Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Feds’ Health Spending to Double in a Decade

NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that the government has been a part of in funding HAS EVER facilitated in the lowering of its costs. NOTHING. If the idea that you liberals want to facilitate is one of price controls, and nationalizing all hospitals in the country then there are other countries out there for you.

But more to the point is the ever increasing cost of health care, which will NEVER EVER be lowered through increased government intervention.


The federal government will spend twice as much on health care in 2017 as it did in 2007, as costs keep going up and as Boomers enroll in Medicare. The toll: federal outlays for Medicare and Medicaid will hit $1.5 trillion, up from $750 billion last year, according to an estimate published today in Health Affairs.

The estimates don?t take into account the expanded role the feds would play under the Democratic presidential candidates health care proposals, which would cost about $100 billion a year, the WSJ notes. But once you?re at $1.5 trillion, the leap to $1.6 trillion doesn?t seem so vast.

The nation?s overall spending on health care ? including federal, state and private payers ? will continue its long tradition of growing faster than the overall economy, and health will account for nearly one fifth of the GDP by 2017, according to the estimate, by analysts from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Meanwhile, the higher-ups in Washington are fighting over how to slow the growth of Medicare spending. President Bush has proposed freezing reimbursement rates for health care providers such as hospitals, nursing homes and home health centers, the Associated Press points out. Bush also proposed making wealthier seniors pay more for Medicare drug coverage.

The Dems have suggested cutting payments to privately run Medicare plans, which cost the government more than traditional Medicare. That difference will become increasingly costly in the years to come ? the Health Affairs paper estimated that one in four Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in private plans by 2017, up from about one in six today.

Government intervention and funding will only INCREASE its costs. Unless of course you want a Nationalized system in which the Hospitals are all controlled by the federal government in which case you WILL SEE a large exodus of Medical Research companies with high paying jobs to other countries. They are already itching to leave this will only increase their incentive.

That supposed 100 Billion is also a very SMALL estimate on what the actual cost will be. Right now as it stands Canada spends over 100 Billion on only 30 million people. The US has 10 times that many people. To assume that the cost overruns and increases in health coverage under this Universal Health plan will be anything near 100 Billion is a fallacy. Try upwards of 1 Trillion or more.

Why we are trying to adopt failed Socialist medicinal practices in the US is beyond my comprehension I guess. Other then the fact that more and more people believe that the government should be their sole provider of everything.

People out there are concerned with Privacy rights on Trains but ignore the massive violation of privacy rights that will come as the Health Department will get more authority to look into your medical records to better facilitate "preventative" measures for you. Which is part of the Obama plan on Health Care. To have more "preventative" health care. Which only means that a government agency will start to recommend to you what YOU should be doing with your health. Not your doctor. Which I guess in this Universal Health care plan would be one in the same. As doctors will wind up being employees of the federal government eventually.

Should be a fun 4 years after November.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

Yeah Global Warming. LOL...
Fucking tards!@

Friday, February 22, 2008

Democrats campaign expenditures

Now even though this article is about Hillary there are parts here that show how similar the spending was with Obama's campaign.

People have tried to argue that it was better "money management" by Obama that has given him this lead monetarily which clearly from this article is a flat out wrong assumption. That somehow Obama spent his money more wisely and from what I can tell they spent it the same. The difference is that he received more in donations from a larger pool of people.

Considering if they both spent about the same then they BOTH are HORRIBLE at money management like I had stated in another thread. Leading me to believe that money management with Trillions of dollars won't be any better. But I am sure there are those that will say otherwise that "attorneys" are all great money managers, that Obama is the great "economic savior" etc etc.

Deny or accept as you wish.

Clinton Donors Worried by Campaign’s Spending

This article was reported by Michael Luo, Jo Becker and Patrick Healy and was written by Mr. Healy.

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,” said a prominent New York donor. “So much about her campaign needs to change — but it may be too late.”

The high-priced senior consultants to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have emerged as particular targets of complaints, given that they conceived and executed a political strategy that has thus far proved unsuccessful.

The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.

Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January. His total, including the campaign’s debt to him, tops $730,000.

The advertising firm owned by Mandy Grunwald, the longtime media strategist for both Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton, the former president, has collected $2.3 million in fees and expenses, and is still owed another $240,000.

“Fees and payments are in line with industry standards,” Mr. Wolfson said. “Spending priorities have been consistent with overall strategic goals.”

But some Democrats are now asking if the money spent on a campaign that appears to be sputtering — $106 million so far — was worth it.

“It’s easy to be critical, but had she won Iowa, none of this would have mattered. It wouldn’t have mattered what she spent because money would have come pouring in,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic political consultant and a veteran of Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election bid. “But the fact that she did not has made everyone focus on where the dollars went — and where they think the money should’ve gone.”

Mrs. Clinton came into January with a cash advantage over Mr. Obama, with about $19 million available for the primary, compared with about $13 million for him. She wound up spending at roughly the same rate as Mr. Obama, about a million dollars a day, but because she performed dismally compared to him in raising money, she ended the month essentially in the red and was forced to lend her campaign $5 million, while he had $19 million for the coming contests.

Over all, Mrs. Clinton has spent more than $35 million on media, polling and consulting. A comparison with Mr. Obama’s spending is difficult because of the ways the campaigns labeled expenses, but it appears he spent about $40 million in those areas.

In other notable expenditures during the lean month of January, Mrs. Clinton paid $275,000 to Sunrise Communications, a South Carolina firm that was supposed to turn out black voters for her and collected nearly $800,000 in total. She lost that state to Mr. Obama by a wide margin. Even small expenses piled up in January: the campaign spent more than $11,000 on pizza and $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts runs.

Mr. Penn, the chief strategist, said in an interview that, since 2001, he no longer owned any of the political consulting firm of Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. He said the firm’s fees were capped at $20,000 a month and that the “great bulk” of the payments went for direct mail.

Joe Trippi, who was a senior adviser to John Edwards’s presidential campaign, said he believed that the Clinton team had made two fundamental errors.

First, he argued, Mrs. Clinton built a top-down fund-raising operation that relied on a core group of donors to write checks early on for the maximum amount, $4,600 for the primary and the general election, which left few of them to go back to when money became tight. Mr. Obama, by contrast, focused on building a network of small donors whose continued ability to give has been essential to his success this winter.

And second, Mr. Trippi said, the Clinton campaign spent money as though the race were going to be over after a handful of states had voted and was not prepared for a contest that would stretch for months.

“The problem is she ran a campaign like they were staying at the Ritz-Carlton,” Mr. Trippi said. “Everything was the best. The most expensive draping at events. The biggest charter. It was like, ‘We’re going to show you how presidential we are by making our events look presidential.’ ”

For instance, during the week before the Jan. 19 caucuses in Nevada, the Clinton campaign spent more than $25,000 for rooms at the Bellagio in Las Vegas; nearly $5,000 was spent at the Four Seasons in Las Vegas that week. Some staff members also stayed at Planet Hollywood nearby.

From the start of the campaign, some donors had concerns about the Clinton team’s ability to manage money.

Patti Solis Doyle, Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign manager until she was replaced on Feb. 10, also ran her Senate re-election bid in 2006. That campaign spent about $30 million even though Mrs. Clinton faced only token Democratic and Republican opposition.

“The Senate race spending in 2006 was an omen for a lot of us inside the campaign, but Hillary assured us that her presidential bid would be the best run in history,” said one major Clinton fund-raiser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations within the campaign.

Yet the Clinton campaign at times found itself spending money on items that were not ultimately helpful. As part of their get-out-the-vote effort in Iowa, the campaign came up with a plan to have a local supermarket deliver sandwich platters to pre-caucus parties. It spent more than $95,384 on Jan. 1 at Hy-Vee Inc., a local grocery chain in West Des Moines, Iowa, in addition to buying loads of snow shovels to clear the walks for caucusgoers. Mrs. Clinton came in third in the Jan. 3 caucus. It did not snow.

Mr. Obama’s fund-raising surged after his Iowa victory. In January, he brought in more than $2.50 for every $1 she was given, and from Jan. 5 to Feb. 5, Mr. Obama spent nearly $16 million on political advertisements — more than $4 million more than Mrs. Clinton, according to a survey by the Campaign Media Analysis Group at TNS Media Intelligence. Mr. Obama broadcast 3,000 more advertisements than she did, and he was able to air those ads not only in the states that were immediately up for grabs but also in contests on Feb. 5 and beyond.

For instance, Mr. Obama spent nearly $480,000 on 1,331 spots in Missouri; he won the state’s primary, a closely fought contest and a national political bellwether, by one percentage point.

Mr. Obama’s campaign is not without highly paid consultants. His top media strategist is David Axelrod, whose firm received $175,000 in January and has collected $1.2 million over all. Mr. Obama’s polling is spread among four firms that have received $2.8 million collectively.

“Obviously, some campaigns are more careful and wise with their money than others,” Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who ran John Kerry’s presidential campaign until November 2003. “But these budgetary post-mortems tend to follow a familiar pattern; winners are by definition smart, and losers are dumb and wasteful. In truth, campaign budgeting is hard and complicated and three-dimensional and just impossible to understand without the full time-and-place context of the whole race.”

If they are both this bad at money management with a couple Million then wait till the endless pool of tax dollars is under their control and how quickly that money will be wasted on all sorts of social programs.

If Obama wins, which is what I suspect and he begins to implement these Socialist ideals that were posted before. He will destroy this economy. The worst thing you can do during an economic slow down is increase taxes. Something which I am sure Obama will be doing as he said in his speech within the first year!

Can't wait.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Old-Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skills

I heard this in the morning on NPR and found it rather interesting. Thought I would share.

On October 3, 1955, the Mickey Mouse Club debuted on television. As we all now know, the show quickly became a cultural icon, one of those phenomena that helped define an era.

What is less remembered but equally, if not more, important, is that another transformative cultural event happened that day: The Mattel toy company began advertising a gun called the "Thunder Burp."

I know — who's ever heard of the Thunder Burp?

Well, no one.

The reason the advertisement is significant is because it marked the first time that any toy company had attempted to peddle merchandise on television outside of the Christmas season. Until 1955, ad budgets at toy companies were minuscule, so the only time they could afford to hawk their wares on TV was during Christmas. But then came Mattel and the Thunder Burp, which, according to Howard Chudacoff, a cultural historian at Brown University, was a kind of historical watershed. Almost overnight, children's play became focused, as never before, on things — the toys themselves.

"It's interesting to me that when we talk about play today, the first thing that comes to mind are toys," says Chudacoff. "Whereas when I would think of play in the 19th century, I would think of activity rather than an object."

Chudacoff's recently published history of child's play argues that for most of human history what children did when they played was roam in packs large or small, more or less unsupervised, and engage in freewheeling imaginative play. They were pirates and princesses, aristocrats and action heroes. Basically, says Chudacoff, they spent most of their time doing what looked like nothing much at all.

"They improvised play, whether it was in the outdoors… or whether it was on a street corner or somebody's back yard," Chudacoff says. "They improvised their own play; they regulated their play; they made up their own rules."

But during the second half of the 20th century, Chudacoff argues, play changed radically. Instead of spending their time in autonomous shifting make-believe, children were supplied with ever more specific toys for play and predetermined scripts. Essentially, instead of playing pirate with a tree branch they played Star Wars with a toy light saber. Chudacoff calls this the commercialization and co-optation of child's play — a trend which begins to shrink the size of children's imaginative space.

But commercialization isn't the only reason imagination comes under siege. In the second half of the 20th century, Chudacoff says, parents became increasingly concerned about safety, and were driven to create play environments that were secure and could not be penetrated by threats of the outside world. Karate classes, gymnastics, summer camps — these create safe environments for children, Chudacoff says. And they also do something more: for middle-class parents increasingly worried about achievement, they offer to enrich a child's mind.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The best thing #43 ever did!

What has been the best thing G.W. has ever done?
Appoint Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito! That's what!

Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps

WASHINGTON (AP) - The SupremeCourt dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.


Bad Moon Rising

Wednesday night, February 29, 2008 the Western Hemisphere will experience a total Lunar Eclipse. That is, the Moon will be completely covered by Earth's umbra, or shadow. The Earth will briefly be directly in between the Sun and Moon. The Moon will still be visible to us Earthlings because of the refraction of light rays escaping the atmosphere. Because of the atmosphere acting like a filter, the only rays that will be able to escape is of the red spectrum. The Moon will appear blood red or brownish in color. Here is what is interesting about this: many religions associate the Moon turning blood red as a bad omen; even the bible. Read it here and here.

Interestingly, Cristopher Columbus used the Lunar Eclipse to his advantage.

Rewind to 504 years ago!

The story goes in 1504, Columbus was stranded and badly needing supplies in Jamaica. The locals were fed up and warring (perhaps mad as hell they were on their land, but that is another hisotry lesson) with these foreigners from Europe. They refused to give Columbus and crew anything.

Columbus looked to his almanac and discovered a mathematicians lunar prediction. Ding, goes off in the bold explorer's head!

He goes to the tribesman and tells them if they do not give him what he requires he will hide the moon!

Okay, I bet the tribesman were telling Colombus to get his white Euro-trash ass back on his dingy and fuck-off right? Yep! So Colombus says beware! (Disclaimer! These words are not actual conversation!)

That night I'm sure Colombus prayed his ass off that this pencil-necked mathematician from Berlin, or wherever, better had his numbers right!

Low and behold Colombus' bet paid off and the locals begged for him to return the moon!!!

Of course Colombus did so, but not before getting what supplies he and his crew needed!

Now that is genius!

Now what I'm getting at here is, how many times have you seen this happen today? Today as in our present time.

Me? I see it every freakin' day when Senators Obama and Clinton take the stage and make their threats to tax the evil rich and empty promises to the ignorant, uneducated, and emotional (make me faint when I hear Obama speak) liberals.

P.S. Thanks Breibart for a bit of the actual historical reference on Columbus' story. Read it here if you like.

P.S.S. Uhhh, let us also hope that Wed. night's shootdown of some supposedly bazzilion dollar satellite goes well and doesn't shootdown the Moon!

P.S.S.S. Just kidding NAVY!!! LOL

Obama’s Big-Government Vision

Sen. Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he’s aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation’s rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing — exactly what the nation and the stock market do not want to hear.

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to “reopen” trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple this benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it. It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

This isn’t free enterprise. It’s old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate. It’s plain ol’ big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

Obama would like voters to believe that he’s the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he’s looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a “Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan,” and it’s totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop “shipping jobs overseas” and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he’d be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn’t he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It’s simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

Doesn’t Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn’t he understand that without capital, businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers?

Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama’s is a profoundly pessimistic message. “Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar,” writes Henninger. “It’s a downer.”

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It’s an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can’t have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama’s program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages.

Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway, and Sweden? That’s no way to run economic policy.

I have so far been soft on Obama this election season. In many respects he is a breath of fresh air. He’s an attractive candidate with an appealing approach to politics. Obama is likeable, and sometimes he gets it — such as when he opposed Hillary Clinton’s five-year rate-freeze on mortgages.

But his message is pessimism, not hope. And behind the charm and charisma is a big-government bureaucrat who would take us down the wrong economic road.

Its going to be an interesting 4 years after he wins.

Obama’s International Socialist Connections

There are those on the internet, and in Obamaland that refuse to believe that Obama is a Socialist at heart. That when you scratch the surface of pressed suit and great speeches you get a person bent on swinging America HARD LEFT. Then you have those that agree with those steps. Fine.

But for the earlier group swallow this:

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?

DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.

The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.

Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."

Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting "in the Democrats HQ in Washington," met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that "PES activist groups" in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.

The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson, the subject of our 2005 column, "A Socialist at the Washington Post," has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama's success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros's success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.

It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.

After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was "penned in the pen." A blurb for the book declares, "Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center."

In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as "a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America's budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform." His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who's who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.

Creamer's list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a "Democratic political consultant."

Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.

Obama and El Che.

Now this is fairly old on the Blogosphere but I felt it necessary to capture most of the important things here. Val from Babalu Blog has done a PHENOMENAL job of getting everything pertaining to Obama and the the Che flag.
So here is a small recap.

Obama Campaign office had a flag of El Che during a recent local news report.
A Fox Affiliate had the report with Video.

The Obama Campaign issued a statement about the Flag:

Statement from the Barack Obama Campaign over Inappropriate Use of Flag
February 13, 2008

"Senator Obama has made it clear that we will maintain the embargo as a way to leverage meaningful democratic change in Cuba. The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."

And a more recent updated more PC version:

"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama’s views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people." -- Obama Campaign

That was a steaming pile of Bull Shit!
Video proof of Otherwise:

Seeing as every campaign involves "volunteers" except for the upper echelon of a campaign its pretty silly to just say this is an outside effort. But lets talk about this Houston "volunteer" for a minute.

Maria Isabel is a precinct captain for Obama. She is also co-chair of a volunteer group called Houston Obama Leadership Team (HOLT). She has pictures of herself with both Obama and his wife on her Flickr page. She is obviously very active in both the campaign and the Democratic party. Just because she's not a paid employ does not exonerate her or the campaign. Almost everyone except the very top people on a campaign are volunteers.

While Obama may try to distance himself from any Socialists ties NOW. The following post will open some eyes on that front.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Default Senior benefit costs up 24%

This is going to be rather interesting in the next 4-5 years as we slowly see the crawl towards more "Nationalized" health care.

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.

"We have a health care crisis. We don't have an entitlement crisis," says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors.

He says seniors shouldn't be blamed for the growing cost of government retirement programs.

The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government. States chipped in $27 billion more in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.

All three major senior programs � Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid � experienced dramatically escalating costs that outstripped inflation and the growth in the senior population.

Benefits per senior are soaring at a time when the senior population is not. The portion of the U.S. population ages 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000.

The senior boom, however, starts big time in 2011, when the first baby boomers � 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 � turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance. The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and qualify for Social Security at reduced benefits.

USA TODAY used a variety of government data to calculate the cost of providing Social Security, medical benefits and long-term care to an aging population. Billions of dollars paid to non-seniors � the disabled, children and others in the programs � were removed to create an estimate that focuses exclusively on seniors.

Findings include:

•Medicare experienced the most explosive growth from 2000 to 2007. The Medicare prescription-drug benefit, started in 2006, accounts for about one-fourth of the increase in Medicare, which provides health benefits for people 65 and older.

•Long-term care costs per senior have declined slightly in the past three years because of a move away from nursing homes to less expensive home care.

•The cost of senior benefits is equal to $10,673 for every non-senior household.

•About 35% of the federal budget is spent on senior benefits, up from 32% in 2004.

Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow at the non-partisan Urban Institute, notes that the full cost of senior benefits goes beyond Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A complete estimate would include other programs for retirees, such as military and civil servant pensions and medical benefits, he says.

The Urban Institute estimates that kids receive an average of about $4,000 per child in benefits, including the child tax credit and other indirect assistance.

Economist Dean Baker calls it "granny bashing" to focus on the cost of senior benefits. The elderly paid a designated tax for Social Security and Medicare taxes during their decades of working to support these programs when they retired, says Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic Policy and Research.

Remember folks the SOLUTION is to have a NATIONAL government program that will make things..... cheaper....

Yeah thats it....

Its only going to get worse with time people.

Reason #1,324,987 to Secure the F-in Borders!!!

Has anybody seen this story on the MSM sites???
On any of them??
Nyet. Me either

Three Afghan nationals held at Nedumbaserry Airport Kochi,

Feb 13 (UNI) Three Afghan nationals were arrested at the Nedumbaserry International Airport, near here, today for travelling on fake Mexican passports, Immigration officials said.

The three were earlier in the day deported from Kuwait after authorities there doubted their claim to be Mexican nationals.

Immigration and other security officials interrogated the three for several hours and finally arrested them on charges of travelling on forged passports.According to

Immgiration officials, they were Afghan nationals trying to go to France. However, their real names have not been disclosed so far.

The Mexican passports which they were carrying identified them as Antonio Lopez Juan (42), Javier Sanchez Alberto (20) and Atonio Lopez Ernesto (16). They had left from Nedumbaserry Airport on February 11 for Kuwait en route to France.

However, the emigration officials at Kuwait had found them to be suspects as they reportedly could not understand any Spanish. They also suspected the passports to be forged. The three were then deported to Nedumbaserry today.

The three had reportedly arrived in New Delhi on January 23 this year, as per the stamps on their passports. However, there was some doubt about the authenticity of the arrival stamps on the passports also, emigration officials said.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The Merida Initiative

Thank God for Americans like Michelle Malkin. Please read this report from her about Bush plan to fund the southern Mexican border with American taxpayer money with security resouces so they control thier illegal immigration problems.

Yeah you heard me! America is going to help Mexico's border problem! HEEELLLLLOOOO!!
Is Bush Serious???

Read MM's story here pronto!

Get Boortz's brilliant take on this what I like to call this Meirda Initiative. Meirda means shit by the way... just so you know.

Honestly folks. I'm really speechless here. Half the time I really don't understand Bush and Co.

America will not last long, as a sovereign nation, with continual harmful initiatives like this.

Friday, February 08, 2008

The Sun Also Sets

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Undocumented Fleeing Az for Texas

All this Bull about enforcement not working?
That its impossible to deport illegals is sure not being covered by major news outlets.
Funny why that is.

Most of illegal immigration opponents like myself have stated this clearly.
If you ENFORCE the laws, and make it harder for illegals to get jobs, get housing, and free education then watch as they all leave willingly. You won't need a single deportation bus.

Now we see how true that is:

Undocumented immigrants are coming into Texas, but not from where one might think.

The rush is coming from Arizona, Oklahoma and other states, places that recently passed tough anti immigrant laws.
The two toughest measures are in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Effective January 1, the Arizona law suspended the business license of employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. On a second offense, the license is revoked.

The Oklahoma statute, which took effect in November, makes it a crime to transport, harbor or hire undocumented immigrants.
Anecdotal information seems to indicate undocumented immigrants are leaving these states in growing numbers.

"They're really tightening the screws," said Mario Ortiz, an undocumented Mexican worker who came to Houston after leaving Phoenix last year." There have been a lot coming. It could be 100 a day."

In Tulsa, Okla., the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has estimated 15,000 to 25,000 undocumented immigrants have left the area. One builder estimated 30 percent of the Hispanic work force left Tulsa.

"There's been a tremendous impact in Oklahoma City," said David Castillo, the executive director of the Greater Oklahoma City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "We've had several companies close shop and leave the state. Banks have called us and say they're closing 30 accounts per week."

Enrique Hubbard, Mexico's consul general in Dallas, said a dozen Mexican families from Oklahoma have applied for consular documents listing their new homes in the Dallas area.

Texas' reputation as a welcoming destination has experts predicting more immigrants will come to Houston and other cities in the state. Texas has not passed a state wide law targeting the employment of undocumented immigrants.

"Texas is still very much an entrepreneurial place where you can find your place in this economy," said James Hollifield, a Southern Methodist University professor and migration expert.

Ortiz, a native of he southern Mexican state of Tabasco, said he left Phoenix eight months ago after working 60 to 70 hours a week at a plant nursery. While now he can only pick up two to three days a week of yard work and barely earns enough to send back to his family, he prefers Texas to Arizona.

"Here, they let you work. Over there, they won't. There is a lot of racism, but here there isn't - it's better," Ortiz said of Houston.

And the issue has NOTHING to do with racism.
But with the damn LAW!

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

And the Oscar goes to.....

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - There she goes again.

It was another two-hanky day on the campaign trail yesterday, as Hillary Rodham Clinton teared up at an event targeting female voters on the eve of the Super Tuesday elections.

After she got a warm introduction from an old friend, Clinton's eyes welled up and glistened under TV camera lights. She paused and gathered her composure.

She didn't choke up - as she did at a similar event on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, a moment that Clinton now says may have helped her snag a critical victory last month by making her appear human and vulnerable.

But there were enough similarities between the two teary instances that skeptics wondered whether the whole thing was contrived.

"Whenever [Barack] Obama picks up steam, she seems to open up the waterworks," said one Democratic operative.

It all started yesterday, when Clinton got a moving introduction from one of her mentors, Penn Rhodeen, who supervised her at a Legal Aid Society while Clinton was a student at Yale Law School.

Rhodeen called Clinton "our incomparable Hillary," after describing the day when, "You appeared at my door, dressed mostly in purple" in a sheepskin coat with bellbottoms.

"You looked wonderful - and so 1972," he said.

Rhodeen himself choked up during his remarks, and Clinton came to the brink of losing her composure. Tears welled up in her eyes as she gathered herself to address 12 preselected women sitting around a table at the Yale Child Study Center, where she once worked.

"Well, I said I would not tear up. Already, we're not exactly on that path," Clinton said, evoking laughs from the crowd.

"She controlled it, but at the table you could see [the tears in her eyes]," said Erin Phillips, a second-year law student, who said Clinton "did great."

Later on, Clinton conducted a town-hall meeting on the Hallmark Channel with audiences from 22 Super Tuesday states. Her campaign paid Hallmark $500,000 for the hour of airtime.

She also appeared on CBS's "Late Show with David Letterman," where the talk-show host asked her if she had ordered hubby Bill to "ease up" on attacking Obama.

She acknowledged talking to her husband, but said, "It was more like, 'We have to get on the positive here.' "

Meanwhile, Obama campaigned with Sen. Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy at the Izod Center arena in New Jersey, next to the home of the champion Giants.

"Sometimes the underdog pulls it out," Obama said. "You can't always believe the pundits and prognosticators."

BRAVO.. right on cue.
Its was PERFECT. Didn't even skip a beat.
Almost as good as this one:

Notice the words, "I have so many opportunities for this country" damn if that is not Stalinist I don't know what is. Also what is this we have to reverse it thing? You mean reverse the growth in the economy? Well yeah if you ask Mr. Clinton. You know we have to stop Global Warming and all and to do that you have to destroy the US economy. Its the only way.

Jesus why is no one else seeing this garbage?
I PRAY she wins the general elections. God I do.
I want people to realize what a FANTASTIC mistake that will be.

Pretty convienient cough attack....

Especially since the question dealt with her husband which has been a bit of a thorn in the recent Billary campaign with his off the cuff remarks.

U.S. sees Russia, China, OPEC financial threat

Seriously? You are just now seeing this?

Russia, China and OPEC oil-producing countries have a worrisome potential to use their growing financial clout to exert political pressure, the top U.S. spy chief told Congress on Tuesday.

U.S. National Director of Intelligence Michael McConnell voiced the concern to Congress in his annual assessment of potential security threats to the United States.

McConnell also told the Senate Intelligence Committee in prepared testimony that the global threat of terrorism remained, but that al Qaeda had suffered setbacks and its international reputation was diminishing.

He voiced continued concern over Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons despite its halt to nuclear warhead design, and said political uncertainty in Pakistan had not threatened the military's control of that country's nuclear arsenal.

In listing top threats, McConnell cited "concerns about the financial capabilities of Russia, China and OPEC countries and the potential use of their market access to exert financial leverage to political ends."

Russia was positioning itself to control an energy supply and transportation network spanning from Europe to East Asia, and China's global engagement was driven by a need to access markets and resources, McConnell said.

He voiced concerns about the impact of a weaker U.S. dollar on global oil suppliers, some of whom have asked to be paid in currencies other than dollars, or delinked their currency pegs to the dollar.

"Continued concerns about dollar depreciation could tempt other producers to follow suit," McConnell said.

The dollar devaluation has its pros and its cons.
The pro being more exports from the US.
One of the cons are the supposed removing of the dollar from Oil purchases, but that is probably not going to happen. The world economy is way to invested in it to take that kind of hit.

Monday, February 04, 2008

Clinton's Grand Health Care Plan Enforcement Revealed


Bravo to George Stephonopolous this weekend for hammering Clinton on this issue. Here's the gist of it:

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always pecified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Please don't be an idiot and vote for this woman.
Need I say more.

New York Giants Defeat Mighty Mighty Patriots in Superbowl XLII

Last night I couldn't believe my eyes.
They did it.
The NY Giants won the Super Bowl.
I am a Giant fan and even I didn't think they would even make the playoffs nor win the Superbowl!
Nethier did many many many many other people.
Niether did the Patriots.
They came in undefeated.
They were heavily favored.
They were supposed to easily annihialate the G-men into obilivion for even daring to try and take their Superbowl win.
How do you like them apples Bostonians!