The global warming advocates lost their homework. Ooops. No raw data exists anymore. YOU JUST GOTTA BELIEEEEEEVE!
Er. Ya. Um, no.
This lib lady trots out her best ad hominem attacks. Barely amusing, and not at all convincing.
Hat Tip NNN.
Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks “numerous” meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nations banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a “last ditch gambit” whose success is “far from certain”.
And to Obama’s “last ditch gambit”, these reports continue, he is to announce in a nationwide address to his people this coming week that he is going to expand the level of US Military Forces in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of troops, while at the same time using the deployment of these soldiers as a “cover” for returning to the United States over 200,000 additional American soldiers from the over 800 bases in over 39 countries they have stationed around the Globe bringing the level of these forces in America to over 1 million, a number the US Military believes will be able to contain the “explosion of violence” expected to roil these peoples when they learn their economy has been bankrupted.
First, Texans on average believe in laissez-faire markets with an emphasis on individual responsibility. Since the ’80s, California’s policy-makers have favored central planning solutions and a reliance on a government social safety net. This unrelenting commitment to big government has led to a huge tax burden and triggered a mass exodus of jobs. The Trends Editors examined the resulting migration in “Voting with Our Feet,” in the April 2008 issue of Trends.
Second, Californians have largely treated environmentalism as a “religious sacrament” rather than as one component among many in maximizing people’s quality of life. As we explained in “The Road Ahead for Housing,” in the June 2009 issue of Trends, environmentally-based land-use restriction centered in California played a huge role in inflating the recent housing bubble. Similarly, an unwillingness to manage ecology proactively for man’s benefit has been behind the recent epidemic of wildfires.
Third, California has placed “ethnic diversity” above “assimilation,” while Texas has done the opposite. “Identity politics” has created psychological ghettos that have prevented many of California’s diverse ethnic groups and subcultures from integrating fully into the mainstream. Texas, on the other hand, has proactively encouraged all the state’s residents to join the mainstream.
Fourth, beyond taxes, diversity, and the environment, Texas has focused on streamlining the regulatory and litigation burden on its residents. Meanwhile, California’s government has attempted to use regulation and litigation to transfer wealth from its creators to various special-interest constituencies.
A corruption of the word "Owned." This originated in an online game called Warcraft, where a map designer misspelled "owned." When the computer beat a player, it was supposed to say, so-and-so "has been owned."
Instead, it said, so-and-so "has been pwned."
It basically means "to own" or to be dominated by an opponent or situation, especially by some god-like or computer-like force.
The review of the various clinical trials as reported by OHSU showed that mammography reduced deaths from breast cancer by about 15% in women ages 40-49. They also found that 1904 (range 929-6378) women had to be screened over 10 years to save one life. For women ages 50-59 years, the reduction in deaths was about the same (14%). The number that needed to be screened was 1339 (range 322-7455). In women ages 60-69, the reduction in deaths was 32%, and the number who needed to be screened over 10 years was 377.
What this means is that mammograms are indeed successful in reducing deaths from breast cancer in all age groups, especially women between 60 and 69 years old. But since the actual incidence of breast cancer is less in women ages 40-49, the absolute/actual numbers of lives saved is also less. So you have to screen more women to get the same benefit.
Stated another way, the Task Force agrees that mammography reduces deaths in women ages 40-49. It just doesn’t save enough lives, in their opinion.
The United States Preventative Services Task Force USPSTF issued new guidelines:
1) The Task Force recommends against routine screening for women ages 40-49. Whether to start screening before age 50 should be an individual choice.
2) The Task Force recommends screening every two years for women between ages 50 and 74.
3) The Task Force can’t make any recommendations on whether women ages 75 and over should be screened, because there is not enough evidence upon which they can base a recommendation.
4) There is not enough evidence to make a recommendation about the value of clinical breast examination (a careful breast exam done periodically by a trained medical professional) for women 40 years of age or older
5) There is no evidence that teaching women how to do breast self examination makes an difference, so they recommend against teaching women how to do it
6) There isn’t enough evidence to say anything about the value of digital mammography and MRI screening in women at average risk of breast cancer.
Eventually, Harry Reid will bring the Bill to “cloture” — the critical step where the Senate will vote to end the debate. Mr Obama needs 60 votes here to defeat a Republican filibuster. This will be the most important vote of the entire process.
If he manages to defeat a Republican filibuster with 60 votes, the Senate votes on final passage of the Bill. Only a simple majority — 51 votes — is needed.
The House and Senate must then appoint members to a “conference committee” from each chamber, which will meet to reconcile the House and Senate Bills into one piece of legislation.
Sixty votes will again be needed to stop Republicans blocking the appointment of such a committee.
If differences are reconciled the committee produces a “conference report” — the final version of the legislation. It is debated again in both chambers but cannot be amended.
Sixty votes are again needed in the Senate to bring the debate to cloture and to move to a final vote. If each chamber votes to pass the final legislation it goes to Mr Obama for signature.
"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.
Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer, more prosperous world for all of us."
He got a huge cheer when he told them he was increasing military pay. "That's what you call an applause line," he said, before boarding his jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.
With an assist from Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambled Wednesday to pull together 60 votes for his health reform bill, awaiting all-important cost estimates in hopes of getting the bill to the floor by the weekend.
At around 2:15 p.m., the three moderate Democratic holdouts - Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson - entered Reid's office for a briefing....
As expected, moderates were the focal point. Salazar ate lunch with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) in the Senate dining room. Lincoln (D-Ark.) hustled into the Senate reception room for a sitdown with Biden, but she emerged without making any public commitments....
Reid said Tuesday that he is "cautiously optimistic" he can secure the 60 votes he needs to move forward on the bill by this weekend. Reid's bill is expected to include a national government insurance plan with a provision for states to opt out. Reid is also expected to adjust a 40 percent excise tax on high-value insurance plans by raising the threshold at which insurers would pay the fee. He's expected to make up for that lost revenue by proposing an expansion of the Medicare payroll tax.
The primary problem with HR 3962 and the Senate proposals is that all of the changes they propose are made within a for-profit system. The House Bill strips the insurance companies of the right to deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition. Yet, it de-links the public option from Medicare reimbursement rates, thereby surrendering pricing to the private sector. The Bill removes the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by private insurers. However, it simultaneously mandates that all Americans carry some form of health insurance, thereby herding millions into low-coverage high-fee private plans. Each step in a positive direction is coupled with a restructuring that will enrich private insurance companies and pharmaceutical makers.
The bills lost further reform credentials as Democrats cut last minute deals with Republicans. Immigrants were removed from eligibility for the public option, abortions were written out of the proposal and Medicare funding was cut. The Medicare cuts are particularly cruel, since they will reduce an already compromised plan to bare bones coverage. Some of the cuts will limit private insurance profiteering, but others will slash necessary items such as exercise programs for seniors. Overall, these omissions signal that the reforms are not about providing comprehensive medical coverage, but about political expediency within the establishment political class. The next round of negotiations in the Senate is sure to produce even further regressive measures as campaign-donation driven legislators cut more deals.
Posted Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:00pm AEDT
A hotel in the French town of Nantes is offering the chance for people to become a hamster.
For 99 euros ($158) a night, you can eat hamster grain, run in a giant wheel, sleep in hay stacks in what is called the Hamster Villa.
Maud and Sebastien are the first ones to experience how hamsters live, not afraid at the thought of sleeping in hay or feeding on a hamster fountain and special grain.
It is a unique experience and, the guests say, just something different.
"To become a hamster, eat seeds, change our way of life... come out of our daily routine," Maud and Sebastien said.
Now Americans see the left’s policies for what they are:
1. The left wants America to abandon its defining commitment to individualism and replace it with a European-style nanny, or welfare, state.
At most Americans’ core is an abiding belief that we are supposed to take care of ourselves, our families and our neighbors, and not rely on the state to do so.
2. The left is naive about evil. Most Americans deemed Communism evil; the left ridiculed President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and often undermined the fight against the Communist world. So, too, the left is naive about Islamic terror and undermines the fight against it.
The smoking gun was the nearly universal denial by the left that his Islamic beliefs had anything to do with Maj. Nidal Hasan’s mass murder of fellow servicemen at Fort Hood. One of many examples was this reaction to the shootings by Evan Thomas, Editor at Large at Newsweek: “I think he’s probably just a nut case. But with that label (Muslim) attached to him, it will get the right wing going…”
3. The left is more interested in redistributing wealth than in creating it. This should have been as obvious to Americans as the brightness of the sun. Finally, Americans are coming to realize that the left’s goal is now, as it always has been, equality, not prosperity.
4. The left is far more interested in power than the right is. This, too, should have been self-evident, but finally, people are realizing that those who are preoccupied with creating an ever-expanding state are obviously far more interested in amassing power than those who want a smaller state.
5. The left is preoccupied with America being loved, and in pursuit of that end, compromises some of America’s core values. Examples abound here, too. To cite a few: the Obama administration’s neglect of those in Iran risking their lives for freedom in that tyranny; the administration’s refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama when the Tibetan leader visited Washington, lest the president annoy China’s dictators; the American government siding with Hugo Chavez against the Honduran government, which had legally removed a Chavez clone from the Honduran presidency; and the president’s obsequious apologies for America wherever he goes.
First, the Left is not being "given credit" in an important sense: Despite all the evidence available, we aren't willing to infer its true motives. We continue to postulate that the Left is well-meaning but misguided. This is emphatically not the case.
Second, many leftist initiatives of the past year have a common theme: irreversibility. Mark Steyn has written on this subject, with particular attention to the irreversibility of nationalized health care. An irreversibly larger State is a larger bastion for statists.
Third, the weakening of America's defenses, both on the national (armed services, intelligence, etc.) and individual (gun rights) levels, has as its all too obvious aim the creation of a more fearful citizenry -- because fearful people are more easily subjugated and ruled.
American youth are the engine of the left. The democratic party knows full well that anarcho communist policies will forever be supported by youth looking to SMASH IT ALL UP. They wish to be in charge rather than start on the bottom as previous generations did.
Our gun rights and our military are in the way of their democratic "fun society". The military respects good order and guards the ideals of the true state, the constitutional republic. Gun owners can defend themselves from mobs of radicals seeking "social justice", this mob of course thinks the individual should have no means to repel them. I certainly hope most of you have a means of defense as I see the left making more and more bold moves toward their anarchistic "fun society" of entitlement, freedom from laws, and mob rule.Many are seeing the hell coming our way, now a box of bullets that used to sell for 15.00 sells for 60.00 after a long wait period on backorder. Handloaders are now discovering that it takes an act of god to find overpriced primers. Popular firearms are flying off the shelves for as much as 4 times what they costed 2 years ago. Yes America something is going down.
Reporting from Santa Barbara - Hannah Giles was in the middle of her guerrilla warfare lecture this weekend at the young conservatives leadership conference when a man in the audience interrupted her.
"We love you!" he cried out. The crowd erupted in applause and whistles.
"Aw," Giles said into the microphone. "I love you guys too."
At age 20, Giles is a rock star of conservative activism. She shot onto the national scene in September after posing as a prostitute at ACORN offices around the country, where she secretly videotaped employees who appeared to give her advice on tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution.
Outrage over the recordings led Congress to cut federal funding for the community organizing group.
Giles credits the Young America's Foundation -- the group that put on the conference -- with inspiring much of her political action.
Two years ago, she said, she was just a laid-back surfer kid from Miami when a friend got her to attend a foundation event in Washington, D.C. That, she said, was where she converted to conservatism.
In her lecture Friday about how to take down liberal organizations and expose what she called media corruption, Giles sought to stir others to action. "Above all, attack, attack, attack," she said, quoting Republican consultant Roger Stone. "Never defend."
For her own efforts, she was given the group's Young Student Activist award.
There have been "lone wolf" mass murderers in which angry radical Muslims sought to channel their frustrations and failures into violence against their perceived enemies of Islam [in addition to the larger terror plots].
Since Sept. 11, several Muslim men have run over innocent bystanders or shot random people at or near military bases, synagogues and shopping malls.
After the initial hysteria died down, we were usually told that such acts were isolated incidents, involving personal "issues" rather than radical Islamic hatred of the U.S. Yet a few examples show that was not quite the case.
The just-executed sniper John Allan Muhammad, who, along with an accomplice, killed 10, voiced approval of Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic violence.
Naveed Afzal Haq is currently on trial for going on a murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building. A survivor said Haq stated his attack was a "personal statement against Jews."
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar ran over nine students at the University of North Carolina. Officers said he told them afterward he wanted to avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide.
Omeed Aziz Popal struck 18 pedestrians with his car near a Jewish center in San Francisco. Witnesses say he said, "I am a terrorist," at the scene.
No doubt in each case, experts could assure us that there were extenuating personal circumstances — stresses and mental illnesses that better explain what happened.
Mere mention that such killers typically voiced radical Islamic or virulently anti-Semitic themes often can earn one charges of Islamaphobia, racism or other illiberal biases. Indeed, I expect dozens of angry, accusatory letters in response to this column.
Nevertheless, the facts since 9/11 reveal an undeniable reality.
Every few months either an Islamic-inspired terrorist plot will be foiled, or a young Muslim male will shoot, run down or stab someone while invoking anger at non-Muslims.
In other words, the attack on Fort Hood happened on schedule. It was the rule, not the exception. And something like it will occur again — soon.
More at Investors Business Daily.
It’s Friday. The president is flying off to Asia. Congress is not in session. Perfect time to drop a bombshell on the American people:Via Michelle Malkin.
The Obama administration is bringing 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York City for a civilian trial.
No, it’s not a joke.
We have an announcement as well: we will fight with every remaining breath in our bodies both their bringing KSM and the rest of the 9/11 conspirators to federal courtrooms within walking distance of where they slaughtered our loved ones. And whomever finds Manhattan’s federal courthouse near Ground Zero a “sentimental favorite” for the 9/11 trials is a damn fool and they ALL ought to be fired. Pass that message on, far, wide, and up and down the chain-of-command.
Yesterday Chris Bowers made the interesting point that Obama’s decision on Afghanistan is likely to most heavily impact his standing among Democrats — and that if he damages his standing among the base it risks imperiling the rest of his agenda.
Comes now some new Gallup polling that seems to confirm this: It finds that Obama’s decision is likely to have its greatest impact among fellow Dems, and may not change his standing much with Republicans and independents.
Though nothing has been decided, Obama’s advisers are said to be leaning towards sending around 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and most of the various scenarios Obama is considering entail a troop increase. The rub, from Gallup, is that a huge percentage of Dems don’t want any increase:
If Obama decides to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, he will be going against the wishes of the vast majority of rank-and-file Democrats. In fact, 60% of Democrats would like the president to begin to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, while 26% support a troop increase of about 40,000 (18%) or less than that number (8%).