“According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

I’m impressed. 96 months. Not 95. Not 97. July 2017. Put it in your diary. Usually the warm-mongers stick to the same old drone that we only have ten years left to save the planet. Nice round number. Al Gore said we only have ten years left three-and-a-half years ago, which makes him technically more of a pessimist than the Prince of Wales. Al’s betting that Armageddon kicks in sometime in January 2016 — unless he’s just peddling glib generalities. And, alas, even a prophet of the ecopalypse as precise as His Royal Highness is sometimes prone to this airy-fairy ten-year shtick: In April, Prince Charles predicted that the red squirrel would be extinct “within ten years,” which suggests that, while it may be curtains for man and all his wretched works come summer of 2017, the poor doomed red squirrel will have the best part of two years to frolic and gambol on a ruined landscape. “

Read it all here.

Read it all at Michelle Malkin

Stimulus works??

Link – http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-dots.gif

Here is The One praising California’s energy policies(producers have shifted to other states) and producing jobs ( Highest unemployment rate in the US), and economy keeping pace with the rest of the country ( California is now Bankrupt)!!

“While promoting his new cap-and-trade energy tax bill, which passed the U.S. House last week, President Obama revealed in a White House address on Monday his model for the nation’s economy – California. “In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies,” Obama said, noting that the state and its residents use less energy today per capita than the national average. “Think about that,” he said, “California producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country and yet they’ve been able to maintain their energy usage in a much lower level than the rest of the country.”

Read the rest at the Washington Examiner.

Obama:  “At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation [Waxman-Markey] is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.”

Well, at least he’s got a really good reason for the biggest tax hike in U.S. history. Does this have some relationship to New York’s soda tax?

This is either adorably (remember, it’s The One) ignorant, or a terrifying affirmation that his allies aren’t blowing smoke, and he really does plan on using the Law of the Sea Treaty — and its binding, unaccountable, foreign court — to claim to control the last refuge for alarmists (in the face of collapsing temperatures): “ocean acidification” from our burning of coal, gas, and oil.

Still, just for a moment imagine if his name were Bush.

Then again, given their cheerleading and masking of the scientific scandals, just think what a quandary our media would be in then!

source : read here

Shared via AddThis

The Messaiah is the Ultimate Saviour of the World!!

Enjoy!!

Researchers at Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, are investigating why “young, heterosexual adult men” have problems using condoms. The study will include “skill-based intervention” to teach grown men how to use protection.

But the $423,500 grant for the study is just a crumb in the NIH pie. The NIH spends $29 billion each year to help fund thousands of health studies at home and abroad.

But some questionable queries have come under close scrutiny, including a $400,000 study being conducted in bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk; a $2.6 million study dedicated to teaching prostitutes in China to drink less while having sex on the job; and a $178,000 study to better understand why drug-abusing prostitutes in Thailand are at greater risk for HIV infection.
What  a Nanny State will do for you Kids!! Read it all.

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that’s too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.

Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye—there’s some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.

Read it all here.

The conventional wisdom today lays the blame for today’s financial crisis on the free market. The mortgage market collapse is thought to be due to unscrupulous lenders who relaxed lending standards and then sold risky mortgages to unsuspecting investors. Both Presidents Bush and Obama used this narrative in justifying their policy actions. Closer examination reveals that government interference played a much more fundamental role. Specifically, the ballooning of the secondary mortgage market by government sponsored entities, followed by the “cheap money” policy of the FED created the basic structural distortions which would ultimately lead to the financial crisis.

Government sponsored entities [GSE] such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are key players in home mortgage markets. They were created by and have a specific mandate from congress to help assure “affordable” housing. Although these entities operate as “private corporations” today, they receive favorable treatment by the government and their boards and hence their operating policies are primarily government controlled.

The secondary mortgage market was created primarily by these GSE’s. Up through the 1990′s, most mortgages were held by private corporations in what is known as the “originate to hold” model. However, GSE’s increased the flow of capital into the mortgage market through what is known as the “originate to distribute” model. Through this model loans are bought, packaged into securities, and sold to investors on the secondary market. GSE’s either perform this activity directly or they insure the securities created by private firms. Practices like these effectively mask risk from investors and give mortgage originators no reason to closely examine the quality of the loans they issue. GSE’s fueled the mortgage practices that today are blamed on the free market.

GSE involvement had been relatively small up until the 1990′s. The most striking growth in the secondary mortgage market occurred in the 1990′s, before the housing boom, with that market reaching a size of $3.3 trillion by 2001. Eighty five percent of that market was based upon securities issued or insured by the GSE’s. This growth was fueled by specific changes to GSE policy to stimulate home ownership. Structurally, the stage had been set for a large housing boom, and all that was needed was a precipitating condition.

That condition came in the form of the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve during 2001-2004. During that time the FED lowered and held interest rates at near record lows. Chairman Alan Greenspan noted that he was attempting to stimulate the economy, and specifically home ownership. He states in his autobiography, “I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk, and that subsidised home ownership initiatives distort market outcomes. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk.”

The FED is a government entity and itself acknowledges the role of low interest rates in fueling housing boom cycles. From a 2005 study on housing booms and monetary policy, FED analysts indicate that “house price booms are typically preceded by a period of easing monetary policy, but then diminishing slack and rising inflation lead monetary authorities to begin tightening policy.”

Demand for housing, previously steady at 3% annual growth, ballooned to 9% as a result of FED policy. Construction boomed, home prices escalated significantly, and debt levels rose on this rising tide of newfound “home equity.” The well-established secondary mortgage market served as a ready catalyst to funnel capital into the market to meet this ballooning demand, magnifying the size of the boom.

During an artificial boom, risk levels are masked. Because house prices are escalating dramatically, borrowers feel that they can take on more debt. Because foreclosure rates actually go down, lenders begin to feel that they can lend to borrowers who before might have been perceived as risky. And because mortgage securities continue to pay out well, investors continue to demand them. Some even begin to think that this boom will be sustained and increase their risk levels beyond what would normally have been considered prudent. These effects are not a result of an unexplained aberration in the free market. Rather they result from the fundamental distortions that created the boom in the first place.

The FED’s fiscal tightening in 2005-6 precipitated the crash. Because of the extended boom however, a significant amount of capital had been placed into poor investments, and the magnitude of the crash had already been determined, left only to play itself out.

While the conventional wisdom may blame markets for the financial crisis, government interference in the mortgage market for the expressed purpose of stimulating home ownership was at the heart of the collapse.