obama, Americans would not act like the sheep he had taken them for.
Revolution begins!
Merry Christmas to all 93% of you
"The New York Times recently revealed that, before abandoning the idea, Barack and Michelle Obama had considered eliminating The White House's traditional nativity scene as part of an effort to celebrate a 'non-religious' Christmas. In light of that story, it wasn't entirely surprising to learn that this year, for the first time, the President's Christmas card contains neither any mention of Christmas itself nor a quote from the New Testament. Obviously, the Obamas aren't fans of overt displays of Christian religiosity. The White House has told Fox News Radio that the card represents nothing but an attempt to recognize that Americans are celebrating other holidays at this time of year -- not just Christmas. No doubt that approach is imbued with politically-correct, multicultural sensitivity, but it also, perhaps, reflects a world view that's out-of-step with most regular Americans -- and even America's heritage. For starters, the use of the term 'Christmas' doesn't seem to be as offensive as the politically correct would have us believe. A recent Rasmussen Report found that fully 72% of Americans preferred 'Merry Christmas,' compared to 22% who favored a more generic greeting, like 'Happy Holidays.' And a December 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 93% of Americans celebrate Christmas. How offended could Americans be by a reference to a holiday that they themselves are celebrating? ... So permit me to say what the Obamas' card does not: Merry Christmas."
--columnist Carol Platt Liebau
Christmas of Presidents Past . . .
"The Nativity story of nearly 20 centuries ago is ... is the fulfillment of age-old prophecies and the reaffirmation of God's great love for all of us. Through a generous Heavenly Father's gift of His Son, hope and compassion entered a world weary with fear and despair and changed it for all time. On Christmas, we celebrate the birth of Christ with prayer, feasting, and great merriment. But, most of all, we experience it in our hearts. For, more than just a day, Christmas is a state of mind. It is found throughout the year whenever faith overcomes doubt, hope conquers despair, and love triumphs over hate. It is present when men of any creed bring love and understanding to the hearts of their fellow man. The feeling is seen in the wondrous faces of children and in the hopeful eyes of the aged. It overflows the hearts of cheerful givers and the souls of the caring. And it is reflected in the brilliant colors, joyful sounds, and beauty of the winter season. Let us resolve to honor this spirit of Christmas and strive to keep it throughout the year."
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
If You Still Believe in Global Warming, Watch this Video
If You Still Believe in Global Warming, Watch this Video
By Duncan DavidsonDec 19, 2009, 2:41 AMAuthor's Website
Is your belief a matter of Science or of Faith? This video calmly walks through the ice core data to show how today’s warming compares to other warming. Are we at the highest temperatures in recorded history? Are we warming faster than Nature can manage? Watch and see for yourself what facts say the answers are.
After seeing this, you will ask, well, isn’t this all out there in the public record, and don’t climate scientists and policy-makers already know this? You may be shocked (at least, if your belief is based on Science) to know the answer is no, or likely not, since this information and much like it has been suppressed from the political process and kept out of the peer review process. Peer review has been corrupted by the ClimateGate Cabal.
So now ask yourself: is my belief in man-made global warming based on the view that Man is spewing huge amounts of noxious stuff into the ecosystem, especially Co2, and all of that up there MUST have some consequence? Instead of continuing runaway capitalism industrial society, we NEED to get more in alignment with the Planet, becoming One with the Environment? If so, you have answered the question.
Have a Namaste!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Assume you are a scientist and have been given a major financial grant to prove that the mythical unicorn really did exist. You know that as long as you can demonstrate some progress in showing the unicorn might have existed, your financial grant will be renewed each year, provided some other scientist does not come out with substantial evidence that the unicorn could not have existed. Under such conditions, you would have a very strong incentive to disregard much of the evidence that the unicorn could not have existed and each year provide only the data that could demonstrate that the unicorn might have existed. You also would have a very strong incentive to attack any scientist who raised serious questions or provided evidence that the unicorn could not have existed. You even might go so far as to refer to them with the disparaging term 'unicorn deniers' and attempt to use your influence with other scientists who also are receiving grants dependent on the existence of the unicorn to try to prevent the unicorn deniers from publishing their findings in well-regarded scientific journals. The recently released e-mails (by whistleblowers or hackers, depending on your prejudice) between some of the best-known scientists behind global warming showed that they succumbed to the all-too-human tendency to protect their turfs and pocketbooks, despite the evidence."
--columnist Richard W. Rahn
* the scientist who say unicorns have never existed can't get grants for their research - Aristotle the Hun
By Duncan DavidsonDec 19, 2009, 2:41 AMAuthor's Website
Is your belief a matter of Science or of Faith? This video calmly walks through the ice core data to show how today’s warming compares to other warming. Are we at the highest temperatures in recorded history? Are we warming faster than Nature can manage? Watch and see for yourself what facts say the answers are.
After seeing this, you will ask, well, isn’t this all out there in the public record, and don’t climate scientists and policy-makers already know this? You may be shocked (at least, if your belief is based on Science) to know the answer is no, or likely not, since this information and much like it has been suppressed from the political process and kept out of the peer review process. Peer review has been corrupted by the ClimateGate Cabal.
So now ask yourself: is my belief in man-made global warming based on the view that Man is spewing huge amounts of noxious stuff into the ecosystem, especially Co2, and all of that up there MUST have some consequence? Instead of continuing runaway capitalism industrial society, we NEED to get more in alignment with the Planet, becoming One with the Environment? If so, you have answered the question.
Have a Namaste!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Assume you are a scientist and have been given a major financial grant to prove that the mythical unicorn really did exist. You know that as long as you can demonstrate some progress in showing the unicorn might have existed, your financial grant will be renewed each year, provided some other scientist does not come out with substantial evidence that the unicorn could not have existed. Under such conditions, you would have a very strong incentive to disregard much of the evidence that the unicorn could not have existed and each year provide only the data that could demonstrate that the unicorn might have existed. You also would have a very strong incentive to attack any scientist who raised serious questions or provided evidence that the unicorn could not have existed. You even might go so far as to refer to them with the disparaging term 'unicorn deniers' and attempt to use your influence with other scientists who also are receiving grants dependent on the existence of the unicorn to try to prevent the unicorn deniers from publishing their findings in well-regarded scientific journals. The recently released e-mails (by whistleblowers or hackers, depending on your prejudice) between some of the best-known scientists behind global warming showed that they succumbed to the all-too-human tendency to protect their turfs and pocketbooks, despite the evidence."
--columnist Richard W. Rahn
* the scientist who say unicorns have never existed can't get grants for their research - Aristotle the Hun
Good News for Conservatives - The Battleground Poll and the Battle for America
The Battleground Poll and the Battle for America
By Bruce Walker
There's good news for conservatives in the latest Battleground Poll. The political implications are profound...if the already-energized conservative base takes even more initiative.
In August 2008, I wrote an article on "The Biggest Missing Story in Politics." The article explains that conservatives are an overwhelming majority of America. One year later, I wrote an update on that theme, this time based on the Gallup Poll which showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in virtually every state in the union. I have been writing about the remarkable Battleground Poll results in many articles for many years.
The Battleground Poll reveals the internals of its poll. It also asks respondents the same demographic questions in each poll: What is your education level? What is your age? What is your religious affiliation? What is your marital status? Question D3 asks respondents to describe their ideology. The choices are "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal," "very liberal," and "unsure/refused." Those asked by the Battleground Poll -- if they dislike the liberal label -- can call themselves moderates, they can refuse to answer, and they can express an uncertainty about their ideology. Only those certain of their ideology and willing to label themselves are considered conservative in the poll.
The Battleground Poll is not a Republican polling organization. It is, rather, one of the few bipartisan polling organizations. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the language of the questions for respondents, so that the questions asked are not only fairly worded, but unusually fairly worded. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the population sample, so that polls results are not skewed because too many Democrats, too many Republicans, or too many independents are included. The Battleground Poll also has proven very accurate over many elections.
The responses to Question D3 have been remarkably consistent. Respondents have changed dramatically about what they thought of President Bush or of the state of the economy or the most important issues facing our nation. Respondent may swing quite a bit about which party they support or trust the most. But in one single area of this long list of polling data, the American people have not wavered at all from Battleground Poll to Battleground Poll: About sixty percent of the American people, in poll after poll, year after year, describe themselves as "conservative."
On December 16, 2009, Battleground released its latest poll. In this one, 63% of the American people described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative." The rest of America -- not just liberals, but moderates and people who were unsure about their ideology or chose not to respond to that question, totaled only 37% of America. A measly one percent of Americans called themselves moderates; 25% of Americans called themselves "somewhat liberal"; and 8% of Americans called themselves "very liberal."
This is no aberration. Consider in Battleground Poll results since June 2002 the percentage of Americans who have described themselves as conservative: June 2002 (59%), September 2003 (59%), April 2004 (60%), June 2004 (59%), September 2004 (60%), October 2005 (61%), March 2006 (59%), December 2007 (58%), July 2007 (63%), May 2008 (62%), August 2008 (60%), September 2008 (59%), and October 2008 (56%).
In the November 2008 Battleground Poll, for the first and only time, the straight question of "conservative" or "liberal" was not posed to respondents. Instead, the poll asked respondents two separate questions: fiscal ideology was asked in Question D6 and social ideology was asked in Question D7. The Battleground Poll clearly intended to refine Question D3. What were the results? Fiscal conservatives in Question D6 were 69% of respondents. Social conservatives were 53% of respondents and social liberals were 39%. While that sounds like social conservatism is a weak link, that is misleading: a whopping 34% of all Americans described themselves as "very conservative" on social issues, by far the largest very intense group in any Battleground Poll.
What does this mean for American politics today? It ought to boldly empower conservatives. The "right," which every Democrat leader reflexively attacks whenever political opposition to his plans grows strong, boasts the overwhelming majority of Americans. This explains why the left's ballot initiatives in California last year failed, in some cases, in every single county of the state and why the gay marriage ballot measure failed in liberal Maine. This also explains why Obama runs away from "labels" (all leftists do, and have for many years).
What it means in politics is that any true conservative against a true leftist should carry every state and win by a landslide. But it means more than that. Conservatives in the areas of culture, media, entertainment, and education are treated like unwanted stepchildren, or worse (despite the fact that conservatives on average are better-educated than liberals).
The worst victims of invidious bigotry in America today are conservatives. Only a tiny percentage of professors are conservative. The same is true for government-supported media like NPR, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Libraries are dominated by the minority left. How different would America be if fifty or sixty percent of teachers, librarians, professors, public media producers, and staff in government-supported organizations were conservative?
That ought to be a goal for conservatives. Winning elections is fine, but how much more vital is it for us to recover at least an equal voice in colleges, media, schools, libraries, and entertainment? What is wrong with us, the overwhelming majority of Americans, demanding not to be consigned to a ghetto or treated by Jim Crow standards? We begin by pointing out the obvious: conservatives are the majority of Americans, but we are almost invisible in our public and private institutions of education, information, entertainment, and study.
Then demand that those who want our tax dollars, our commercial business, our donations -- anything, really, from us -- treat us fairly, portray us honestly, and invite us into the halls of influence. It is a modest demand, but it is very important. It is a cultural "game-changer," and that, more than anything, is what we need.
Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_battleground_poll_and_the.html
By Bruce Walker
There's good news for conservatives in the latest Battleground Poll. The political implications are profound...if the already-energized conservative base takes even more initiative.
In August 2008, I wrote an article on "The Biggest Missing Story in Politics." The article explains that conservatives are an overwhelming majority of America. One year later, I wrote an update on that theme, this time based on the Gallup Poll which showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in virtually every state in the union. I have been writing about the remarkable Battleground Poll results in many articles for many years.
The Battleground Poll reveals the internals of its poll. It also asks respondents the same demographic questions in each poll: What is your education level? What is your age? What is your religious affiliation? What is your marital status? Question D3 asks respondents to describe their ideology. The choices are "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal," "very liberal," and "unsure/refused." Those asked by the Battleground Poll -- if they dislike the liberal label -- can call themselves moderates, they can refuse to answer, and they can express an uncertainty about their ideology. Only those certain of their ideology and willing to label themselves are considered conservative in the poll.
The Battleground Poll is not a Republican polling organization. It is, rather, one of the few bipartisan polling organizations. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the language of the questions for respondents, so that the questions asked are not only fairly worded, but unusually fairly worded. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the population sample, so that polls results are not skewed because too many Democrats, too many Republicans, or too many independents are included. The Battleground Poll also has proven very accurate over many elections.
The responses to Question D3 have been remarkably consistent. Respondents have changed dramatically about what they thought of President Bush or of the state of the economy or the most important issues facing our nation. Respondent may swing quite a bit about which party they support or trust the most. But in one single area of this long list of polling data, the American people have not wavered at all from Battleground Poll to Battleground Poll: About sixty percent of the American people, in poll after poll, year after year, describe themselves as "conservative."
On December 16, 2009, Battleground released its latest poll. In this one, 63% of the American people described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative." The rest of America -- not just liberals, but moderates and people who were unsure about their ideology or chose not to respond to that question, totaled only 37% of America. A measly one percent of Americans called themselves moderates; 25% of Americans called themselves "somewhat liberal"; and 8% of Americans called themselves "very liberal."
This is no aberration. Consider in Battleground Poll results since June 2002 the percentage of Americans who have described themselves as conservative: June 2002 (59%), September 2003 (59%), April 2004 (60%), June 2004 (59%), September 2004 (60%), October 2005 (61%), March 2006 (59%), December 2007 (58%), July 2007 (63%), May 2008 (62%), August 2008 (60%), September 2008 (59%), and October 2008 (56%).
In the November 2008 Battleground Poll, for the first and only time, the straight question of "conservative" or "liberal" was not posed to respondents. Instead, the poll asked respondents two separate questions: fiscal ideology was asked in Question D6 and social ideology was asked in Question D7. The Battleground Poll clearly intended to refine Question D3. What were the results? Fiscal conservatives in Question D6 were 69% of respondents. Social conservatives were 53% of respondents and social liberals were 39%. While that sounds like social conservatism is a weak link, that is misleading: a whopping 34% of all Americans described themselves as "very conservative" on social issues, by far the largest very intense group in any Battleground Poll.
What does this mean for American politics today? It ought to boldly empower conservatives. The "right," which every Democrat leader reflexively attacks whenever political opposition to his plans grows strong, boasts the overwhelming majority of Americans. This explains why the left's ballot initiatives in California last year failed, in some cases, in every single county of the state and why the gay marriage ballot measure failed in liberal Maine. This also explains why Obama runs away from "labels" (all leftists do, and have for many years).
What it means in politics is that any true conservative against a true leftist should carry every state and win by a landslide. But it means more than that. Conservatives in the areas of culture, media, entertainment, and education are treated like unwanted stepchildren, or worse (despite the fact that conservatives on average are better-educated than liberals).
The worst victims of invidious bigotry in America today are conservatives. Only a tiny percentage of professors are conservative. The same is true for government-supported media like NPR, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Libraries are dominated by the minority left. How different would America be if fifty or sixty percent of teachers, librarians, professors, public media producers, and staff in government-supported organizations were conservative?
That ought to be a goal for conservatives. Winning elections is fine, but how much more vital is it for us to recover at least an equal voice in colleges, media, schools, libraries, and entertainment? What is wrong with us, the overwhelming majority of Americans, demanding not to be consigned to a ghetto or treated by Jim Crow standards? We begin by pointing out the obvious: conservatives are the majority of Americans, but we are almost invisible in our public and private institutions of education, information, entertainment, and study.
Then demand that those who want our tax dollars, our commercial business, our donations -- anything, really, from us -- treat us fairly, portray us honestly, and invite us into the halls of influence. It is a modest demand, but it is very important. It is a cultural "game-changer," and that, more than anything, is what we need.
Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_battleground_poll_and_the.html
Friday, December 18, 2009
Most popular article on "The Steady Drip" for 2009
Most popular article on "The Steady Drip" for 2009
The Steady Drip had 371,253 hits so far in 2009 (as of 9 PM ET on December 18)By far the most popular post was:
“I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
Or:
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
• This monster hit was first published April 21 and quickly out distanced posts made much earlier in the year.
• The “OMG” article has been revised and updated several times and continues to grow in popularity.
• Even now it is the number one hit on the “stat counter”.
• The “OMG” article is also available on over 100 other blogs and web sites since I gave permission for others to post it.
• Should you want a MS Word version with embedded links please let me know and I will provide a copy for you by return email
Validated Facts on Obama Eligibility Story Updated and Expanded.
If you read the articles at the links and review the citations, you will be “literate” about the facts of the “eligibility” story and will be able to inform the public objectively.
Grab a snack and a drink; it is over 6000 words!
Fox News Has Highest Rated Year In Network History
Cable News Ratings: Fox News Has Highest Rated Year In Network History
By Marisa Guthrie --
Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running. But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13-year-history.
read more:
By Marisa Guthrie --
Fox News will finish 2009 as the top-rated cable news network, a perch it has enjoyed for eight years running. But 2009--the first year of the Obama administration--also marks FNC's highest rated year in the channel's 13-year-history.
read more:
Thursday, December 17, 2009
IMPORTANT - The Time Has Come - "My eyes are now open."
The Time Has Come
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, December 17, 2009
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not?" --Patrick Henry
The 2008 presidential election was much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it was a referendum on the ability of a majority of Americans voters to discern between one candidate who possessed the character and integrity of a statesman, and one who did not.
A year ago, a majority of our countrymen were hoodwinked into electing a charlatan with dubious credentials to the highest constitutional office in the land. Since then, millions of Americans who had become complacent about the Leftist threat to our liberty have begun to realize that our Constitution is now suffering an unprecedented assault.
There were those of us who realized in 2004 -- back when Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry let him take center stage at the Democrat National Convention -- that Barack Hussein Obama was a Marxist. Nonetheless, too many of our countrymen were lulled into believing that no leftist politico with such abhorrent extra-constitutional views on the role of government could rise to be president of the United States.
The awakening that has occurred since November of '08 is like nothing I have witnessed since the first election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980. After the economic and foreign policy disasters created by the Carter administration, Americans were stirred to action. Yes, the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 resulted in a conservative takeover of the House two years later, but Clinton was far more moderate than Obama, and his election didn't inspire millions of Americans to arm themselves for the first time.
That Obama's election inspired a wave of conservative activism is good news.
The great news is that since last November, millions of Americans have joined our ranks.
And the momentum continues unabated.
I knew we were turning a corner a few months back, when an establishment Republican, typical of most such Republicans, told me that Obama's health care proposal "amounts to socialism." This same fellow told me a year earlier that calling Obama a Socialist was just too severe. When I reminded him of his earlier admonishment, he said simply, "My eyes are now open."
Read the full article here: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/12/17/the-time-has-come/
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, December 17, 2009
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not?" --Patrick Henry
The 2008 presidential election was much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it was a referendum on the ability of a majority of Americans voters to discern between one candidate who possessed the character and integrity of a statesman, and one who did not.
A year ago, a majority of our countrymen were hoodwinked into electing a charlatan with dubious credentials to the highest constitutional office in the land. Since then, millions of Americans who had become complacent about the Leftist threat to our liberty have begun to realize that our Constitution is now suffering an unprecedented assault.
There were those of us who realized in 2004 -- back when Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry let him take center stage at the Democrat National Convention -- that Barack Hussein Obama was a Marxist. Nonetheless, too many of our countrymen were lulled into believing that no leftist politico with such abhorrent extra-constitutional views on the role of government could rise to be president of the United States.
The awakening that has occurred since November of '08 is like nothing I have witnessed since the first election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980. After the economic and foreign policy disasters created by the Carter administration, Americans were stirred to action. Yes, the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 resulted in a conservative takeover of the House two years later, but Clinton was far more moderate than Obama, and his election didn't inspire millions of Americans to arm themselves for the first time.
That Obama's election inspired a wave of conservative activism is good news.
The great news is that since last November, millions of Americans have joined our ranks.
And the momentum continues unabated.
I knew we were turning a corner a few months back, when an establishment Republican, typical of most such Republicans, told me that Obama's health care proposal "amounts to socialism." This same fellow told me a year earlier that calling Obama a Socialist was just too severe. When I reminded him of his earlier admonishment, he said simply, "My eyes are now open."
Read the full article here: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/12/17/the-time-has-come/
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans: Poll
The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that’s come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
AKA Obama - "FRAUD" the movie - trailer - video
The person who posted this video, "The Race" claims it is a trailer for a soon to be released feature film. The video appears to be "on the street interviews" from a Tea Party event. The very same video was posted on YouTube back in April (no, not April first).
I remain uncertain about the claim "in theaters soon".
"The Race" comments on another blog:
"WOW. Your SITE ROCKS. Thanks for posting the FRAUD trailer on your site.
We’re doing this internet style and then into the theaters. People are never going to believe all the crimes.
We’ll send you a link in a few days where people can register to win FRAUD shirts and hats while they watch the trialer to help us BUZZ the world with this film.
Cheers,-The Race
Comment by The Race November 19, 2009"
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
One Nation Under Fraud
NY Admits Election Fraud in NY-23 Special Election
COMMISSIONER OPENLY ADMITS MACHINES IN ERIE COUNTY WERE PROGRAMED TO SWITCH VOTES
(Dec. 15, 2009) — The corruption in the New York Board of Elections would be laughable if it were on TV, but today at 1:00 PM the Board actually did certify the use of electronic voting machines which one commissioner admitted, during the meeting, had been found to switch the votes between candidates during the recent election!
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/15/ny-board-of-elections-certifies-fraudulent-ny-23-election-results/
(Dec. 15, 2009) — The corruption in the New York Board of Elections would be laughable if it were on TV, but today at 1:00 PM the Board actually did certify the use of electronic voting machines which one commissioner admitted, during the meeting, had been found to switch the votes between candidates during the recent election!
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/15/ny-board-of-elections-certifies-fraudulent-ny-23-election-results/
Atty Taitz to AG Holder - On behalf of my clients I demand an answer
12.14.09. Via Certified Mail
Attn Mr. Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20530-0001 USA
Dear Mr. Holder,
On March 1st on behalf of my clients I have submitted to you a request to file Quo Warranto against Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. The request was filed due to following troubling facts:
1. According to a number of licensed investigators National Databases show Mr. Obama using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, which included the numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
2. Number 042-68-4425 that Mr. Obama used for most of his life and is currently using while residing in the White House, is a number assigned to an individual born in 1890, who resided in the state of Connecticut and this Social Security number was issued in the state of Connecticut where Mr. Obama never resided.
3. One of the leading forensic experts in the country Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has prepared an affidavit, stating that Mr. Obama’s short version Certification of Life Birth cannot be treated as genuine without seeing the original on file in the Health Department in HI.
4. The state of Hawaii since 1911 had in its statutes a provision allowing Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents of get Hawaiian Birth Certificates(currently statute 338-17) and currently statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital.
5. In spite of over 100 law suits filed around the country and 12 Citizen Grand Jury indictments Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent to unseal his original birth certificate currently sealed in the Health Department of the state of Hawaii and all the other vital records.
6. Ms. Chiuomi Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii has provided a statement that there is a document on file in Hawaii, however she refused to provide any information, as to what document is on file: whether it is a Birth Certificate given to a foreign born child of Hawaiian resident, whether it is an amended Birth certificate, obtained when Mr. Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. She refused to answer any questions as to whether his birth certificate was obtained based on a proper hospital birth certificate or based on a statement of one of his relatives only, which needs to be corroborated.
7. Regardless of place of birth of Mr. Obama, since birth and until now Mr. Obama had a split allegiance. He had British citizenship at birth, Kenyan since age 2 and Indonesian since age 5. Allegiance to other Nations goes as a clear violation of the Natural citizenship clause of the article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.
8. Under the Freedom of Information act 5 US 552, since no response was provided to numerous certified mail letters received by your office nine months ago, I demand a written response or Administrative hearing on the matter within 30 days. On behalf of my clients I demand an answer, as to when the Quo Warranto against Mr. Obama will be filed by the US Attorney General office, or in the alternative if the Attorney General office refuses to file Quo Warranto, I demand an ex-relator status for my clients to proceed with the Quo Warranto action against Mr. Obama in the DC court or the Supreme Court of the United States.
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
Counsel to the plaintiffs-ex relators.
Attachment
Quo Warranto request, Dossiers
Attn Mr. Eric Holder
United States Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20530-0001 USA
Dear Mr. Holder,
On March 1st on behalf of my clients I have submitted to you a request to file Quo Warranto against Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. The request was filed due to following troubling facts:
1. According to a number of licensed investigators National Databases show Mr. Obama using as many as 39 different Social Security numbers, which included the numbers of deceased individuals and numbers never assigned.
2. Number 042-68-4425 that Mr. Obama used for most of his life and is currently using while residing in the White House, is a number assigned to an individual born in 1890, who resided in the state of Connecticut and this Social Security number was issued in the state of Connecticut where Mr. Obama never resided.
3. One of the leading forensic experts in the country Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines has prepared an affidavit, stating that Mr. Obama’s short version Certification of Life Birth cannot be treated as genuine without seeing the original on file in the Health Department in HI.
4. The state of Hawaii since 1911 had in its statutes a provision allowing Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents of get Hawaiian Birth Certificates(currently statute 338-17) and currently statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital.
5. In spite of over 100 law suits filed around the country and 12 Citizen Grand Jury indictments Mr. Obama refused to sign a consent to unseal his original birth certificate currently sealed in the Health Department of the state of Hawaii and all the other vital records.
6. Ms. Chiuomi Fukino, Director of the Health Department of the State of Hawaii has provided a statement that there is a document on file in Hawaii, however she refused to provide any information, as to what document is on file: whether it is a Birth Certificate given to a foreign born child of Hawaiian resident, whether it is an amended Birth certificate, obtained when Mr. Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. She refused to answer any questions as to whether his birth certificate was obtained based on a proper hospital birth certificate or based on a statement of one of his relatives only, which needs to be corroborated.
7. Regardless of place of birth of Mr. Obama, since birth and until now Mr. Obama had a split allegiance. He had British citizenship at birth, Kenyan since age 2 and Indonesian since age 5. Allegiance to other Nations goes as a clear violation of the Natural citizenship clause of the article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.
8. Under the Freedom of Information act 5 US 552, since no response was provided to numerous certified mail letters received by your office nine months ago, I demand a written response or Administrative hearing on the matter within 30 days. On behalf of my clients I demand an answer, as to when the Quo Warranto against Mr. Obama will be filed by the US Attorney General office, or in the alternative if the Attorney General office refuses to file Quo Warranto, I demand an ex-relator status for my clients to proceed with the Quo Warranto action against Mr. Obama in the DC court or the Supreme Court of the United States.
Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
Counsel to the plaintiffs-ex relators.
Attachment
Quo Warranto request, Dossiers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
