Climategate, google doing their part to hide the fraud.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Climategate -- Who Is Scamming Now?
Near 50 million hits on bing, near 14 million on google.
Climategate, google doing their part to hide the fraud.
Climategate, google doing their part to hide the fraud.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Microsoft: Natal Represents A Giant Leap For TV
Microsoft's Project Natal has the potential to replace remote controls, says Live boss Marc Whitten, general manager of Xbox Live, expects Project Natal to "be the largest leap of TV experience since the remote control".
Xbox introduces controller-free gaming and entertainment. Get off the couch and get in the game - no controller required! Wii on steroids.
"I don't believe we are currently in the golden age of the television or the golden age of the game console or the golden age of the internet; frankly, five years from now I don't know that you'll be able to tell the difference between those worlds," Whitten said the Streaming Media West show, according to Yahoo Tech.
As Xbox 360's video delivery services expand, Microsoft aims to make it simple for its customers to find and share content. "It won't be a remote control that consumers use," Whitten said. "A remote control is already too hard."
Whitten foresees a future where Natal recognises the users in the room by appearance and voice and is able to automatically bring up content that they'd be interested in viewing.
"The context is not one billion channels, but one," Whitten said. "One channel, with what I want, when I want it.
"With the flick of my wrist I can change a channel. With the power of my voice I can start a movie."
Let's meet Milo:
Of course, it's not ready for deployment yet -- The inside scoop says November 2010. The low price – expected to be set between $50 and $80 – is meant to position Natal squarely in impulse-buy territory. While $80 may seem a little steep, most games cost around $60 new, and Natal will come with 14 built-in.
Xbox introduces controller-free gaming and entertainment. Get off the couch and get in the game - no controller required! Wii on steroids.
"I don't believe we are currently in the golden age of the television or the golden age of the game console or the golden age of the internet; frankly, five years from now I don't know that you'll be able to tell the difference between those worlds," Whitten said the Streaming Media West show, according to Yahoo Tech.
As Xbox 360's video delivery services expand, Microsoft aims to make it simple for its customers to find and share content. "It won't be a remote control that consumers use," Whitten said. "A remote control is already too hard."
Whitten foresees a future where Natal recognises the users in the room by appearance and voice and is able to automatically bring up content that they'd be interested in viewing.
"The context is not one billion channels, but one," Whitten said. "One channel, with what I want, when I want it.
"With the flick of my wrist I can change a channel. With the power of my voice I can start a movie."
Let's meet Milo:
Of course, it's not ready for deployment yet -- The inside scoop says November 2010. The low price – expected to be set between $50 and $80 – is meant to position Natal squarely in impulse-buy territory. While $80 may seem a little steep, most games cost around $60 new, and Natal will come with 14 built-in.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Russian TV Reports On Climategate
It only took CNN six days to notice the growing international scandal known as Climategate, and when it finally reported on the matter, it predictably did so by downplaying the significance.
Maybe the US Lame-stream Media should just run the Russian clip ... George Moinbiot called for resignations today of the top people involved in the climategate scandal. Of course they say, we all go down with the ship.
Maybe the US Lame-stream Media should just run the Russian clip ... George Moinbiot called for resignations today of the top people involved in the climategate scandal. Of course they say, we all go down with the ship.
Someone Order Popcorn
To go with the man-caused global warming hoax? Hit it, then read below while listening as the climate hoax comes tumbling down.
Here is a worthy WSJ editorial from a few days back that sums up the climategate fraud:
Global warming's most dangerous apostate speaks out about the state of climate change science.
By ANNE JOLIS
Barack Obama conceded over the weekend that no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be signed in Copenhagen next month. With that out of the way, it may be too much to hope that the climate change movement take a moment to reflect on the state of the science that is supposedly driving us toward a carbon-neutral future.
But should a moment for self-reflection arise, campaigners against climate change could do worse than take a look at the work of Stephen McIntyre, who has emerged as one of the climate change gang's Most Dangerous Apostates. The reason for this distinction? He checked the facts.
The retired Canadian businessman, whose self-described "auditing" a few years ago prompted a Congressional review of climate science, has once again thrown EnviroLand into a tailspin. In September, he revealed that a famous graph using tree rings to show unprecedented 20th century warming relies on thin data. Since its publication in 2000, University of East Anglia professor Keith Briffa's much-celebrated image has made star appearances everywhere from U.N. policy papers to activists' posters. Like other so-called "hockey stick" temperature graphs, it's an easy sell—one look and it seems Gadzooks! We're burning ourselves up!
"It was the belle of the ball," Mr. McIntyre told me on a recent phone call from Ontario. "Its dance card was full."
At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia's Yamal region. When Mr. McIntyre presented a second graph, adding data from 34 tree cores from a nearby site, the temperature spike disappears.
Mr. Briffa denounces Mr. McIntyre's work as "demonstrably biased" because it uses "a narrower area and range of sample sites." He says he and his colleagues have now built a new chronology using still more data. Here, as in similar graphs by other researchers, the spike soars once again. Mr. McIntyre's "work has little implication for our published work or any other work that uses it," Mr. Briffa concludes.
He and his colleagues may well ignore Mr. McIntyre, but the rest of us shouldn't. While Mr. McIntyre's image may use data from fewer sites, it still has nearly three times as many tree cores representing the modern era as Mr. Briffa's original.
Yet Mr. McIntyre is first to admit his work is no bullet aimed at the heart of the theory of man-made climate change. Rather, his work—chronicled in papers co-written with environmental economist Ross McKitrick and more than 7,000 posts on his Climateaudit.org Weblog—does something much more important: It illustrates the uncertainty of a science presented as so infallible as to justify huge new taxes on rich countries along with bribes to poor ones in order to halt their fossil-fueled climbs to prosperity. Mr. McIntyre offers what many in the field do not: rigor.
It all started in 2002 when—as many might given the time and Mr. McIntyre's mathematics background—he decided to verify for himself the case for action on climate change.
"It was like a big crossword puzzle," he told me. "Business was a bit slow at the time, so I started reading up."
Prior to the Briffa graph revelation, he had also caught a statistical error that undercut another exalted "hockey stick" graph prominently featured by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, this one by Michael Mann, head of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. Alerts about review boards' seemingly lax standards litter his blog, highlighting in particular the IPCC, which has used both the Mann and Briffa graphs in its reports. In 2007, Mr. McIntyre found a technical gaffe that forced NASA to correct itself and admit that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year recorded in the continental U.S.
"At the beginning I innocently assumed there would be due diligence for all this stuff. … So often my mouth would drop, when I realized no one had really looked into it."
Even more innocently, he assumed the billion-dollar climate change industry would welcome his untrained but painstaking work. Instead, Mr. McIntyre is subjected to every kind of venom—that he must be funded by Big Oil, by Big Business, by Some Texan Somewhere. For the record, the 62-year-old declares himself "past my best-by date, operating on my own nickel."
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a "court jester." Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying "every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself."
Others are more thick-skinned: "You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It's a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists," affirms Stanford University's Stephen Schneider.
One wonders what is so funny, when it is not only the Canadian hobbyist fueling skepticism, but also figures from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center that now show thickening Arctic ice; from the U.K. Met (Meteorological) Office showing falling temperatures that contradict modeling predictions; and other studies that suggest natural factors in climate change are being dramatically underestimated.
Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review. But the best science should stand up even to outside scrutiny. And if Mr. McIntyre has a credibility problem with climatologists, climatologists' predictions are increasingly viewed skeptically by the public.
A Pew report last month revealed that the number of Americans who believe humans are causing climate change has dropped 11 percentage points in the last 18 months to 36%; that the number who feel there is solid evidence that the earth is warming has fallen by 14 points to 57%; and that those who think the issue is "very serious" has sunk nine points to 35%.
Mr. McIntyre declares no interest in debunking The Theory in toto, nor in discouraging efficient energy use. His blog will disappoint those seeking anything more political than technical analyses.
In fairness, researchers are far from the loudest voices telling "skeptics" like Mr. McIntyre to sit down, shut up and surrender their lightbulbs without further question—that megaphone belongs to the politicians and activists pushing centrally-planned economies in the name of saving the Earth. Here, we see that contempt for laymen is not universal: Al Gore's ignorance is happily overlooked given his power to push billions in research funding. The same goes for Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and everyone else declaring "the debate is over."
I asked 10 climatologists what they thought was the most reliable method of predicting climate, and got nearly as many answers. People in the field compare climate studies to health studies—another complex mechanism with uncontrollable factors, where best practices will always be debated.
Climate researchers know their prescriptions don't carry the certainty laymen assume from that which is labeled "science," yet most shy from a straightforward account of this uncertainty.
"Methods certainly need to be continually refined and improved. I doubt that anyone in the paleoclimate community would disagree with that," says Rob Wilson of the University of St. Andrews's School of Geography and Geosciences. "However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know? I do not think this would help."
Maybe not, but letting people feel duped by hyperbole is proving even more harmful to the warmers' cause.
"I never said I was proving or disproving anything…. I just don't think we should be thanking the people who make it harder to find out what's true," Mr. McIntyre says.
The climate establishment will probably never thank Mr. McIntyre, much less follow his example. The rest of us should do both.
Here is a worthy WSJ editorial from a few days back that sums up the climategate fraud:
Revenge of the Climate Laymen
Global warming's most dangerous apostate speaks out about the state of climate change science.
By ANNE JOLIS
Barack Obama conceded over the weekend that no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be signed in Copenhagen next month. With that out of the way, it may be too much to hope that the climate change movement take a moment to reflect on the state of the science that is supposedly driving us toward a carbon-neutral future.
But should a moment for self-reflection arise, campaigners against climate change could do worse than take a look at the work of Stephen McIntyre, who has emerged as one of the climate change gang's Most Dangerous Apostates. The reason for this distinction? He checked the facts.
The retired Canadian businessman, whose self-described "auditing" a few years ago prompted a Congressional review of climate science, has once again thrown EnviroLand into a tailspin. In September, he revealed that a famous graph using tree rings to show unprecedented 20th century warming relies on thin data. Since its publication in 2000, University of East Anglia professor Keith Briffa's much-celebrated image has made star appearances everywhere from U.N. policy papers to activists' posters. Like other so-called "hockey stick" temperature graphs, it's an easy sell—one look and it seems Gadzooks! We're burning ourselves up!
"It was the belle of the ball," Mr. McIntyre told me on a recent phone call from Ontario. "Its dance card was full."
At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia's Yamal region. When Mr. McIntyre presented a second graph, adding data from 34 tree cores from a nearby site, the temperature spike disappears.
Mr. Briffa denounces Mr. McIntyre's work as "demonstrably biased" because it uses "a narrower area and range of sample sites." He says he and his colleagues have now built a new chronology using still more data. Here, as in similar graphs by other researchers, the spike soars once again. Mr. McIntyre's "work has little implication for our published work or any other work that uses it," Mr. Briffa concludes.
He and his colleagues may well ignore Mr. McIntyre, but the rest of us shouldn't. While Mr. McIntyre's image may use data from fewer sites, it still has nearly three times as many tree cores representing the modern era as Mr. Briffa's original.
Yet Mr. McIntyre is first to admit his work is no bullet aimed at the heart of the theory of man-made climate change. Rather, his work—chronicled in papers co-written with environmental economist Ross McKitrick and more than 7,000 posts on his Climateaudit.org Weblog—does something much more important: It illustrates the uncertainty of a science presented as so infallible as to justify huge new taxes on rich countries along with bribes to poor ones in order to halt their fossil-fueled climbs to prosperity. Mr. McIntyre offers what many in the field do not: rigor.
It all started in 2002 when—as many might given the time and Mr. McIntyre's mathematics background—he decided to verify for himself the case for action on climate change.
"It was like a big crossword puzzle," he told me. "Business was a bit slow at the time, so I started reading up."
Prior to the Briffa graph revelation, he had also caught a statistical error that undercut another exalted "hockey stick" graph prominently featured by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, this one by Michael Mann, head of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. Alerts about review boards' seemingly lax standards litter his blog, highlighting in particular the IPCC, which has used both the Mann and Briffa graphs in its reports. In 2007, Mr. McIntyre found a technical gaffe that forced NASA to correct itself and admit that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year recorded in the continental U.S.
"At the beginning I innocently assumed there would be due diligence for all this stuff. … So often my mouth would drop, when I realized no one had really looked into it."
Even more innocently, he assumed the billion-dollar climate change industry would welcome his untrained but painstaking work. Instead, Mr. McIntyre is subjected to every kind of venom—that he must be funded by Big Oil, by Big Business, by Some Texan Somewhere. For the record, the 62-year-old declares himself "past my best-by date, operating on my own nickel."
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a "court jester." Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying "every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself."
Others are more thick-skinned: "You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It's a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists," affirms Stanford University's Stephen Schneider.
One wonders what is so funny, when it is not only the Canadian hobbyist fueling skepticism, but also figures from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center that now show thickening Arctic ice; from the U.K. Met (Meteorological) Office showing falling temperatures that contradict modeling predictions; and other studies that suggest natural factors in climate change are being dramatically underestimated.
Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review. But the best science should stand up even to outside scrutiny. And if Mr. McIntyre has a credibility problem with climatologists, climatologists' predictions are increasingly viewed skeptically by the public.
A Pew report last month revealed that the number of Americans who believe humans are causing climate change has dropped 11 percentage points in the last 18 months to 36%; that the number who feel there is solid evidence that the earth is warming has fallen by 14 points to 57%; and that those who think the issue is "very serious" has sunk nine points to 35%.
Mr. McIntyre declares no interest in debunking The Theory in toto, nor in discouraging efficient energy use. His blog will disappoint those seeking anything more political than technical analyses.
In fairness, researchers are far from the loudest voices telling "skeptics" like Mr. McIntyre to sit down, shut up and surrender their lightbulbs without further question—that megaphone belongs to the politicians and activists pushing centrally-planned economies in the name of saving the Earth. Here, we see that contempt for laymen is not universal: Al Gore's ignorance is happily overlooked given his power to push billions in research funding. The same goes for Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and everyone else declaring "the debate is over."
I asked 10 climatologists what they thought was the most reliable method of predicting climate, and got nearly as many answers. People in the field compare climate studies to health studies—another complex mechanism with uncontrollable factors, where best practices will always be debated.
Climate researchers know their prescriptions don't carry the certainty laymen assume from that which is labeled "science," yet most shy from a straightforward account of this uncertainty.
"Methods certainly need to be continually refined and improved. I doubt that anyone in the paleoclimate community would disagree with that," says Rob Wilson of the University of St. Andrews's School of Geography and Geosciences. "However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know? I do not think this would help."
Maybe not, but letting people feel duped by hyperbole is proving even more harmful to the warmers' cause.
"I never said I was proving or disproving anything…. I just don't think we should be thanking the people who make it harder to find out what's true," Mr. McIntyre says.
The climate establishment will probably never thank Mr. McIntyre, much less follow his example. The rest of us should do both.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Climategate --- The AGW Alarmist And The Fraud They Committed
For the longest while, many people have said the AGW CO2 global warming was nothing more than a hoax. The science simply did not support the conclusions.
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly, one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site, commenting:
It is hard to tell from this point in time, if science will be irreparably damaged in the public mind from here forward. What is clear, real scientist need to put distance between themselves and the fraudsters -- everybody save yourself, or be sucked down by the currents./
It's clear how 'our dear reader' and the Goracle are going to play the revelations of fraud and deceit, nothing changes, they continuing lying like nothing happened. Imagine a US President, lying in the face of the American people ... That is different.
Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin -- your turn ... ?
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly, one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site, commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”But perhaps the most damaging revelations – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated, faked or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. Particularly of interest is the way the peer review process was stacked, so that competing papers that offered up science that did not support the alarmist conclusion, were suppressed.
It is hard to tell from this point in time, if science will be irreparably damaged in the public mind from here forward. What is clear, real scientist need to put distance between themselves and the fraudsters -- everybody save yourself, or be sucked down by the currents./
It's clear how 'our dear reader' and the Goracle are going to play the revelations of fraud and deceit, nothing changes, they continuing lying like nothing happened. Imagine a US President, lying in the face of the American people ... That is different.
Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin -- your turn ... ?
Government Rationed Mammograms
I betcha thought that government rationed health care was supposed to reduce costs and increase quality? Been scammed again.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Beck On The HD/CRU AGW Scandal --- ClimateGate
Pretty much nails it, the AGW hoax is dead. And now our attention turns to the fraud, first, Al Gore, step forward.
Transcript follows, thanks to Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters for it:
GLENN BECK, HOST: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of e-mails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these e-mails are legitimate which wasn’t too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters. More on that here in just a second. But first let’s start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys say behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he’s a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it.
How about Phil Jones, head of of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, “I have just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.” Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible. But it doesn’t stop there.
How about when scientific journals published material that Jones didn’t like? Quote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report…Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is” end quote. Think about that next time you hear about, oh, “the consensus,” and “the science is settled,” and Al Gore is bragging about the peer reviewed journals
Now what happens to a peer reviewed paper when they disagree with what gets published? Quote “…our only choice is to ignore this paper. They have already achieved what they wanted.” But at least they are not intentionally deleting documents or hiding information, right? Oh, no, they’re doing that, too. Here is Phil Jones writing Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with that Hockey Stick graph, that one. He said, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re: AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will get Caspar to do likewise.” Count them. There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene, and Caspar, whoever they are, potentially deleting e-mails supposedly about supposed science.
So why all the secrecy? Well, we find out from another e-mail from Michael Mann about skeptic Steven McIntyre. “I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals [you know, the one's they're cycling! ] but all they have to do is put it up on their blog and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear. Pretty soon Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck and their ilk are parroting the claims.”
So you see, if McIntyre sees the data, he’ll find the tricks that are in it to hide the decline, and then crazy people like me might just let you know about it. Oh, the horror what will happen to cap and trade? That e-mail was sent from one of the scientists to a New York Times reporter. That same reporter, Andrew Revkin, thankfully did report on the story for the New York Times, but he will not post the documents because, quote “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Oh, well, I know, the New York Times would never post or print anything that wasn’t intended for the public eye, like, maybe, the way we monitor terrorists or specific strategies to protect our troops in the field. No, no, the New York Times, they’re above that.
Deleting e-mails, hiding declines, incorrect data, inadequate systems, redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses! This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said, “Wait a minute, this global warming thing sounds like a scam.” Well, I think you’re seeing it now. We told you this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You’d never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand new reality.
Indeed.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The AGW Fraud
Dr. Tim Ball is the founder of the Weather Channel, before they loaded it up with hoaxers.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sub Prime Mortgage Crash -- How it happened
Words mean things, I wonder why they are called sub-prime mortgages?
Liberals do it every time ... The people in Washington, i.e. Congressmen and Senators, 'both parties', who were supposed to be looking out for you, looking out for America, were looking out for themselves.
Why were the banks giving out home loans to borrowers who were not qualified -- Because the laws passed by Congress forced them to. The banks and others also were allowed by law, to record the bad loans as assets.
It was regulation and laws that redistributed wealth to poor and others who could not afford homes because there were quotas to be met, all forced by regulations and laws, with the probable outcome -- Socialism run amok.
All roads to this crash of the financial system lead through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ...
And then it was off to the races, as the banks tried to dump the crap mortgages that no one ever thought would be repaid, on people who should have know better. But hey the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie put out were backed by the full faith and credit of the USA --- Right??? It was only fair, RIGHT???
History is your friend:
This all started in the Carter years with the CRA for primarily low income home buyers -- Otherwise known as unqualified buyers. 1977's Community Reinvestment Act(CRA) which required banks and savings institutions to make loans to the lower-income areas in the communities they served. Read that as unqualified buyers, that was the goal, give loans to those who could not afford to repay, it was only fair, don't you know.
Then in the 1990s, the Clinton and Democrat obsession with doing away with the nonexistent process of 'redlining' continued. The sub-prime loans were bundled and shipped off to Fannie and Freddie and others to use as collateral to back up requirements for capital at those institutions.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low and moderate income families -- ACORN, who was pushing this practice on all fronts, was street agitator Obama's employer -- Obama was one of the lawyers who represented ACORN in forcing more sub-prime loans. The threats to banks and others who wouldn't take the sub-prime loans on continued. All was fine since FANNIE and FREDDIE were backing up the paper.
In 1999 -- An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the financial system. The result was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
The certain result of repeal of most of the remaining restrictions of Glass-Steagall it was thought there would be a wave of new money pumped into the unqualified buyer home market -- Most saw this as an area of expansion of market. The Wall Street Journal wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance brokerage companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.
Bush tried to reinstate regulations and increase real capital margins in 2003 and McCain tried in 2005 to blow the whistle on this 'ponsie scheme' of home mortgages, but both attempts were blocked by Sen Dodd and Rep Barney Frank banking committee chairs in the respective Houses. In 2008, there were 18 additional instances of President Bush trying to call attention to the looming crisis before the financial system went off the rails -- But it was too late.
In the end it was all about massive liberal social engineering, the massive desire to get rid of financial controls which prevented home loans to unqualified people -- People that would have no chance of paying the loans back. Yep, illegals as well, bought sub-prime mortgage houses, most of which have hightailed it back over the border.
Well it has all came crashing down.
Mark Levin has more, from his show. But you can do your own research, it's all in the Congressional records.
Liberals do it every time ... The people in Washington, i.e. Congressmen and Senators, 'both parties', who were supposed to be looking out for you, looking out for America, were looking out for themselves.
Why were the banks giving out home loans to borrowers who were not qualified -- Because the laws passed by Congress forced them to. The banks and others also were allowed by law, to record the bad loans as assets.
It was regulation and laws that redistributed wealth to poor and others who could not afford homes because there were quotas to be met, all forced by regulations and laws, with the probable outcome -- Socialism run amok.
All roads to this crash of the financial system lead through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ...
And then it was off to the races, as the banks tried to dump the crap mortgages that no one ever thought would be repaid, on people who should have know better. But hey the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie put out were backed by the full faith and credit of the USA --- Right??? It was only fair, RIGHT???
History is your friend:
This all started in the Carter years with the CRA for primarily low income home buyers -- Otherwise known as unqualified buyers. 1977's Community Reinvestment Act(CRA) which required banks and savings institutions to make loans to the lower-income areas in the communities they served. Read that as unqualified buyers, that was the goal, give loans to those who could not afford to repay, it was only fair, don't you know.
Then in the 1990s, the Clinton and Democrat obsession with doing away with the nonexistent process of 'redlining' continued. The sub-prime loans were bundled and shipped off to Fannie and Freddie and others to use as collateral to back up requirements for capital at those institutions.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low and moderate income families -- ACORN, who was pushing this practice on all fronts, was street agitator Obama's employer -- Obama was one of the lawyers who represented ACORN in forcing more sub-prime loans. The threats to banks and others who wouldn't take the sub-prime loans on continued. All was fine since FANNIE and FREDDIE were backing up the paper.
In 1999 -- An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the financial system. The result was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
The certain result of repeal of most of the remaining restrictions of Glass-Steagall it was thought there would be a wave of new money pumped into the unqualified buyer home market -- Most saw this as an area of expansion of market. The Wall Street Journal wrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance brokerage companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.
Short history of the Glass-Steagal Act up until it's repeal in 1999. It took $100s of millions in lobbyist payoffs to Congress people before Glass-Steagall was finally repealed.
Then came the American Dream Down payment Initiative(ADDI - 2003), which essentially made loan qualification, credit checks and other standard procedures when lending money for home mortgages, a form of discrimination. It was then off to the races, the rest as they say is history.Bush tried to reinstate regulations and increase real capital margins in 2003 and McCain tried in 2005 to blow the whistle on this 'ponsie scheme' of home mortgages, but both attempts were blocked by Sen Dodd and Rep Barney Frank banking committee chairs in the respective Houses. In 2008, there were 18 additional instances of President Bush trying to call attention to the looming crisis before the financial system went off the rails -- But it was too late.
In the end it was all about massive liberal social engineering, the massive desire to get rid of financial controls which prevented home loans to unqualified people -- People that would have no chance of paying the loans back. Yep, illegals as well, bought sub-prime mortgage houses, most of which have hightailed it back over the border.
Well it has all came crashing down.
Mark Levin has more, from his show. But you can do your own research, it's all in the Congressional records.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Do You Have Pelosi-Care
Snoop but verify. Redundancy. Because if you don't buy Pelosi-Care you may go to jail for 5 years or receive a $250,000 fine, or both, for your transgression.
Not sure what the sentence will be if you fail to buy your government suicide clown car. Just think of the marketing possibilities if you are the government forcing people to buy. Never a bad sales day.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Brain Hacking
Marketeers have known for some time, restricting supply can increase sales and profits. Think Black Friday!!! Frenzied retail sales, people waiting in line before dawn to 'get one of the ..."
This phenomenon is a sort of "brain hack" that's hard-wired into human neurology. It works almost hypnotically to create a surge of demand where normally none would rationally exist.
This is what's at work at frenzied retail store sales where a half-mad crowd of crazed shoppers trample each other to buy shoes at 70% off. The reason why these people are so strongly motivated to buy the products is because they are witnessing a rapidly-dwindling supply being depleted by everybody else. The witnessing of that act causes an almost hypnotic (and entirely irrational) increase in personal desire to have those same products, even if they don't need them!
It's also at work with the pig flu vaccine. Think about it, you heard shortage and didn't you say to yourself, maybe I should get one? When your government is playing with your mind with propaganda and all, the only way to defend is the natural herding instinct, now replaced by the Internet.
This phenomenon is a sort of "brain hack" that's hard-wired into human neurology. It works almost hypnotically to create a surge of demand where normally none would rationally exist.
This is what's at work at frenzied retail store sales where a half-mad crowd of crazed shoppers trample each other to buy shoes at 70% off. The reason why these people are so strongly motivated to buy the products is because they are witnessing a rapidly-dwindling supply being depleted by everybody else. The witnessing of that act causes an almost hypnotic (and entirely irrational) increase in personal desire to have those same products, even if they don't need them!
It's also at work with the pig flu vaccine. Think about it, you heard shortage and didn't you say to yourself, maybe I should get one? When your government is playing with your mind with propaganda and all, the only way to defend is the natural herding instinct, now replaced by the Internet.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Mark Levin At "The House Call"
Mark Levin's speech:
Jon Voight's speech:
Voight said that "President Obama has his own obsession with trying to ram this health bill through to create a socialist America."
Voight also asked "could it be he(Obama) has had 20 years of subconscious programing by Rev. Wright to damn America?"
What's The Difference ? The Hoaxers
Violating Senate rules, the Senate panel today "passed" the horrendously expensive "Tax and Ration" energy bill. And just this wee, with his new book, Al Gore introduced his church of global warming, to his investors.Hey did you know --- The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. So what is this energy independence lie the Democrats are pushing on us about ? Lies, then there are damn lies.
Watching our tyranny be built right before our eyes, in realtime:
“Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.” – John Adams “Wake up America ... the daily shuck and jive act is scamming you to death. What, you think the debt being piled up is good for you? Yeah, you probably believe that Abe Lincoln formed the KKK.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” — James Madison
Pelosia-Care Goes Under The Knife
Why is it so hard to figure out, government rationed healthcare is bad for America, bad for the people and bad for the economy. It's only good is for tyranny.
House Republicans are holding a 12-hour live online telecast today starting at 1pm Eastern to expose the perils and pitfalls of Pelosicare — and to spotlight the GOP alternative.
You can tune in here. Spread the word.
Coming to the Michelle Bacman House Call ? Why not? House steps at high noon October 5-6
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sarah Palin, After Election Note
Sarah Palin: Victory In NJ & VA For Common Sense And Fiscal Sanity
Congratulations to the new Governors-Elect of Virginia and New Jersey! I’d also like to offer a special word of support to the new Lieutenant Governor-Elect of New Jersey, Kim Guadagno, the first woman to hold that office.
Of course, the real victors in this election are the ordinary men and women who voted for positive change and a return to fiscal sanity. Your voices have been heard.
The race for New York’s 23rd District is not over, just postponed until 2010. The issues of this election have always centered on the economy – on the need for fiscal restraint, smaller government, and policies that encourage jobs. In 2010, these issues will be even more crucial to the electorate. I commend Doug Hoffman and all the other under-dog candidates who have the courage to put themselves out there and run against the odds.
To the tireless grassroots patriots who worked so hard in that race and to future citizen-candidates like Doug, please remember Reagan’s words of encouragement after his defeat in 1976:
“The cause goes on. Don't get cynical because look at yourselves and what you were willing to do, and recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a shining city on a hill.”
The cause goes on.
- Sarah Palin
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Sen Hatch: Constitutionality Of Government Rationed Healthcare
There is no way the Government Rationed HAelthcare is Constitutional. Even the CBO said as much in 1994.
Video: Obama’s Pastor Praises Marxism, Calls America “The Land Of Greed And Home Of The Slave”
Remember Oba-Mao sat in this guys pew for 20 plus years and didn't have a clue who he was and what he was up to. Rev Wright is a Black Liberation Theology(BLT) is just a fancy word for communism. Black liberation theology is a form of liberation theology that has its center in the theme of oppression.
The way all the Communists get power is by playing to the downtrodden and their alleged oppression. Offering them free stuff for their vote, the free stuff never comes, but the gulags always seem to show up. What Hugo Chavez is doing to Venezuela is the best current example. What Mao Tse-tung did to China and Stalin did to Russia also qualify. What Hitler did to Germany was slightly different he told everybody that Germans were the world's super race, and they believed him, until the end of WWII they did.
This racist, hate filled so-called preacher said this on September 17, 2007.
The way all the Communists get power is by playing to the downtrodden and their alleged oppression. Offering them free stuff for their vote, the free stuff never comes, but the gulags always seem to show up. What Hugo Chavez is doing to Venezuela is the best current example. What Mao Tse-tung did to China and Stalin did to Russia also qualify. What Hitler did to Germany was slightly different he told everybody that Germans were the world's super race, and they believed him, until the end of WWII they did.
This racist, hate filled so-called preacher said this on September 17, 2007.
Blue Dogs, Who Are You ?
Typically, what "Blue Dog Democrats" means is the lying Democrats who fake being conservative so they can get elected in conservative districts that would otherwise elect Republican conservatives. Often as what happened in 2008 the 'blu-dogs' run more conservative than the candidate that they are opposing that is supposedly conservative.
The 'blu-dogs' then go to Congress and elect liberal party leaders who then run them around in circles, making their voters wonder what's up with that? All politics is local, and if you can lie your way into office, the better you are.
Doug Ross has put together this list(click the widget above) of Blue Dogs so yo can call your blu-dogs ... When Pelosi most needs them.
The 'blu-dogs' then go to Congress and elect liberal party leaders who then run them around in circles, making their voters wonder what's up with that? All politics is local, and if you can lie your way into office, the better you are.
Doug Ross has put together this list(click the widget above) of Blue Dogs so yo can call your blu-dogs ... When Pelosi most needs them.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sarah Palin Responds To Slo Joe Biden
From Sarah on Facebook:
As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.
The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”
This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.
There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!
- Sarah Palin
Pelosi Releases Gigantic Government Takeover Of HealthCare Bill, Support Plumets
Rassmussen Reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the House version of health care reform legislation last week, but most voters are still opposed to the effort.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down from 45% a week ago but unchanged from two weeks ago.
Fifty-four percent (54%) now oppose the legislative effort, up three points since last week.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down from 45% a week ago but unchanged from two weeks ago.
Fifty-four percent (54%) now oppose the legislative effort, up three points since last week.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
GOP Healthcare Plan
There is no need to destroy the best health care in the world just so liberals can socialize medicine. Running individuals health care has been the touchstone of liberals and progressives for a 100 years. Why? Because then they can run your entire lives, for birth to determining when you die, rationing waht care you get along the way. Such power should never be awarded to any government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
