Thursday, April 30, 2009

President Obama's first 100 days

April 29, 2009 | By Nathaniel Ward


Today marks President Obama's 100th day in office. Few will disagree that these past three months have been consequential: the new administration has enacted unprecedented changes to economic policy, foreign and national security policy and social policy.

However, while the mainstream media goes out of its way to praise these as "change we can believe in," Heritage Foundation experts suggest that not all these changes are for the best. 


Economic Policy:


The president's economic policies have perhaps made the most headlines during his short tenure in office. To date, the president has potentially doubled the national debt by endorsing such legislation as:


$787 billion "stimulus'" bill, which the CBO projects could cost $3.27 trillion.


$410 billion earmark-packed omnibus bill; and


$3.6 trillion budget proposal for FY2010.


In a Washington Post commentary, Heritage distinguished fellow and former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao argues that President Obama has done little more than increase spending, taxes and the size of government. She says that if he switches gears and promotes "government doing more, better and with less, then he will truly be a transformative leader."


This has been, Heritage's Conn Carroll writes, "a presidency that is every bit as comfortable as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's was in blending the power of big government, big business, and big labor into one national industrial policy."


Foreign and National Security Policy


When considering the president's record on foreign and national security policy, let's not forget his quick action in the rescue of Navy Capt. Richard Phillips from the Somali pirates, or his prudent decision to continue, in large part, the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Nevertheless, other administration initiatives temper this good news:


Shutting down the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;


Drastically reducing funding for missile defense, despite increased threats from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran; Cutting the overall defense budget to unsustainable levels, leaving the military without critical new tools and incapable of meeting the growing challenges we face; and Going without "a coherent approach to homeland security."


Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes notes that perhaps the President's greatest asset is his global popularity, as was demonstrated during his two whirlwind tours in Europe and Latin America. Holmes questions, however, "whether the President's personal popularity abroad is translating into concrete results for the United States. So far it has not."


Social Policy


President Obama has wasted little time in reversing social policies—both longstanding policies and those enacted by his predecessor.  Within the first three months of his presidency, he has:


Discouraged volunteerism by signing a costly national service bill allowing government funding and expansion of Americorps;

Extended taxpayer financing to abortions abroad; and Invited taxpayer funding for controversial embryonic stem cell research.  Many of the president's proposals, such as eliminating successful school-choice programs for low-income families and rolling back conscience protections for medical professionals, would further undermine civil society.


—Amanda Reinecker





Watch Obama Mock Tea Party Protesters











Obama's energy, climate plans would drag U.S. back to 1905 - or 1862


Obama's energy, climate plans would drag U.S. back to 1905 – or 1862

By Paul Driessen, OpEd Contributor
- |
4/30/09 4:59 AM

President Obama wants to prevent “runaway global warming,” by slashing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. According to Oak Ridge National Laboratory data, this would return the country to emission levels last seen in 1905!


The Wright brothers had just made history. Coal and wood heated homes. Few had telephones or electricity. New York City’s vehicle emissions were 900,000 tons of horse manure annually. Life expectancy was 47.


But America’s 1905 population was 84 million, versus 308 million today. We didn’t have cars, jetliners or electricity for offices, factories, schools and hospitals. To account for those factors, we’d have to send CO2 emissions back to 1862 levels.


The Civil War was raging. The industrial revolution was in its infancy. Malaria, typhus and cholera killed thousands every year. Life expectancy was 40 – half of what affordable energy helps make it today.


No matter. The 648-page “cap-and-trade” climate bill sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman, D-CA, and Edward Markey, D-MA, would compel an 80% CO2 reduction, by imposing punitive cap-and-tax restrictions on virtually every hydrocarbon-using business, motorist and family.


That’s making some legislators nervous, as they ponder the health, economic and employment effects of restricting energy supplies and driving up the cost of everything we eat, drink, make and do – especially in 20 states that get 60-98% of their electricity from coal.


To prod Congress into action, or achieve the 80% target via regulatory edict, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Obama has decreed that plant-enhancing carbon dioxide “endangers human health and welfare.”


The actions EPA is contemplating would regulate cars, trains, boats and planes; pave the way for regulating farms and factories, hospitals, apartment buildings, malls and lawn mowers; and send energy prices skyrocketing.


Thousands of climate experts say there is no crisis, computer models are meaningless, and CO2 has little effect on climate change. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 48% of American voters now believe climate change is caused by natural forces; only 34% now think it’s due to humans.


Moreover, even if America eliminated all its greenhouse gas emissions, soaring Chinese and Indian CO2 levels would promptly offset our draconian cuts.


This alarms climate alarmists. They fear it’s now or never to wrest control over energy and the economic activities it fuels. Now or never to profit from cap-and-tax laws and renewable energy mandates.


Obama says the cap-and-trade approach will “raise” $656 billion over the next decade. The National Economic Council and other analysts put the tax bite at $1.3 to $3.0 trillion.


This is not monetary manna. The wealth will be extracted from every hydrocarbon-using business, motorist and family. The intrusive energy rules and taxes will clobber households, manufacturers, farmers, truckers and airlines.


The poorest families will get energy welfare, to offset part of their $500-3,000 increase in annual heating, cooling, transportation and food expenses. Everyone else will have to trim health, vacation, charity, college and retirement budgets to pay the higher costs.


Every increase in energy prices will result in more businesses laying off workers or closing their doors, more jobs sent overseas, more families forced into welfare, more school districts, hospitals and churches into whirlpools of red ink.


Carbon taxes and renewable energy mandates will mean hundreds of thousands of towering wind turbines – and billions of tons of steel, concrete, copper and fiberglass to build and install the unreliable, subsidized monsters.


My grandmother used to say, The only good thing about the “good old days” is that they’re gone.


Few Americans will be thrilled with returning to 1905 – or the impact that climate change laws will have on their freedoms, budgets, jobs, living standards and environment.


The White House, EPA and Congress need a reality check.


Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.



Nancy Pelosi explains it all

April 29, 2009

Thomas Lifson
Nancy Pelosi has to be the stupidest Speaker of the House in history.  Discussing Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat, she blurted out the Democrats' real thoughts on open government. From the Hill's Briefing Room blog:  

"Very exciting, very exciting for the American people, because now we can get things done without explaining process," Pelosi told CNN's Candy Crowley.


Yes, legislative deliberations are complicated, and we wouldn't want to voters to know too much.


Hat tip: DKC







Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Protecting pedophiles

April 29, 2009

Jan LaRue
If House Democrats have their way, pedophiles will be included in the Hate Crime bill, but not veterans and pregnant women. Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains:

"The House of Representatives will vote this week, possibly tomorrow, on a hate crimes bill championed by gay groups that includes pedophiles under the rubric of sexual orientation. This is the ultimate confession: liberal Democrats think of pedophiles as indistinguishable from homosexuals.


"When this subject came up last week in the House Judiciary Committee, an amendment to the hate crimes bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of sexual orientation was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 13-10. This was considered good news by gay organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, left-wing groups like the ACLU and various Jewish groups like the ADL.


"The debate is over: for liberals, child molesters should be given the same rights as homosexuals. Moreover, they should be given more rights than pregnant women and veterans; the latter two categories were explicitly denied coverage under the hate crimes bill. Even worse, an amendment that would bar prosecution based in whole or in part on religious beliefs quoted from the Bible, the Tanakh (Judaism's sacred book) or the Koran was defeated by Democrats along party lines, 11-8. In other words, religious speech may be denied First Amendment protection.


"There would be national outrage over this if the media were to report on it and the public were allowed to weigh in on it. But the clock is ticking and freedom and morality are hanging in the balance."

To verify the vote tally click here

Thomas Lifson adds:

Where are the homosexual rights groups on this insulting conflating of pedophiles with homosexuality? Although NAMBLA used to have a float in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, they were thrown out a few years ago, when the public took note. Since then, it has been my impression that nearly all gay rights groups resented any implication of a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.

If the Democrats are alleging such a connection, surely there will be a backlash.



Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic

The cost of the frivolous flight was about $60,000 an hour and that was just for Air Force One. That doesn't include the cost of the two F-16s that came along.


I thought, “The One”, was sensitive to our needs.  Apparently not he wanted some pics and sent the military on its way.  Now that the S**t hit the fan, “The One” puts the thumb screws to a clerk.


This photo-op stunt cost us $328,835…  Watching the spending are we???


Tuesday, April 28, 2009



Specter says he's switching from GOP to Democrats



Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year (It’s about him and his power not us) that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.


“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," (No SHIT!!!)  Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement could come later in the day or Wednesday.


The High Cost of Cap and Trade

The High Cost of Cap and Trade


Written by Warren Mass   

Monday, 27 April 2009 11:45






Cap-and-trade programs to control carbon-dioxide emissions are an unacceptably costly way to deal with the supposed problem of man-made global warming.

The term "cap and trade," in terms of a plan to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions into the air, is one that is heard widely of late as a proposed solution for the supposed problem of global warming. It will be discussed with more frequency as cap-and-trade proposals that failed to pass in the last Congress are reintroduced this year. But many people are still a little hazy about what "cap and trade" actually means. One succinct explanation appeared in an article on the Congressional Budget Office website: "The government would set gradually tightening limits on [CO2] emissions, issue rights (or allowances) corresponding to those limits, and then allow firms to trade the allowances."

Aside from telling us how cap-and-trade programs might operate, the reference to "tightening limits on emissions" gives away the ostensible purpose of these programs: to fight that supposed ominous scourge of the 21st century, global -warming.

Those who have accepted the widely promulgated theory that the melting of the polar icecaps and rising of the seas is imminent may believe that any economic cost is worth enduring, if only global warming can be forestalled. However, regular readers of The New American, especially those who have read our February 16, 2009 cover story entitled "Whatever Happened to Global Warming?" as well as those who have read any of several well-researched books* disputing both the severity of global warming and the theory that it is caused by man's activities, will not easily accept the argument that a massive and costly government program is needed to prevent a catastrophic ecological event.

To make an informed decision about whether a cap-and-trade program is advisable, therefore, requires that several questions be answered.

Is global warming real, or at least real enough to be threatening?

This question is best dealt with by referring to our February 16 cover story or one of the books cited in the footnote. Suffice it to say that the issue is not as settled as many in the media portray it to be.

What impact, if any, do man-made CO2 emissions have on global warming?

In the April 3 issue of the Wall Street Journal, deputy editor George Melloan noted that, according to "serious scientists," "the greenhouse gases are a fundamental part of the biosphere, necessary to all life, and … industrial activity generates less than 5% of them, if that."

Furthermore, the theory that CO2 is the prime culprit in so-called global warming may also be flawed. In the compendium Earth Report 2000, Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, noted: "It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the earth's natural greenhouse effect, whereas carbon dioxide contributes most of the remaining 5 percent. Global warming projections assume that water vapor will increase along with any warming resulting from the increases in carbon dioxide concentrations."

Dr. Spencer points out that such assumptions are unproven, noting that "there remain substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system will respond to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." He observes that the natural greenhouse effect that heats the Earth is offset by natural cooling processes. "In other words," concluded Dr. Spencer, "the natural greenhouse effect cannot be considered in isolation as a process warming the earth, without at the same time accounting for cooling processes that actually keep the greenhouse effect from scorching us all."

Theories on runaway global warming based on CO2 emissions postulate that increases in CO2 will cause some (minor) heating of the Earth that will in turn cause more water vapor to enter the air from the oceans, thereby causing dangerous heating of the Earth. But the system isn't so simple. If the climate system worked this way, the Earth would have reached its maximum temperature eons ago, and stayed there: water vapor would have entered the air when the oceans were heated by sunlight; the Earth would have warmed somewhat, leading to more water vapor entering the air and more heating of the Earth, followed by more water vapor, and so on.

What is the economic cost of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, either by cap and trade or a direct tax?

Whether one accepts the claims that carbon emissions contribute to global warming, or prefers to give equal weight to contradictory evidence, there is no dispute that a cap-and-trade program would be costly. As to how costly, we should consider the article "Study the (scary) figures on cap and trade," by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) in the Fort Worth Star Telegram for April 11, 2009. In it Barton noted: "[Cap and trade] is being sold as a way to save the planet by taxing 'emitters,' but it will kill the economy and decimate your family's budget."Barton made the following predictions of how cap and trade would affect the U.S. economy, citing the National Association of Manufacturers as his principal source:

• Job losses: 1.8 to 7 million

• Family tax increase: $739 to $6,752

• Electricity cost increases: 44 to 129 percent

• Gasoline price increases: 61 cents to $2.53 per gallon

• Natural gas increases: 108 to 146 percent

He added: "While the exact cost increases may be debatable, experts — including those working at the White House — agree that prices will go up."The Huntsville, Alabama, Times for April 14, 2009 ran an article headlined "Cap-and-trade will hurt economy, group says," that quoted Dr. John Hill, director of research for the Birmingham-based Alabama Policy Institute (API). Dr. Hill cast doubt on the idea that carbon emissions have much impact on global warming.

The article noted that, regardless of differences of opinion concerning global warming: "All sides agree that carbon dioxide limits could raise the cost of electricity or heat generated using fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas. It also could raise costs for other industries that release carbon dioxide, such as cement plants."The report also quoted API's communications director, David Sawyer, who warned that a cap-and-trade system could more than double electricity and natural-gas bills for residents. "Since when was carbon dioxide considered a poisonous pollutant?" Sawyer questioned. "To put a chokehold on our economy with the idea of saving the planet is a complete ruse."

And finally, does the benefit justify the cost?

When Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) introduced the America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191) in the last Congress, the Heritage Foundation warned, "All such climate change measures warrant careful scrutiny, as they would likely increase energy costs and do considerably more economic harm than environmental good."

The Heritage assessment cited a study by Charles River Associates that put the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050. The study noted that while no analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap-and-trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.

And what benefit would ensue from these financial burdens? Again citing the Charles River study, Heritage noted that "even if the U.S. were a party to [the Kyoto Protocol] and the European nations and other signatories were in full compliance … the treaty would reduce the Earth's future temperature by an estimated 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050 — an amount too small even to verify. S. 2191 would at best do only a little more."

Despite the above findings, there is a strong political movement in our nation determined to impose cap and trade or other forms of carbon taxes that will place a further economic burden on Americans.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, released a draft climate bill in March that they hope to send to the full House by Memorial Day.

Another bill containing a cap-and-trade provision has already been introduced in the House. H.R. 1759, the Emission Migration Prevention with Long-term Output Yields Act, was introduced on March 26 by representatives Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Michael Doyle (D-Pa.) and has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Perhaps to address concerns voiced by opponents of cap-and-trade plans that they will damage an already weak U.S. economy, Joseph Aldy, a special assistant to the president for energy and the environment, announced on April 8 that a portion of the revenue received from any cap-and-trade plan must go toward relieving those who end up paying higher energy bills because of the plan — an admission against interest that energy costs are going to go up, just as critics claim. "There will be those who are going to be vulnerable as we make this transition and … we need to actually target the allowance value and revenues to those households, communities, and businesses," Reuters news quoted Aldy as saying at an Energy Information Administration forum.

Advocates of cap and trade are promoting it as a way to prevent global warming. But U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has another description for it: "cap and tax." Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg admitted that cap and trade is a form of taxation when he told reporters at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007 that the growing cap-and-trade industry is vulnerable to "special interests, corruption, inefficiencies," and should be replaced by straight carbon taxes.

It makes little sense to impose a higher tax burden and another revenue-sharing scheme on Americans already beaten down by the current recession, using the prevention of "global warming" as a pretext. Americans who think that the cost of living is already high enough should share their concerns with their representatives in Congress before it is too late.

* See, for example, Hot Talk, Cold Science, and Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by Dr. S. Fred Singer; The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner; and Meltdown, by Patrick Michaels.





FW: Al Gore, global warming and truth


April 27, 5:33 PM  

I voted three times for Al Gore, twice for VP and once for President. I don't regret the first two votes...

The former Vice President spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. It was not his shining hour. Some of what he said was hyperbole. Some of what he said is just not true. And he, or one of his staff, should surely have known the limits he was transgressing.

For example, when speaking about Arctic ice, he said this:

"New research, which draws upon recently declassified data collected by U.S. nuclear submarines traveling under the Arctic ice cap for the last 50 years ... has told us that the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years."

What he might have added was that Arctic ice has only been measured for 30 years, and that it is recovering at the fastest rate ever recorded (from an extreme melt over the past 18 months) and it is more or less (within a standard deviation) back to normal now.

And what is it with Al Gore and 20 feet  of sea level rise? He's used it before, it was debunked before, he said it was an honest mistake before--and here it is again:

"A recent study in the journal Science has now confirmed that the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet is warming. Scientists have told us that if it were to collapse and slide into the sea, we would experience global sea level rise of another 20 feet worldwide."

What he didn't bother to tell the Committee was that the study was done by the same discredited scientist who produced the infamous hockey stick (and this study has the same methodological flaws), that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has always been understood to be melting due to the absolutely normal warming that happens during interglacial periods, and that it consists of only 5% of Antarctica, while the other 95% is increasing ice cover by a staggering 100,000 square kilometers per decade. The IPCC predicts a sea level rise of about 0.6 meters this century. Same as last century.

And in a staggering bit of true hypocrisy, Al Gore tries to tie a drought in the Southeast to climate change: 

"The American West and the Southeast have been experiencing prolonged severe drought and historic water shortages. A study ... from the Scripps Institute estimated that 60 percent of the changes in the West's water cycle are due to increased atmospheric man-made greenhouse gases." 

But what he fails to add is that temperatures in the Southeast have been falling--for 112 years at a rate of 0.12 degrees per decade. And he also fails to mention that drought in the West has been much worse and much worse more frequently in the past, before we began emitting those pesky greenhouse gases.

The statement that takes the cake, however, is this one: 

"A number of new studies continue to show that climate change is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. Although we cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming, we can certainly look at the trend. Dr. Greg Holland from the National Center for Atmospheric Research says that we have experienced a 300 to 400 percent increase in category five storms in the past 10 years."

 And this is the limit. Every study done in the past 2 years has shown that the energy frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms has fallen to an all time low, causing some respected proponents of the theory to change their minds in a hurry. Every study. There's no excuse for this, Mr. Vice President. At some point, we will have to use the 'L' word. 





Friday, April 24, 2009

A Pirates Story...

Poor Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse was caught off the coast of Somalia and charged with piracy.  Don’t worry though as all will be well.


The new administration has formed a legal task force and a forensics unit which is currently collecting evidence by dredging 100 square miles of the ocean so that habeas corpus rules can be adhered to once we bring the pirate (child) to trial.  He will be represented by a team of lawyers led by Jerry Spence on the taxpayer’s dime.  We’ll call this stimulus. 


He’ll get off as he is only a misguided teen and of course any evidence collected at 15,000 ft (at great risk of loss of life) under the surface of the ocean will have been compromised by the radical right wingers currently populating the US Navy.  He will be released as a new immigrant into the US, with public housing, welfare, food stamps (et al) , a free college education at the University of Chicago, become radicalized by William Ayers after which he will join mosque obtain a new mission and kill lots of us.


Dick Cheney and George Bush will be prosecuted for killing the other pirates (children) because although there is no evidence, we all know their administration bought lots of bullets and we don’t like them anyway.


Finally the “One” will fly to Somalia with his twelve teleprompters, entourage of 500 stylists, photographers and image consultants.  He will personally apologize to the families of the pirates, hand out boatloads of cash, rice and kot all the time blaming the previous administration for its lack of compassion.



Wednesday, April 22, 2009

No Holds Barred: Why does Obama smile at dictators?

How oppressive must a leader be before we determine that he has not merited a hug by the democratic standard-bearer of the free world, the president of the United States?


LIKE MANY AMERICANS, I have been awed by our president's capacity to draw those who hate us near. He is a man of considerable charm and grace. But I have to admit that I am increasingly troubled by his seeming inability to call out rogue dictators.


Suppose Obama succeeds in building friendships with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad and the Taliban. What then? Does America still get to feel that it stands for something? Will we still be the beacon of liberty and freedom to the rest of the world, or will we have sold out in the name of political expediency? And do any of us seriously believe that presidential friendship is going to get a megalomaniac like Hugo Chavez to ease up on the levers of power, or are we just feeding his ego by showing him he can be a tyrant and still have a beer with the president of the United States? Will the Iranians really stop enriching uranium through diplomacy rather than economic sanctions?


Read the entire article:


This is what happens when you don’t represent the USA but rather a globalist statist regime.  I wonder, since he trashes the US and cozies up to tyrants does this show what his real tendencies are? 


It’s all about him, his glory, his image as a savior supported by a vast propaganda machine.  Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and other tyrants had similar needs….  Hummm…

Tuesday, April 21, 2009


McCain facing 2010 primary

Social conservatives tolerated John McCain as the party's nominee, but never trusted him, and he now appears to be facing a serious primary from the right in Arizona next year.

Chris Simcox, the founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and a prominent figure in the anti-immigration movement, will announcing tomorrow at an event on the Mexican border that he's resigned from the group to run in the 2010 Senate primary.

From a forthcoming release:

"John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation's borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness," Simcox said. "He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation's border security hostage to his amnesty schemes. Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation's problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough."

McCain was forced to abandon his own immigration reform legislation during last year's Republican Primary, a move that may have cost him substantial Hispanic support to which his record could have given him access.

So he's basically getting it from both sides on this one.

Simcox, with a national base and a high profile on the right, is well positioned to give McCain a serious local headache. He'll find some allies among the conservatives who recently took over the Arizona Republican Party from McCain's allies, and he has a national fundraising base.


New York Times - Deathwatch

NYT Co. 1Q losses worsen as ad sales plunge 27 pct

New York Times Co.'s 1Q loss of $74.5M, worse than expected as ad revenue plunges 27 percent

Michael Liedtke, AP Business Writer

Tuesday April 21, 2009, 9:40 am EDT

The New York Times Co. fell into a deeper financial hole during the first quarter as the newspaper publisher's advertising revenue plunged 27 percent in an industry wide slump that is reshaping the print media. Its shares dived Tuesday.



Friday, April 17, 2009

Why We Must Practice Gun Control

Proper gun control is the most effective way to get your bullet to the correct destination.


Here are some tips:


1)     Practice shooting positions, especially field positions.

2)     Know your sights. Only one alignment will bring perfect results.

3)     Breathe calmly and deeply, exhale, then hold for the trigger squeeze

4)     Know your trigger, squeeze it slowly and firmly.