Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Discussion Forum - National

global warming, new damning evidence?

Azzy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:10:25 GMT

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

More musing here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009...files-or-fake/

Looks like the IPCC base docs were faked, and someone hacked the emails of those who did the faking and exposed them to the net.

Democrats: New tax should pay for Afghan war

dc dalton — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:47:24 GMT

Here we go again, get ready to open your wallet (or bend over) for a new income tax, swear they are going to tax us out of existence.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_lawm..._11192009.html

The article say 'almost no chance of becoming law' .... shall we take bets?

Audit the Fed Amendment Passes 43-26!

buster2209 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:05:52 GMT

Oddly enough, Mel Watt scores an F- on the GOA website.....

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-19/au...-passes-43-26/

Quote:

Audit the Fed Amendment Passes 43-26!

By tmartin � November 19, 2009

After a heated debate that lasted several hours, the Paul-Grayson �Audit the Fed� amendment passed 43-26 in the House Financial Services Committee earlier today. The amendment calls for a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve and replaces the opposing �placebo� amendment proposed by Mel Watt.

The Paul-Grayson initiative is an amendment to Barney Frank�s HR 3996, also known as the �Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009″. The Committee was going to vote on that bill today, but Barney Frank surprisingly postponed the vote until after the Thanksgiving recess:

(Rep. Barney) Frank told the panel that most of the members pushing him to postpone the vote were members of the Congressional Black Caucus who said that the political environment wasn�t right for a vote this afternoon.

�It�s my understanding,� Frank said, �that the issues being addressed are not internal to this bill.� In other words, the Democrats were not expressing particular problems with the bill itself, but the larger problems in the economy made them reluctant to support a bill that could be portrayed as too friendly to Wall Street.

Ron Paul sent out the following press release shortly after the amendment passed:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, D.C. � Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) is pleased to announce that his and Congressman Grayson�s amendment based on HR 1207 has passed in the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43-26 and will be included in major banking reform legislation.

The Paul/Grayson amendment:

* Removes the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed
* Allows audit of every item on the Fed�s balance sheet, all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, etc.
* Retains limited audit exemption on unreleased transcripts and minutes
* Sets 180-day time lag before details of Fed�s market actions may be released
* States that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO

�While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won�t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability,� stated Congressman Paul.

How they voted (HR 1207 co-sponsors in bold):

Democrats
MA-04 Rep. Barney Frank nay
PA-11 Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski nay
CA-35 Rep. Maxine Waters nay
NY-14 Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney nay
IL-04 Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez nay
NY-12 Rep. Nydia M. Vel�zquez nay
NC-12 Rep. Melvin L. Watt nay
NY-05 Rep. Gary L. Ackerman nay
CA-27 Rep. Brad Sherman yay
NY-06 Rep. Gregory W. Meeks nay
KS-03 Rep. Dennis Moore nay
MA-08 Rep. Michael E. Capuano nay
TX-15 Rep. Rub�n Hinojosa yay
MO-01 Rep. William Lacy Clay yay
NY-04 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy nay
CA-43 Rep. Joe Baca
MA-09 Rep. Stephen F. Lynch nay
CA-42 Rep. Gary G. Miller nay
GA-13 Rep. David Scott yay
TX-09 Rep. Al Green nay
MO-05 Rep. Emanuel Cleaver nay
IL-08 Rep. Melissa L. Bean nay
WI-04 Rep. Gwen Moore nay
NH-02 Rep. Paul W. Hodes yay
MN-05 Rep. Keith Ellison nay
FL-22 Rep. Ron Klein nay
OH-06 Rep. Charles Wilson nay
CO-07 Rep. Ed Perlmutter yay
IN-02 Rep. Joe Donnelly nay
IL-14 Rep. Bill Foster nay
IN-07 Rep. Andre Carson nay
CA-12 Rep. Jackie Speier yay
MS-01 Rep. Travis Childers yay
ID-01 Rep. Walt Minnick yay
NJ-03 Rep. John Adler yay
OH-15 Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy nay
OH-01 Rep. Steve Driehaus yay
FL-24 Rep. Suzanne Kosmas yay
FL-08 Rep. Alan Grayson yay
CT-04 Rep. Jim Himes nay
MI-09 Rep. Gary Peters yay
NY-25 Rep. Dan Maffei yay

Republicans

AL-06 Rep. Spencer Bachus yay
TX-19 Rep. Randy Neugebauer yay
DE-01 Rep. Michael N. Castle yay
NY-03 Rep. Peter King yay
CA-40 Rep. Edward R. Royce yay
OK-03 Rep. Frank D. Lucas yay
TX-14 Rep. Ron Paul (sponsor) yay
IL-16 Rep. Donald A. Manzullo yay
NC-03 Rep. Walter B. Jones yay
IL-13 Rep. Judy Biggert yay
NC-13 Rep. Brad Miller

WV-02 Rep. Shelley Moore Capito yay
TX-05 Rep. Jeb Hensarling yay
NJ-05 Rep. Scott Garrett yay
SC-03 Rep. J. Gresham Barrett yay
PA-06 Rep. Jim Gerlach yay
GA-06 Rep. Tom Price yay
NC-10 Rep. Patrick T. McHenry yay
CA-48 Rep. John Campbell yay
FL-12 Rep. Adam Putnam yay
MN-06 Rep. Michele Bachmann yay
TX-24 Rep. Kenny Marchant yay
MI-11 Rep. Thaddeus McCotter yay
CA-22 Rep. Kevin McCarthy yay
FL-15 Rep. Bill Posey yay
KS-02 Rep. Lynn Jenkins yay
NY-26 Rep. Christopher Lee yay
MN-03 Rep. Erik Paulsen yay
NJ-07 Rep. Leonard Lance yay

The UN may soon be set to enforce "politeness" amidst diversity

King 5.45 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:55:35 GMT

So much for free speech, as ugly as it might get.

Quote:

AP Exclusive: Muslim Countries Seek Blasphemy Ban

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 19, 2009

Filed at 7:30 p.m. ET

GENEVA (AP) -- Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery -- essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...hemy.html?_r=1

Jesse Jackson: �You can�t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man�

andrewjs18 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:37:26 GMT

link:http://thehill.com/homenews/house/68...lf-a-black-man

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats� signature healthcare bill.

�We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,� Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. �You can�t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.�

The remark stirred a murmur at the reception, held by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation as part of a series of events revolving around the 25th anniversary of Jackson�s run for president. Several CBC members were in attendance, including Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who�d introduced Jackson.

Davis, who is running for governor, is the only black member of Congress from Alabama.

He is also the only member of the CBC to have voted against the healthcare bill earlier this month.

Davis referred to Jackson�s 1988 run for president in a statement, issued through his office, that said he would not engage Jackson on his criticism.

�One of the reasons that I like and admire Rev. Jesse Jackson is that 21 years ago he inspired the idea that a black politician would not be judged simply as a black leader,� Davis�s statement said. �The best way to honor Rev. Jackson�s legacy is to decline to engage in an argument with him that begins and ends with race.�

Jackson said later that he "didn't call anybody by name and I won't."

He added that he wasn't saying that black lawmakers must vote a certain way. Instead, they should vote the interests of the people in their districts, and he said the healthcare bill would help Alabama because it's one of the poorest states in the country.

"The poorest people need healthcare protection," Jackson said. "They have the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy. They're dying from lack of access."

Other members of the CBC found no fault in Jackson's words. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) was in the audience. He called Jackson's criticism of Davis "accurate," but said he did not hear Jackson say "You can�t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man."

"If it is an issue that disproportionately impacts black folks, race has to be considered," Cleaver said. Jackson, he added, "is expected by his constituency to call balls and strikes."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called the remarks "vintage Jesse Jackson," but said Davis's vote against healthcare was consistent with a voting record more conservative than many CBC members.

"Artur Davis has a more conservative constituency," Waters said. "Since he's running for governor of Alabama, he reflects an even more conservative constituency."

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) said each man was doing what he considered the right thing.

"People have a right to vote their constituency, and people have a right to speak their conscience," Jackson-Lee said. "Both happened."

Davis�s Democratic primary opponent, Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, highlighted Davis�s status as the lone African-American vote against the bill.

�He was the only Black Caucus member to vote against it. I don�t get it,� Sparks said last week, according to The Associated Press. Sparks is white.

Davis said he voted against the healthcare bill because "House leadership's approach is not the best we can do." He said he preferred a version passed by the Senate Finance Committee because it reduces subsidization of the healthcare industry, taxes high-value health plans instead of wealthy people, and is more effective in getting employers to help with health coverage.

Davis has countered that Sparks�s position on healthcare has changed over time, saying he�s being �deliberately dishonest.�

The primary will be June 1. All of the GOP candidates for governor have been critical of the healthcare legislation, according to the AP.

Rationing by the NHS

buster2209 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:47:07 GMT

This is the reality of the British National Health Service (NHS).

You DON'T want the Government to run health care!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8367614.stm

Quote:

Liver cancer drug 'too expensive'

A drug that can prolong the lives of patients with advanced liver cancer has been rejected for use in the NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said the cost of Nexavar - about �3,000 a month - was "simply too high".

But Macmillan Cancer Support said the decision was "a scandal".

More than 3,000 people are diagnosed with liver cancer every year in the UK and their prognosis is generally poor.

Only about 20% of patients are alive one year after diagnosis, dropping to just 5% after five years.

'Disappointed'

Campaigner Kate Spall, who won the right to have two months of treatment for her mother, Pamela Northcott, in 2007, said it had prolonged her life by four-and-a-half "precious" months.

It had allowed her 58-year-old mother, from Dyserth in Denbighshire, "closure" and "peace", she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The problem in Mum's case is it took a year for me to fight for the treatment, so we'll never know how well she could have done," she said.

We had extra time, which was very precious to us all, her symptoms were helped greatly. And, more importantly, for Mum it was a case of getting some closure and peace.

"The psychological feeling when a group of people decide that you cannot have a treatment that can help you is really devastating."

Cancer Research UK's chief clinician Peter Johnson said the decision was "enormously frustrating" because there was no doubt about the drug's effectiveness.

He said: "There's no alternative treatment and there are no other places for people to go. It is expensive, but the only issue is cost and the number of patients affected are quite few - there's probably only six or seven hundred patients a year."

Nexavar - also known as sorafenib - had already been rejected in Scotland, despite studies showing it could extend the life of a liver cancer patient by up to six months.

'Devastating disease'

The Scottish Medicines Consortium ruled that "the manufacturer's justification of the treatment's cost in relation to its benefit was not sufficient to gain acceptance".

Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE, agreed: "The price being asked by [the manufacturer] Bayer is simply too high to justify using NHS money which could be spent on better value cancer treatments."

And the group's clinical and public health director, Peter Littlejohns, added the drug was considered "just too expensive" by its advisory committees.

Nexavar is routinely offered to cancer patients elsewhere in the world, and Mike Hobday, head of campaigns at Macmillan Cancer Support, said he was "extremely disappointed" at NICE's decision.

"It is a scandal that the only licensed drug proven to significantly prolong the lives of people with this devastating disease has been rejected, leaving them with no treatment options," he said.

Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, said: "The decision to reject a treatment for advanced liver cancer is a huge blow for patients.

"This is a treatment to extend life for people where all other options have run out.

"It is particularly hard for people with liver cancer given that treatments for many other advanced cancers have been given the green light by NICE.

"People with liver disease often face stigma and discrimination and sadly this decision feels like a further disadvantage to them."

Earlier this year, a government review of end-of-life treatment said NICE should give extra weight to drugs that could extend a patient's life.

The Department of Health said NICE was not ignoring that recommendation, but the NHS could not just pay for any drug at any cost.

Please not the irony of the organisation that decides what treatments and drugs people can have is called NICE.

"Balanced" Fox News runs second batch of misleading data

CarolinaGuy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:51:37 GMT

D'oh!

Seems our favorite news channel has been caught bulking up "live" crowd shots during GOP-friendly events.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

For the second time in just over a week, Fox News is coming under fire for misusing old news footage. The latest flap is leading some people to charge that the cable news network is intentionally misleading its audience, while Fox claims a "production error."

Wednesday's incident occurred when Fox News host Gregg Jarrett mentioned that a Sarah Palin appearance and book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan had a massive turnout. As footage rolled of a smiling and waving Palin amidst a throng of fans, Jarrett noted that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand-new book,'' adding that the images being shown were "some of the pictures just coming in to us.... The lines earlier had formed this morning."

However, the video used in the segment was from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally. In response to the minor uproar that arose after clips of Jarrett's report hit the Internet, Fox senior vice-president of news Michael Clemente issued an initial statement saying, "This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video."

On Thursday afternoon, Fox News issued an on-air apology delivered by host Jane Skinner:

Yesterday we told you about Sarah Palin kicking off her book tour and then we spoke to Sean Hannity about an interview that he did with former Governor Palin. When introducing the segment we showed you footage of people lining up in Michigan for a book signing that evening. In the tease before the segment, the tease to commercial, we told you how those people were already lining up to meet Palin. The problem is we didn't show you the video we were actually referencing. Instead we mistakenly aired what's called "file tape" of Sarah Palin. We didn't mean to mislead anybody in that tease. It was a mistake, and for that we apologize.

The current mishap comes on the heels of a controversy sparked last week when footage from a conservative rally held over the summer was played on "Hannity" during a segment on a more recent rally. During the clip, host Sean Hannity marveled over the large turnout for a Washington, DC protest. The Daily Show later pointed out that there seemed to be some inconsistencies with the video shown on Hannity's show, namely that the atmospheric conditions seemed to vary from shot to shot. Hannity later apologized on the air for what he called "an inadvertent mistake."

Barely a week into Palin’s blitz to promote “Going Rogue,” media coverage is becoming its own story. Fox News rival MSNBC caught heat last week for using altered images of Sarah Palin on the air, for which they later apologized. On Wednesday, Yahoo! News reported Newsweek’s defense of their latest controversial cover, which Palin herself blasted as “sexist.”
************************************************** *******

Sorta reminds me of Bush's "Whatever it takes" tv ad.

Gore the Photoshopper...This is classic !!!

PocketProtector — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:31:30 GMT

Follow the link to see the article and the photos....More Libtard lies and propaganda

http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hur...photoshop.html

Katrina disaster caused by Negligence

Dredly — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:20:55 GMT

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575664,00.html

Katrina Flooding Caused by Army Corps of Engineers' Negligence, Judge Rules
Thursday, November 19, 2009

Print ShareThisNEW ORLEANS � A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Army Corps of Engineers' failure to properly maintain a navigation channel led to massive flooding in Hurricane Katrina.

U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval sided with five residents and one business who argued the Army Corps' shoddy oversight of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet led to the flooding of New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward and neighboring St. Bernard Parish. He said, however, the corps couldn't be held liable for the flooding of eastern New Orleans, where one of the plaintiffs lived.

Duval awarded the plaintiffs $720,000, or about $170,000 each, but the decision could eventually make the government vulnerable to a much larger payout. The ruling should give more than 100,000 other individuals, businesses and government entities a better shot at claiming billions of dollars in damages.

Joe Bruno, one of the lead plaintiffs lawyer, said the ruling underscored the Army Corps' long history of failure to properly protect the New Orleans region.

"It's high time we look at the way these guys do business and do a full re-evaluation of the way it does business," Bruno said.

The corps referred calls seeking comment to the Justice Department. The corps had argued that it is immune from liability because the channel is part of New Orleans' flood control system, but the judge allowed the case to go forward.

Many in New Orleans have argued that Katrina, which struck the region Aug. 29, 2005, was a manmade disaster caused by the Army Corps' failure to maintain the levee system protecting the city.

The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet is a shipping channel dug in the 1960s as a short-cut between the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans.

so can we now sue them back for all the money that we gave them?

Senate Democrats unveil bill with Public Option

pennsy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:39:07 GMT

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Senate majority leader Harry Reid unveiled his long-awaited version of a sweeping health care bill last night, setting the stage for a tense Senate showdown pitting Republicans against a fragile and fractured Democratic majority.

Discuss
COMMENTS (109)
The proposal would expand coverage to most Americans and is predicted to cut the deficit by $127 billion over 10 years, a benefit Senate leaders hoped would help it attract fiscally conservative moderates who will decide the bill�s fate. It also includes a so-called public option, a government-backed insurance plan in states that want one, a concession to liberals.

With President Obama calling for a bill to be sent to his desk by the end of the year, Reid is hoping to bring the historic health care package up for a test vote on Saturday.

Aides to Reid said he hoped to have the 60 votes required to begin the unpredictable floor debate, which could last weeks. The handful of moderate senators who will decide the question seemed likely to support opening the debate.

But, in a testament to the tremendous political difficulty ahead for the president�s top domestic policy initiative, Reid spent more than an hour yesterday giving three moderate Democrat fence-sitters a special closed-door briefing on the bill, and administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, met separately with senators to sell it.

When he presented the bill to reporters with great fanfare last night, Reid would not comment on the moderate members� reaction to the proposal, saying, �You�ll have to ask them.��

Even after a second briefing last night, Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, one of the three senators Reid met with yesterday, told reporters he wanted to look at the details more closely before he decided whether he could commit to opening debate.

�I�m not trying to cajole myself into it or out of it,�� said Nelson, who is considered one of three pivotal votes. �I have not made up my mind right now.��

But Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, sounded encouraged yesterday, and she told reporters she would decide by today whether she would support opening debate.

�At least we�re getting bills that are less than $1 trillion, that are paid for, that are lowering the cost to the taxpayer and to businesses, so we�re moving in the right direction,�� she said. �But there�s still some improvements that could be made, and I�m hoping to see to that on the floor.��

The proposal is similar in many ways to the bill the House passed earlier this month, and to the law that Massachusetts enacted in 2006. It would require almost everyone to have insurance, penalize employers who failed to provide affordable coverage to their employees, and prohibit insurers from discriminating against people because of preexisting medical conditions. On the issue of abortion coverage, the Senate bill is less restrictive than the House version.

The Senate bill would dramatically expand Medicaid for the poor. Low- and middle-income people who lack insurance would receive federal subsidies they could use to buy coverage from either a private insurance company or the new government plan. Both would be available through an insurance marketplace, or exchange, offering one-stop shopping, much as the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector does.

Under Senate rules, Reid will need to round up 60 votes twice: once at the outset of the debate, allowing formal discussion to begin, and again at the end, closing the debate and allowing a final vote.

There are 58 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them on procedural motions. The initial vote will probably be easier for Reid to get than the final one.

The most difficult question for the Senate in the weeks to come will be how to resolve the dilemma over the public option for insurance coverage. Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who typically votes with Democrats, has said he would not support a public option, and several other moderates have expressed strong reservations about doing so as well. A contingent of liberals have insisted they would not support a bill without one.

But Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said he would be surprised if there were not movement on that question, noting: �People are always dug in until they�re not dug in.��

Only two Republicans - the senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - are considered possible recruits in favor of the bill. Other Republicans reacted strongly against the proposal last night. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell warned that �this will not be a short debate.��

Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, has already threatened to have the entire bill read aloud on the floor, a delaying tactic that Democrats said yesterday would take about 48 hours.

Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, said the bill would increase the size of government and raise taxes. Gregg also said it would not produce savings as advertised because Congress would not be willing to follow through on such things as reductions to the growth of Medicare payments to providers.

�Consequently, the Senate Democratic Leadership�s proposal commits today�s taxpayers, as well as future generations, to financing trillions of dollars of additional debt to pay for another out-of-control government entitlement program,�� Gregg said in a statement.

The bill, the product of a merger of two committee bills, would cost $849 billion over the next decade, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. A combination of tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and health system reforms would more than offset that amount, ultimately driving the deficit down by $127 billion over the first 10 years and by $650 billion over the next 10 years. It would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by about 31 million, or about 5 million fewer than the bill the House passed would.

It would be financed partly by reductions in the growth of Medicare spending and by a bevy of new taxes, including an increase in Medicare taxes for couples earning over $250,000 and a 40 percent tax on the most expensive insurance plans.

Out of concern for unions, whose members have often sacrificed wages for good benefits, Reid raised the tax thresholds, so they apply only to plans that cost more than $23,000 a year for families or $8,500 a year for individuals. For people who live in high-cost states, or who work dangerous jobs, the threshold would be an extra $3,000 higher -- or as much as $29,000 for the family of an ironworker in a high-cost state like Massachusetts. It also includes a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, called Reid�s proposal a �superb effort�� and said that while there were tweaks he would like to make - for example, getting additional Medicaid money to states like Massachusetts that have the most generous Medicaid programs - he was pleased.

�We are going to pass this legislation,�� he said.

Another point of debate is how to treat abortion, an issue that became a central point of conflict in the House, which passed strong restrictions on abortion coverage in its bill. In a statement last night, Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, the lead sponsor of the House antiabortion amendment, said he hoped the Senate bill would be changed on the floor.

It also includes a so-called public option

Poll: Majority in US now see Afghan war as not worth fighting

buster2209 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:05:46 GMT

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/poll-maj...orth-fighting/

Quote:

Poll: Majority in US now see Afghan war as not worth fighting

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 -- 8:56 pm

Support for the US mission in Afghanistan has slipped to a new low, with 44 percent of Americans now saying the war there has been worth the cost, according to a recently released poll.

Amid mounting divisiveness over what was once one of President Barack Obama's top foreign policy issues, the poll by The Washington Post and ABC News also showed ratings for how he has handled the mission there eroding, to 45 percent approving of how he is dealing with Afghanistan and 47 disapproving, compared to 63 percent approval last year.

The numbers come as Obama grapples with whether to send more US troops to Afghanistan to boost the fight against a growing Taliban-led insurgency, just a week after a stopover at a US military base in Alaska at the start of his Asia trip when he told US troops he will get "public support back home" for the mission.

Only 44 percent now say the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting -- the fewest since early 2007 -- and 52 percent say it has not, up 13 points from its low of last December, the news outlets' polling divisions said.

And while 55 percent expressed confidence that Obama will forge a successful Afghan strategy, Americans appeared evenly split on whether the president should order large numbers of new troops into the country, with 46 percent supporting a larger US force and 45 percent a smaller one.

Just as many also appeared to trust Republicans in Congress to handle the war as trust the president.

While divisions were evident about the war, Americans clearly doubted the reliability of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was declared winner of a second term this month after a fraud-marred election.

"Just 26 percent of Americans see Karzai as a reliable partner for the United States, and just 38 percent think his government will be able to train an effective army to take over security at some point," ABC News reported.

As for whether the risk of a terrorist attack in the United States would rise or fall if US troops withdraw from Afghanistan, nearly two-thirds of Americans said the risk stayed the same whether or not the troops went home.

The poll of 1,001 residents was conducted by telephone and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

On one hand, the Washington Post and ABC worship Obama, so posting these results isn't in there best interests, however, how can 1001 residents (a FRACTION of a percent of the US population) be taken as a serious representation of what the US people want?

5% Of U.S. Taxpayers Account For 60.6% Of All Tax Revenue

buster2209 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:00:40 GMT

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/5-u...deral-tax-2009

Quote:

5% Of U.S. Taxpayers Account For 60.6% Of All Tax Revenue, 47% Will Pay No Federal Tax In 2009

by Tyler Durden on 11/17/2009 14:15 -0500

An interesting observation courtesy of Mint: of the 307,868,280 Americans out there, which compose 151,485,000 tax units, 46.9% will have zero federal income tax liability in 2009. Brilliant plan to keep the country happy: the poor pay no taxes, the rich get a massive stock market bubble to sell into, and the disappearing middle class...well, they can pay $20 for a hotdog and beer combo in Prague on that once-every-five-years vacation.

Secret Global Copyright Agreement is Executive Order

buster2209 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:24:37 GMT

First U.S. marijuana cafe opens for business in Portland

buster2209 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:20:29 GMT

A step towards freedom...... from Obama??

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/...land/#comments

Quote:

First U.S. marijuana cafe opens for business in Portland

Tom Johansmeyer

Nov 15th 2009 at 10:15AM

Cancel your flight to Amsterdam – the U.S. just got its first marijuana cafe on Friday. Located in Portland, Ore., the Cannabis Cafe shows how attitudes have changed since the Obama administration moved into the White House. A month ago, President Barack Obama told federal attorneys to ease off medical marijuana prosecutions.

The widening use of medicinal marijuana has forced governments into a tenuous legal balancing act, according to a Reuters report. Some states passed legislation to allow it, starting with California in 1996. Nonetheless, a federal ban remains in place. The operation of businesses like the Cannabis Cafe, as well as marijuana establishments in California, has been possible as long as federal authorities have chosen not to pursue them. Unlike the shops in California, though, the Portland establishment is the first in the U.S. where certified medical marijuana users can both acquire and consume their marijuana, as long as they stay out of public view.

Madeline Martinez, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Oregon, says that the Cannabis Club "represents personal freedom, finally, for our members." NORML supports legislation to legalize marijuana.

"Our plans go beyond serving food and marijuana," Martinez continues. "We hope to have classes, seminars, even a Cannabis Community College, based here to help people learn about growing and other uses for cannabis."

The Food is For Sale, but the Pot is Free

The Cannabis Cafe's new home is a two-story building with an interesting past. Once upon a time, it was occupied by a speakeasy, and later, an adult entertainment club called Rumpspankers. The Cannabis Cafe is a private club, but any Oregon resident who is a member of NORML and has an official medical marijuana card can gain entry.

Members pay $25 a month for use of the cafe, which has a capacity of 100. The product offered is not sold. Rather, it's provided free over the counter from the "budtenders" employed by the establishment. Food, of course, is available for purchase, but the club doesn't have a liquor license. (Why bother?)

The potential market for the Cannabis Cafe is small, but likely committed. Approximately 21,000 patients are registered to use medical marijuana in Oregon, with doctors prescribing the drug for a wide range of illnesses, among them Alzheimer's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and Tourette's syndrome.

Eric Solomon, the proprietor, says he still just runs a coffee shop and events venue, as he did before he converted it to the current format, but he says, "now it will be cannabis-themed." Film festivals and dances are expected for the second floor ballroom, not to mentioned marijuana-themed weddings.

Neighboring businesses have mixed feelings about the new cafe, but they are hopeful that it will benefit them, too. David Bell, who works at a nearby boutique, is "withholding judgment." He notes, "There's no precedent for it. We don't know what to expect. But it would great if it brought some customers into our store."

Whatever your stance is on marijuana, this is definitely a move towards freedom

Better buy your BIG screen TV now...

pennsy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:55:18 GMT

This could easily become reality in the entire US.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/200911...rnia_tv_energy

On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient, beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, with only a quarter of all TVs currently on the market meeting that standard