Monday, December 7, 2009

A Memorable Christmas...bet the old lady won't forget!

----- Original Message -----
From: link removed
To: link removed
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 4:28 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: FW: Greatest Christmas Decoration EVER]

The Most Epic Christmas Decoration Idea You'll See Today






"Good news is that I truly out did myself this year with my Christmas decorations. The bad news is that I had to take him down after 2 days. I had more people come screaming up to my house than ever. Great stories. But two things made me take it down.

First, the cops advised me that it would cause traffic accidents as they almost wrecked when they drove by.

Second, a 55 year old lady grabbed the 75 pound ladder almost killed herself putting it against my house and didn't realize it was fake until she climbed to the top (she was not happy).
By the way, she was one of many people who attempted to do that. My yard couldn't take it either.
I have more than a few tire tracks where people literally drove up my yard."

See Ya! Dwight

Giant Leopard Seal Teaches Photographer How To Hunt

It's Merry Christmas...just in case you forgot



video

video

You're in the jailhouse now...you're in the jailhouse now...but who cares!

Source: We Interrupt

Prisoner Grew Weed In Jail Cell

Submitted by C. S. Magor

A British prisoner was able to grow cannabis in his jail cell and even decorate a four-foot plant as a Christmas tree thanks to some clueless prison guards.

Twenty-eight-year-old Mohamed Jalloh, who was serving an 8-year sentence for supplying Class A drugs, succeeded in convincing jail staff that his cannabis crop was tomato plants. The Sun reports that Jalloh grew his plants for at least five months and that prison officers and bosses at Verne Prison admired his botanical skills.


Jalloh’s agricultural project came to an end when a jealous prisoner reported him to authorities.


According to one source:

You could see the plants from the grounds as his cell looks on to the education department and communal outside area. They were on show for the world to see.

Bill O’Reilly...Who's the pin head now?

Question for Bill O’Reilly: Who’s the Idiot Now?

AIM Column By Cliff Kincaid December 6, 2009

Now that ClimateGate has so clearly exposed the fraudulent nature of some of those behind the theory, O’Reilly should himself “come clean”...

The ClimateGate scandal demonstrates that some of the key figures behind the man-made global warming theory manipulated the "science" and hid data. Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, says such conduct may be criminal.

Bill O'Reilly should lead the effort to put these criminals in jail. Why? He was misled by them. In a 2007 interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," O'Reilly said not only that "global warming is here" but that those opposed to the theory were "idiots."

Who's the idiot now?

Accuracy in Media never bought into the media-hyped theory. Over the years, under the leadership of AIM founder Reed Irvine, we held numerous panels at our conferences on the subject of how the "science" behind the man-made global warming theory was being manipulated. Dr. S. Fred Singer was a regular speaker. In fact, our recent 40th anniversary conference had a panel discussion, "Global Warming: Fact or Media Myth?," featuring Lord Christopher Monckton, Marc Morano of Climate Depot, and Ann McElhinney, director of the powerful film, Not Evil Just Wrong.

AIM published Jerry Carlson's, Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?, in February 2008. Some of our other articles include, "Media promote Global Warming Fraud" and Roger Aronoff's "Media Frenzy Over Global Warming." and "More Hot Air on Global Warming."

May I be permitted to say, "We told you so."

One of our best AIM Reports on the subject was Roger Aronoff's "Flip-Flop: From Global Cooling to Warming," on how some "scientists" and journalists once promoted the theory that the earth was cooling.

But the liberals weren't the only frauds and/or dupes.

"Government's gotta be proactive on environment," O'Reilly told Mike Wallace during that "60 Minutes" interview. "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."

We don't expect the liberals in the media and elsewhere to apologize. Their standards are low, if not non-existent. But O'Reilly claims to hold himself to higher standards. He should prove it.

It is important to note that O'Reilly flip-flopped, saying in 2008 that it was "all guesswork" as to whether global warming is "natural" or "man-made."

We don't need a body language expert to conclude that O'Reilly didn't know what he's talking about. He was not alone but he did have a popular cable program.

Obviously confused and then unwilling to do the hard work, O'Reilly said back in 2002 that "I have never understood the resistance to the concept of global warming." He faulted Rush Limbaugh for rejecting evidence from "reputable scientists" but didn't name any.

His evidence? O'Reilly declared, "When I was a kid, we used to be able to skate on frozen ponds for two months. Now if you get a week of natural ice, that's a cold winter."

O'Reilly's pathetic treatment of this matter received our attention back in 2004 in a column we headlined, "Flip-flopper Bill O'Reilly." We noted that O'Reilly had claimed that unnamed scientists at MIT, whom he described as "the best in the world," believe that "all this fossil fuel is hurting the earth" and that global warming is occurring and must be urgently addressed. However, the most prominent expert on global warming at MIT, meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, had not been invited on "The Factor." Lindzen is a leading critic of the theory.

On July 13, 2009, as noted by Gateway Pundit, O'Reilly told his viewers that since 2001 we have witnessed "seven of the hottest years" on record. This was nonsense. On December 1, John Stossel entered the "No Spin Zone" and declared, "There hasn't been warming for the past eleven years and we have real problems in the world--millions are dying from malaria, malnutrition, bad hygiene. The idea that we should keep people poor by spending all this money on global warming is an awful idea."

But rather than apologize for misleading his viewers, O'Reilly adopted a new tack. He became an advocate of "global warming agnosticism" and said, "Only the Deity knows whether the planet is warming and who is at fault. But along with that, anything that we can do to make the planet cleaner, we should try to do."

O'Reilly is spinning so fast a body language expert would be of no practical use in determining what exactly he means.

Now that ClimateGate has so clearly exposed the fraudulent nature of some of those behind the theory, O'Reilly should himself "come clean" and set the standard for what the rest of the media should be and do.

We suggest a Bill O'Reilly "Talking Points Memo" that includes:

"Factor Viewers: I was wrong about global warming. I didn't do my homework. I jumped to conclusions and flip-flopped. What's worse, I accused those of telling the truth of being idiots. I was the idiot. For that I apologize."

It is incumbent on O'Reilly not only to apologize to his viewers but to work actively to expose the evidence of what Beisner calls "serious scientific malfeasance--the fabrication, corruption, destruction, hiding, and cherry-picking of data," as well as "intimidation of dissenting scientists and journal editors--and efforts to evade disclosure under Freedom of Information Laws in the United Kingdom and the United States..."

Naming names, Beisner told this columnist, "Rational inquiry, reasoned discussion, and open debate are the victims of such men as Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Ben Santer, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other scientific high priests of the religion of manmade global warming exposed in ClimateGate, along with their non-scientist acolytes like Al Gore and Maurice Strong."

He adds, however, that "There's a silver lining to this cloud: All of their victims may be resurrected by the misconduct's exposure. Thousands and thousands of scientists the world over, not to mention federal and state attorneys general and university academic fraud investigators, now need to restore scientific integrity and the open, transparent quest for truth by holding these scientists accountable and demanding absolute public openness in all future scientific research."

Beisner says that "the scientists, and with them the institutions that employ them, who violate the canons of complete openness with all the process and products of publicly funded research, should be held liable and required to repay every penny of the millions of dollars in research grants they've received."

Equally important is that their motives be exposed. In this case, the obvious intention is to destroy the American way of life through higher taxes, even on a global level.

As I told Foxnews.com for their article, "Critics Decry 'One-Sided' Media Coverage of Climate Change Debate," our media have not only embraced the bogus "science" and the fraudulent theory, they have failed to tell the American people what is in the draft treaty being debated at the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) taking place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from December 7-15.

According to the conference website, President Barack Obama is shifting the timing of his visit to the international climate summit in Copenhagen "as prospects for a political agreement at the event seem more likely."

I took my cue from Lord Monckton and read the document. Page 83 raises the possibility of "cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes." Page 134 suggests a "global levy" on carbon dioxide emissions, including from international aviation and maritime transport. Page 135 suggests an "international adaption levy on airfares" and a global tax on international financial markets.

We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

As Monckton suggests, if you read the entire document you come away convinced that these people want to put in place a world government. Yet, the United States was born in a tax revolt when King George tried to tax us.

Freedom of the press does not mean the right to lie. It is time to tell the truth about those who have been lying to us.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

The Future Of America Under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid

I had a dream...
It was 2016...
(This is how it went...)






Inflation*

Christmas is coming,
the goose is getting fat
Please put a dollar in the old man's hat
If you haven't got a dollar,
a half will do
If you haven't got a half,
a quarter will do
If you haven't got a quarter then
God bless you!

*The original...

Christmas is coming,
the goose is getting fat
Please put a penny in the old man's hat
If you haven't got a penny,
a ha'penny will do
If you haven't got a ha'penny,
a farthing will do
If you haven't got a farthing then
God bless you!

Who's the communist?

Source: Sarah Palin Information Blog

" Sarah joked that she was looking at a magazine cover of Obama and Chinese President Hu Jinato during an airplane flight. A nearby passenger stated, “Hu’s the Communist” Sarah said: “I thought he was asking a question.” "

Hu’s The Communist: Sarah Palin Knocks ‘em Dead At Annual Gridiron Dinner

Posted by Gary P on December 6, 2009

Sarah Palin was in Washington, D.C. for the annual Gridiron Dinner. This 124 year old event is basically the media and politician’s version of a Comedy Central Roast. This event gives media and politicians a chance to trade barbs, and frankly, get to know each other.

The affair is historically off the record, but for the first time in history the media was allowed to use twitter. One guess as to why!

The two Keynote Speakers were Sarah followed by Congressman Barney Frank.

As expected, the tweets were flying! (pardon the pun)

Here’s a taste of the event. We took these from CNN’s John Roberts. The parts in quotations are his remarks, the rest is mine:

“124-yr-old journalists’ group -gridiron club-tonite for first time allows limited cvg, allowing mbrs to tweet. S Palin & B Frank r guests”

She made fun of John Kerry’s joke that backfired and pissed the troops off in 2004.

Kerry’s lame joke was about not doing well in school and getting stuck in Iraq. (Aimed at George Bush)

Sarah’s: “just trust your intuition and then you don’t you end up in a place like this.” (meaning the Gidiron Dinner)

Sarah joked that normally a democrat speaker got to give the rebuttal at these things but: “McCain campaign staff asked if they could have that time for rebuttal.”

Called the media “death panels.”

Took a swipe at Steve Schmidt who was McCain’s campaign manager: “if I need a bald campaign manager, I guess all i am left with is james carville.”

“Palin joke in speech re book travels : “the view is so much better from inside the bus than under it.“.

Her parents in for speech-standing ovation

“Palin jokes book title debate included “the audacity of the north slope.”

“Gov palin speech done. Full of funny zingers. Says if McCain won, Biden book would be “Going Rogaine“”

“Rep Frank also funny. Palin nods as he says newspapers “piss me off” on specifics a lot but “ in general ” need strong media.” (Sarah’s degree is in journalism)

“Chairman frank mocks Twitter: “not that interested in what Claire mcckaskill has for lunch.”

“Frank jokes nj gov Christie win makes “politics safe for fat guys.” says his reality show would be “king of queens”

This was posted at C4P:

The night closed with the Gridiron Singers rendition of the 12 Days of Christmas, with gifts bestowed by a certain Ruth Limbaugh rather than the traditional “True Love.”

“On the first day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: A Marxist in a dead tree.

On the second day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Two tea-bag goons.

On the third day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Three hell-no’s

On the fourth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Four bawling Becks

On the fifth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Five Sarah swoon-ins

On the sixth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Six health care death squads

On the seventh day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Seven bug-eyed birthers

On the eight day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Eight Cheney boomlets

On the ninth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Nine ACORN busters

On the tenth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Ten thundering mossbacks

On the eleventh day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: Eleven loony liberals

On the twelfth day of Christmas, Rush Limbaugh gave to me: twelve flaming liberals, hunted down in the wild and field dressed, medium well-done, seared on the fatty edges—”

And then Palin joined the chorus for the final line:

Right next to the mashed potatoes,” she sang.”

The “seared on the fatty edges—” and “Right next to the mashed potatoes” is straight from her book talking about how she likes her meat. In her book she laments the fact that her critics must think all meat just comes wrapped in cellophane. That they have no clue it comes wrapped in fur and hide first!

As far as her Presidential ambitions go. She told the audience that on Sunday she’d be in Iowa — “from noon to three at Barnes and Noble. Come early, long lines are expected.”

Sarah also joked about the fact that the D.C. elite rarely read books like hers, instead rushing to the index to see if they are mentioned. These same elites were flabbergasted to hear that Going Rogue, An American Life, contains no index! So she made one up for them:

A: Alaska, media not understanding it, page 1-432.”

B: Biased, Page 1-432.”

While I don’t have the exact quote, this is my favorite joke of the night:

Sarah joked that she was looking at a magazine cover of Obama and Chinese President Hu Jinato during an airplane flight. A nearby passenger stated, “Hu’s the Communist” Sarah said: “I thought he was asking a question.”

Priceless!

A Tribute... never enough said about this!

"What on earth is this government doing..." Sleeping with the enemy!

Source: National Review



Somebody at Fort Hood Should Be Walking the Plank [Andy McCarthy]

Prepare to be infuriated.

It's been brought to my attention by several reliable sources that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Worse, last evening, Safi was apparently permitted to present a check (evidently on behalf of ISNA) to the families of the victims of last month's Fort Hood massacre. A military source told the blogger Barbarossa at the Jawa Report: "This is nothing short of blood money. This is criminal and the Ft. Hood base commander should be fired right now."

ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood's umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States. It was established in 1981 to enable Muslims in North America "to adopt Islam as a complete way of life" — i.e., to further the Brotherhood's strategy of establishing enclaves in the West that are governed by sharia. As I detailed in an essay for the April 20 edition of NR, the Brotherhood's rally-cry remains, to this day, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, openly declares that Islam will "conquer America" and "conquer Europe."

Also established in 1981, the IIIT is a Saudi funded think-tank dedicated, it says, to the "Islamicization of knowledge" — which, Zeyno Baran (in Volume 6 of the Hudson Institute's excellent series, "Current Trends in Islamist Ideology") has aptly observed, "could be a euphemism for the rewriting of history to support Islamist narratives." Years ago, the Saudis convinced the United States that the IIIT should be the military's go-to authority on Islam. One result was the placement of Abdurrahman Alamoudi to select Muslim chaplains for the armed forces. Alamoudi has since been convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 23 years in federal prison.

As noted in this 2003 Frontpage report, 2002 search warrant links Safi to an entity called the "Safa Group." The Safa Group has never been charged with a crime, but the affidavit allegest its involvement in moving large sums of money to terrorist fronts. Safi was also caught on an FBI wiretap of Sami al-Arian, a former leader in the murderous Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The year was 1995, and the topic of the discussion between Safi and al-Arian was Safi's concern that President Clinton's executive order prohibiting financial transactions with terrorist organizations would negatively affect al-Arian. More recently, al-Arian has been convicted of conspiring to provide material support to terrorism.

At Human Events a couple of months back, Rowan Scarborough had a disturbing report about the FBI's "partnering" efforts with Islamist groups — including the very same ISNA that the Justice Department had cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing conspiracy. A prominent figure in the report was Louay Jafi:

Safi is a Syrian-born author who advocates Muslim American rights through his directorship of ISNA's Leadership Development Center. He advocates direct talks between Washington and Iran's leaders. He has spoken out against various law enforcement raids on Islamic centers.

In a 2003 publication, "Peace and the Limits of War," Safi wrote, "The war against the apostates [non-believers of Islam] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order."

He also wrote, "It is up to the Muslim leadership to assess the situation and weigh the circumstances as well as the capacity of the Muslim community before deciding the appropriate type of jihad. At one stage, Muslims may find that jihad, through persuasion or peaceful resistance, is the best and most effective method to achieve just peace." [ACM: Implicitly, this concedes there is a time for violent jihad, too.]

At ISNA's annual convention in Washington in July, one speaker, Imam Warith Deen Umar, criticized Obama for having two Jewish people — Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod — in the White House. "Why do this small number of people have control of the world?" he said, according to a IPT transcript. He said the Holocast was punishment for Jews "because they were serially disobedient to Allah."

[Steven] Emerson's group [the Investigative Project on Terrorism] collected literature at the convention approved for distribution by ISNA. It said the pamphlets and books featured "numerous attempts to portray U.S. prosecution of terrorists and terror supporters as anti-Muslim bigotry; dramatic revisionist history that denied attacks by Arab nations and Palestinian terrorists against Israel; anti-Semitic tracts and hyperbolic rants about a genocide and holocaust of Palestinians."

Asked if the FBI should sever ties with ISNA, Emerson said, "ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator. It's a Muslim Brotherhood group. I think in terms of legitimacy there should be certain expectations of what the group says publicly. If it continues to espouse jihad and anti-Semitism, I think it nullifies it right to have the FBI recognize it."

If you want to get a sense of the garbage our troops are being forced to endure in Fort Hood's classrooms, check out Jihad Watch, where my friend Bob Spencer has more on this episode and on his prior jousts with Safi, here, here, and here.

What on earth is this government doing, and will Congress please do something about it?

____________________

Comments from Stand Up America

Barbara Caldwell said: WHY AREN’T PEOPLE REALIZING THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DOING. IT IS ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA. WHAT HAVE WE COME TO WHEN YOU PROCECUTE OUR HEROIC SERVICEMEN AND CUDDLE THE ENEMY. NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO INDOCTRINATE OUR CHILDREN AND OUR BRAVE TROOPS. WHO WILL STOP THIS TREASON AGAINST OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE.

Nancy Miller said: UNFORGIVABLE!!! Our Military and the FBI ARE NOW SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY!! I’m FURIOUS!!

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Barney Frank..."Drunk with power!"

Massachusetts:
Barney Frank Commands Police To Arrest Constituents? source: Sonoran Weekly
Angel Fleming

Angel Fleming

Two concerned citizens from Massachusetts, Shane Hayes and Angel Fleming, traveled to Washington DC to protest the Health care bill and to confront their representatives.

Shane and Angel decided to make a “Blogumentary” about the 5th of November, and this story instantly became a wakeup call to many Americans. This “Blogumentary” can be viewed at:

http://www.coterack.com/2009/11/5th-of-november-healthcare-blogumentary.html

While Fleming and Hayes intended to capture “history-in-the-making” that fateful day in front of the steps of Congress, they walked away with much more. In the aforementioned link, Ms Fleming and Mr. Hayes provide a story no one else could. You see, Ms Fleming’s representative is the one and only Barney Frank.

While thousands of people ran through the halls of Congress seeking their elected officials, Ms Fleming was the ONLY ONE who was from Barney Frank’s district. She, therefore, was able to not only sit down with him behind closed doors, but she challenged him on the Constitution in ways no one else ever has.

November 5th Washington DC

November 5th Washington DC

Barney Frank quickly grew very argumentative with Ms Fleming at first and challenged her in her support of democracy; Ms Fleming interrupted him and fired back with “Sir, we do not have a democracy; we have a REPUBLIC and our founding fathers warned against the dangers of democracy. Democracy leads to partisan politics and what eventually happens is there becomes a ruling party to control all branches of our government-one branch kowtows to the next and that is an OLIGARCHY which is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

Mr. Frank went cross-eyed at the word “oligarchy” and decided to ignore Ms Fleming by pretending to read a newspaper. Ms Fleming then went on to call Frank “drunk with power”. She told him he’d been in office too long; he doesn’t even know what his job description is. She told him to stop acting childish and listen to her…

When Frank got bored with the “I’m not hearing you” game, he ordered a Capitol Police officer to arrest her. The “Blogumentary” also covers Ms Fleming’s detainment with the officer. Shane Hayes managed to get secret video of the exchange with the police, exposing not only the cop’s honest surprise that ANYONE got in to see Frank, but the cop changed his mind in arresting Ms Fleming when she demanded to know what law she was breaking. The cop said that he’s not sure what he could have “gotten her on” but “that’s what they have lawyers for.” He pretty much admitted the capitol police that day were looking to “cuff and stuff” these peaceful protesting citizens on PUBLIC PROPERTY and sort it out later legally. You can view this exchange below.

This story has become quite an exposé of the “goings on” in DC and people have responded overwhelmingly to Fleming and Hayes’ little blogging venture. We feel this story should have national exposure in order to reach more citizens who maybe haven’t quite realized just how bad our politicians have become. They’re elite and arrogant and truly think they’re better than us. We can sum this up in the moment Ms Fleming was being forcibly removed from Frank’s office, Barney Frank yelled to her as she was just out of his door “Good riddance, bigot!”

Please take a moment to view the “Blogumentary” and see if we can get the word out on this. Ms Fleming has vowed that she will do everything within her power to remove this hack from office.

Respectfully,
Shane Hayes

ShaneHayes@gmail.com
Shane@coterack.com
http://www.facebook.com/ShaneAHayes

Angel Fleming
angfleming001@yahoo.com
angel@coterack.com
twitter: angelCOTErack
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1091910908&ref=profile

Will Congressional Scrooges End Christmas As We Know It?

video

Miniumum Wage Law Meets It's Kin ...shh don't tell anyone, but we will soon have a maximum pay law

Click on picture to enlarge.
Senate Democrats target pay of health insurance executives
By Alexander Bolton

Senate Democrats will offer an amendment this weekend to curb the pay of executives at health insurance companies that benefit from federal subsidies, fueling the growing feud with the powerful industry.

Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have sponsored an amendment that would prohibit health insurance companies from deducting more than $400,000 in executive compensation per individual. The cap would apply to companies that earned 25 percent or more of their income from Americans who buy insurance from government-created exchanges.

The Senate will debate the measure Saturday morning and is expected to vote on it around 3 p.m.

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats started the healthcare debate earlier this year by forming a tentative truce with the insurance industry but that now appears finished.

Democratic rhetoric against the insurance industry has become increasingly critical as the debate has progressed.

Earlier this fall, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed a proposal to revoke the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies have enjoyed since the mid-1940s. Reid later backed off, however, and decided to not to include the provision in the Senate healthcare bill.

But other Democrats have set their sights on the profitable industry as lawmakers look for innovative ways to curb healthcare costs and avoid the perception that the pending Senate legislation amounts to a massive giveaway to healthcare companies. Some liberal critics charge the legislation would not do enough to curb the excesses of health insurance companies, especially if it does not include a government-run insurance program.

“By eliminating an enormous tax deduction that allows insurance companies to line the pockets of their executives, this proposal will raise about $651 million over the next 10 years, which will be required to go toward the Medicare trust fund,” Lincoln told reporters Friday afternoon.

Lincoln noted that if healthcare reform legislation becomes law, insurance companies would receive millions of new customers.

“Our amendment will make sure that premiums these new enrollees are spent on better care and not executive salaries,” she said.

Lincoln on Friday reiterated her opposition to the public option, which some liberal Democrats believe is essential to prevent the bill from becoming a multi-billion dollar giveaway to the insurance industry.

“I’ve been very clear, I don’t support a public option that is government-funded or government-run that puts the taxpayer at risk in the long run,” Lincoln said.

The Arkansas lawmaker said she would even oppose setting the public option to a trigger if the insurance program ultimately implemented would be controlled or funded by the government.

Lincoln said she was skeptical of the claims of other Democrats that a public option would be self-sufficient and would not rely on a stream of federal revenues.

“I haven’t seen the mechanisms that make that happen yet,” she said. “I will reassure you that I am going to look at everything and am going to judge it based on that. I’m going to judge it based on whether or not there is long-term risk to the taxpayer and whether government-funded and government-run.”


Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/70709-democrats-target-pay-of-health-insurance-executives

Farah and the Major...The Story Behind The Picture

Source: Michael Yon online

First Published May 14, 2005

Mosul


Major Mark Bieger found this little girl after the car bomb that attacked our guys while kids were crowding around. The soldiers here have been angry and sad for two days. They are angry because the terrorists could just as easily have waited a block or two and attacked the patrol away from the kids. Instead, the suicide bomber drove his car and hit the Stryker when about twenty children were jumping up and down and waving at the soldiers. Major Bieger, I had seen him help rescue some of our guys a week earlier during another big attack, took some of our soldiers and rushed this little girl to our hospital. He wanted her to have American surgeons and not to go to the Iraqi hospital. She didn’t make it. I snapped this picture when Major Bieger ran to take her away. He kept stopping to talk with her and hug her.

The soldiers went back to that neighborhood the next day to ask what they could do. The people were very warm and welcomed us into their homes, and many kids were actually running up to say hello and to ask soldiers to shake hands.

Eventually, some insurgents must have realized we were back and started shooting at us. The American soldiers and Iraqi police started engaging the enemy and there was a running gun battle. I saw at least one IP who was shot, but he looked okay and actually smiled at me despite the big bullet hole in his leg. I smiled back.

One thing seems certain; the people in that neighborhood share our feelings about the terrorists. We are going to go back there, and if any terrorists come out, the soldiers hope to find them. Everybody is still very angry that the insurgents attacked us when the kids were around. Their day will come.

[Post Script]
The reaction to my photo of Major Bieger cradling Farah, the little girl who died in his arms, provoked a flood of messages and heartfelt responses from caring people around the world. I have spent the last several days trying to read every message, and respond to as many as possible, but the flow has finally outpaced me, much as the swiftness of a river will finally defeat even the most determined swimmer.

This morning there was a banging on my door. It was “Q,” loaded for battle, weapon in hand, wearing the military radio headphones with the microphone that wrapped around his face. Bang, Bang, Bang! Q hit my door.

“Mike! Where are you?!”
“Hold on,” I said, opening the door.
“Why aren’t you ready! Grab your gear . . . we’re going!” My worn-out boots sat empty in the corner.
“I can’t go today,” I said, glancing in the direction of my laptop.
“What?”
“Just tell them I can’t go today.”
“Okay!” And Q trotted off back to his Stryker, leaving me behind. The soldiers rolled out on their mission without me.

And now I sit here, answering a few final emails, while the men of Deuce Four patrol in Mosul. My hands may be here, but my head and heart are on the streets in the struggle. I’ve been riding the wave of interest and feedback from that photo, but I need to get back to what I seem best equipped to do–posting dispatches about what is happening here in Iraq. I will continue to read every message, and I offer my sincere thanks in advance for everyone who takes the time to send one, but, alas, with this dispatch, I must swim to shore.

Michael

Friday, December 4, 2009

What if... Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck receives the following e-mail...I'll give you time to read it... ... ... ... ... ...
Good, now that you've read it what do you think? Is the message threatening or just wishful thinking. Read it again, "I think you should be...executed." Threat or no-threat?
If someone thinks about execution (murder/killing) are they capable of following through with their thoughts? Would you call this thinking premeditation? Is premeditation a crime? Premeditated murder is a crime. In my humble opinion all murders are premeditated (except in a war zone where one kills for self preservation...the ole kill or be killed philosophy.) Do law enforcement agencies have any jurisdiction or interest in this email? Can they arrest the writer? (I think they should.)

Now that you have thoroughly analysed the email let me change the subject slightly. Do you value the life of one person over another? Two strangers...are they equal. One stranger, one friend...are they equal? One friend, one relative, are they equal? In other words would you place more value over your kinfolk being murdered versus the stranger. I think I know your answer. What would you say should happen to Mat (the author of the email) if you or your mother received the message? If Barack Husein Obama received such a message I believe the secret service would be at Mat's door in very quick time. And with that said, I believe that Glen Beck's life is just as valuable as that $(%@#*! in the White House therefor Mat should be checked out by the authorities...in very quick time! ~ Norman E. Hooben

"The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself."

A Swiss Entitlement...ammunition! Now that's a novel idea. I'll have to suggest this to our Liberal friends in Congress. At least the cause will be worthy. What could be more worthy than freedom?

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Scientists lied, Kyoto died. Hallelujah. - "Told you so."

It has once been said that nobody likes an 'I-told-you-so'. Well in this case it's, "We told you so!" And I'm proud to be a member of the 'We' group! All the people of whom I associate with, both personally and professionally, are one-hundred percent in unison over the so-called man made global warming issue...otherwise know as anthropological global warming. That is not to say I do not know anyone who believes otherwise... the quacks are out there! Most of them are in Congress and at least one resides in the White House. As for those who don't like us, that would include the main stream media who have taken sides with the Al Gore fear mongers, the so-called scientists who manipulated data (see the damning emails chart below), and the worst of the worse, the United Nations.

026.1ST.25.jpg
Source: Daily Mail


If we could place the blame for all the climate change controversy on one party then that would be the United Nations...they're in it for the money and more importantly 'control'...control over you and the rest of the world! (We told you about this before!)


Oh, and before I forget, Al Gore must really be storming mad for he was just about to be recognized at the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to promote his book, "Our Choice" when he suddenly cancels his trip. What's up Al, does this inconvenient truth exposed by the whistle blower hit a little to close to home? And if you went to Copenhagen, do you think they might ask that you return that undeserved Nobel Peace prize...poor baby! ~ Norman E. Hooben
________________
Chris Horner: Climate-Gate E-Mails Released by Whistleblower, Not Hacker

I O U O we owe ...How can we control this run away debt?

Source: The Heritage Foundation

To Control National Debt, Congress Needs to Tackle Entitlements

For most individuals, maxing out one's credit card is usually a sign of a spending problem -- but not if you're Congress. For the first time in history, the national debt has hit $12 trillion, and it will soon exceed the $12.1 trillion maximum amount of debt allowed by law. Yet Congress needs only to vote to give itself a higher credit limit to keep spending. An increase is inevitable because the government must fund current programs and make interest payments on existing debt, but this time will likely be the single greatest one-time increase in history, with initial estimates ranging between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.

Such red ink is unsustainable over the long-term, which is why this increase should compel Congress to control spending. The main drivers of spending now and in the future are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and Congress ought to recognize that it is time to fundamentally reform these programs as it takes a shameful vote to saddle future generations with more debt.

Why Does Debt Matter?

When Congress raises the debt limit, it ups its ability to issue two kinds of debt that each have different economic consequences. The first type is debt held by the public, which is the total of all past budget deficits plus interest and is owned by individuals, corporations, and foreign governments. The second part is debt held by the government, which represents money that was borrowed by the government from surpluses in the Social Security trust fund and other accounts and spent by other government entities.

The public debt, which makes up $7.6 trillion of the $12 trillion total debt subject to limit,[1] has the greatest economic significance for two key reasons. First, government must pay interest expenses on it to avoid default. In fiscal year 2009, interest payments on the public debt were $202 billion, or roughly 1.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[2] The larger these interest payments become, the less budgetary flexibility Congress and the President have to fund other spending priorities.

Second, publicly held debt has a direct effect on credit markets. Treasury securities must be sold to finance the federal deficit, which reached a record $1.4 trillion this year, and these securities compete with private securities for buyers and reduce national savings.[3] As the money available for private investment is diminished by government borrowing, private investment decreases, leading to lower productivity, wages, and economic growth.[4]

Debt held by the government, which stands at $4.4 trillion, can be thought of as future debt whose economic consequences will not be felt for some time. Because government debt is issued from one part of the government to another, it is effectively an accounting mechanism that has no impact on current credit markets.

However, eventually the government will have to repay debt it has loaned itself. For instance, the Social Security trust fund, which is the largest financer of inter-government debt, contains IOUs that will need to be repaid beginning in 2016. Unless other spending is cut to fund repayment, new publicly held debt would have to be issued at that time, resulting in a dollar-for-dollar shift from government to public debt.

This shifting of government debt to public debt would not, by itself, cause the total stock of debt to change. However, as the new public debt accrues interest, the compounding would cause the public debt to rise significantly.

It's All Downhill from Here

The recession and excessive spending have caused the debt held by the public to grow sharply to 56 percent of the economy, topping the historical average of 36 percent. Publicly held debt must not grow faster than the economy if it is to be sustainable; otherwise the demand on capital markets would be so severe that private and foreign lenders would stop buying U.S. securities. Yet the U.S. is rapidly headed in that direction.

Credit rating agencies have recently signaled that current and projected deficit levels threaten America's AAA credit rating.[5] But as early as a year ago, Moody's warned that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures posed a severe threat to ratings over the long term.[6]

Such warnings have not gone unnoticed by major U.S. lenders, particularly China, which holds more than $1 trillion of U.S. debt and whose citizens have even laughed at Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for claiming that their investments in treasury securities are "safe."[7]

This new $1 trillion debt increase will certainly capture the attention of creditors and taxpayers.

No One Said This Would Be Easy

Americans are rightly intolerant of congressional profligacy, and this monumental increase in the debt limit will demonstrate Congress's poor record of fiscal restraint. To avoid scrutiny, congressional leadership will likely try to sneak the debt limit increase into a "must-pass" measure, such as a continuing budget resolution or the defense appropriations bill.[8]

Such parliamentary gamesmanship would tie the hands of those Members who want to have a full debate about this ruinous spending. Instead, Congress should recognize its past overspending mistakes and take a standalone vote on the increase.

Because this will be a difficult vote, many in Congress may be inclined to increase the limit by an amount large enough to avoid another increase before their next election, but such evasion should not be tolerated by taxpayers. Any increase this year should also be no larger than what is required to fund necessary spending.

Time for Serious Action

To avoid perpetual trillion-dollar debt limit increases, Members of Congress should also finally address the long-term entitlement-driven budget problem. Adding to today's deeply troubling spending-driven public debt levels, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that as Social Security IOUs are redeemed and rising health care costs drive up expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid, the publicly held debt will exceed 320 percent of GDP by 2050. Net interest expense by that time will increase nearly tenfold from today's level of 1.4 percent of GDP to 13.5 percent.[9]

One way to address this issue would be to establish a commission to address entitlement reform as part of an agreement to increase the debt limit. A growing number of Members -- led by Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH) in the Senate and Representatives Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Jim Cooper (D-TN) in the House -- are calling for a vote that would require exactly that.

An effective commission would require that Congress restrain entitlement growth by placing the programs on long-term budgets, which would prevent the national debt from growing on autopilot. Congress should also rethink the entire notion of what debt "matters" and include a measure of the long-term entitlement obligations -- equal to about $44 trillion (net present value) -- in the federal budget. Indeed, it is impossible to have an honest conversation about a $1 trillion debt increase without an acknowledgement of future debt as well.[10]

Do It for the Kids

Today's $12 trillion debt is small compared to the debt that future generations stand to inherit from unchecked entitlement spending. Congress should build budget controls to spare them this crushing and immoral burden. Reforming entitlement programs, which are the main drivers of government spending and borrowing, should be front and center in this effort.

Failure to act will guarantee that future Congresses will have to raise the debt limit many more times and that future generations will pay the price. Responsible fiscal stewardship requires hard choices. Congress must prove it is up to the task by debating the issue on its own merit and taking this hard vote without the subterfuge of burying it in "must-pass" legislation.

Nicola Moore is Assistant Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation




[1]U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It," at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np (November 25, 2009).

[2]Congressional Budget Office, "Monthly Budget Review," November 6, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-9-09MBR.pdf (November 17, 2009).

[3]Ibid.

[4]See J. D. Foster, "Keynesian Fiscal Stimulus Policies Stimulate Debt -- Not the Economy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2302, July 27, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2302.cfm.

[5]Lita Epstein, "Moody's Warning on the U.S. Credit Rating: A Bit of Payback?," Daily Finance, Oct. 22, 2009, at http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/22/moodys-warning-on-
the-u-s-credit-rating-a-bit-of-payback/
(November 23, 2009).

[6]Reuters, "Moody's: U.S. Rating Could Be Pressured in Long Term," January 10, 2008, at http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/
idUSN1017237120080110
(November 23, 2009).

[7]Reuters, "Geithner Tells China Its Dollar Assets Are Safe," June 1, 2009, at http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/
idUSPEK14475620090601
(November 25, 2009).

[8]In fact, the last time the debt limit was increased was with the passage of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which occurred during a time of economic crisis.

[9]Congressional Budget Office, "The Long-Term Budget Outlook," June 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/06-25-LTBO.pdf (November 23, 2009). Figures are drawn from CBO's Alternative Fiscal Scenario.

[10]See Stuart M. Butler, "Bipartisan Entitlement Commission Needed to Control Spending and Debt," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2698, November 16, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2698.cfm.

Tiger Woods...as the real story unfolds

If this statement is true then you don't have to understand Chinese to know what really happened. "Celebrity Web site TMZ.com reported that a source said Nordegren scratched Woods’ face after she went berserk and chased him with a golf club, striking his vehicle as he ran from the home." Source:Tiger Woods 'Mistress' Rachel Uchitel Flees NYC (Photos, Video)

LOL

Picture Of The Day ...moment of truth

H-T to Texas Fred

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Greenland...it wasn't always ice and snow...and now the European Union knows! (When will Al Gore give up?)

Several weeks ago during our regularly scheduled radio program The Constitutional Americans, (WJRM) while discussing the global warming fiasco I brought up the Greenland example...just as this fella did (I just thought it was a coincidence that his words mirrored mine)
~ Storm'n Norm'n

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

"Environmentalism" ...This 'WILL' be your religion! (If the United Nations has it's way!)

This is scary stuff! When you're finished here go here for more scary stuff. Why are you not worried? The UN will soon control everything you do!
While you are perusing ask yourself this, "Would you rather we make the rules for ourselves or they make the rules for you?" ...we are long past the time to get out of the United Nations the most corrupt organization ever devised by man! ~ Norman E. Hooben
_________________
Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks
Source: FOX News

By George Russell

Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.

The purpose of the paper, put together after an unpublicized day-long session in Switzerland by some of the world's top environmental bureaucrats: to argue for a new and unprecedented effort to move environmental concerns to "the center of political and economic decision-making" around the world — and perhaps not coincidentally, expand the influence and reach of UNEP at the tables of world power, as a rule-maker and potential supervisor of the New Environmental Order.

The positions argued in that paper now appear to be much closer at hand; many of them are embedded in a four-year strategy document for UNEP taking effect next year, in the immediate wake of the much-touted, 11-day Copenhagen conference on "climate change," which starts on Dec. 7, and which is intended to push environmental concerns to a new crescendo.

The major difference is that the four-year UNEP plan expresses its aims in the carefully soporific language that U.N. organizations customarily use to swaddle their objectives. The Swiss document makes its case passionately — and more plainly — than any U.N. official document ever would.

The ambitious paper, entitled "The UNEP That We Want," was the product of a select group of 20 top environmental bureaucrats and thinkers, including UNEP's current No. 2 official, Angela Cropper. The document was later delivered to UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

Other participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen; Julia Marton-Lefevre, head of the World Conservation Union; Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, a Bulgarian academic who is director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

Another important attendee was John Scanlon, listed on UNEP's website as principal advisor to UNEP's Steiner. Among other things, Scanlon is credited in his UNEP biography with being the leader in developing UNEP's new medium-term strategy, "Environment for Development," covering the period from 2010 to 2013. The draft version of the strategy was presented to a UNEP's Governing Council and a meeting of the world's environmental minister's in February 2008, and subsequently approved.

The Swiss paper was written not by Scanlon but by Mark Halle, the Europe-based director of trade and investment for an influential environmental think-tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), which originated in Canada and now operates in some 30 countries. IISD, which still has heavy Canadian government support, bills itself as a research institute promoting policies that are "simultaneously beneficial to the global economy, the global environment and to social well-being."

Even though all of the Swiss participants took part in the brainstorming, the responsibility for the ideas in the paper are his own, Halle emphasized to Fox News, after he was contacted last week about the document. The paper itself says it offers "elements," not a "complete offering," of what UNEP should consider for its role in the years ahead.

Despite those limitations, the report was "very well received" by UNEP's hierarchy, according to Halle, and "it has had a great impact internally." He added, "I have participated in several discussions and presentations of the ideas."

Click here to read Halle's document.

In fact, there is a high degree of overlap between the ideas pulled together at the small Swiss meeting of experts and the ideas that also appear in the new strategic plan for UNEP, a copy of which has been obtained by Fox News.

Click here to read the UNEP four-year strategy.

Those ideas are being espoused at a highly charged time. Both environmentalists and the entire United Nations, led by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, are still fervently pressuring governments around the world to sign a legally binding and more global successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas suppression, which expires in 2012. At the moment, that deal appears likely to be delayed, at least until next spring, as some wealthy countries, including the U.S., balk at the high cost and potentially crippling economic impact of targets to reduce carbon emissions into the earth's atmosphere, even though President Barack Obama supports an ambitious Copenhagen deal.

But UNEP's strategic plan, as well as the IISD document that grew out of the Swiss gathering, look well beyond the horizon of Copenhagen in suggesting the outlines of the world's environment-centered future, to what the strategic plan calls "the next phase in the evolution of UNEP."

Among other things, both documents argue for:

—a "new and central position for environmentalism in the world's thinking," as the Swiss paper puts it. "The current environmental challenges and opportunities will cause the environment to move from often being considered as a marginal issue at the intergovernmental and national levels to the centre of political and economic decision-making," says the medium-term plan.

—a new position in the international power game for UNEP, reaching far beyond the member governments that currently finance its core budget and make up its normal supervisors. "It will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency," as the Swiss paper puts it.

UNEP will "actively reach out to Governments, other United Nations entities, international institutions, multilateral environmental agreement secretariats, civil society, the private sector and other relevant partners to implement the Medium-term Strategy," says the UNEP document.

—a major restructuring of international institutions to merge environmental issues with economics as the central priority. "We require an Environmental Bretton Woods for the 21st Century," Halle argues — a reference to the meeting that laid the foundations of Western international finance and economic regulation after World War II. "The linkages between environmental sustainability and the economy will emerge as a key focus for public policymaking and a determinant of future markets opportunities," according to the UNEP strategic plan.

—new environmental rules, regulations and standards, and the linking of existing environmental agreements, in a stronger global lattice-work of environmental law, with stronger authority to command national governments. The Swiss paper calls it a series of "ambitious yet incremental adjustments" to international environmental governance. Indeed, the document says, UNEP's "role is to 'tee up' the next generation of such rules."

The UNEP four-year strategy puts it more obliquely, and only in a footnote on page 7 of the document: "UNEP will actively participate in the continuing international environmental governance discussions both within and outside the United Nations system, noting the repeated calls to strengthen UNEP, including its financial base, and the 'evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.'"

—an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to "children and youth" as well as business and political groups, to support UNEP strategic objectives.

As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP "should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP's stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world's governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector." At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be "harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments."

The official four-year plan uses more restrained language in declaring that "civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns.... Civil society will also be engaged to assist with UNEP outreach efforts." (The term "civil society," as used by the U.N., usually refers to organizations and associations that have received formal recognition from one branch or another of the sprawling world organization.)

—along with increased political leverage for UNEP, bringing increased financial leverage to its cause, once again by reaching beyond the national environmental ministries that traditionally are the organization's financial base to more powerful sectors of government as well as business and other interest groups that will see profit and advantage in the new, environment centered approach.

Says the Swiss paper: "UNEP must focus on priorities that meet two characteristics: they should appeal to the more powerful [government] ministers responsible for economic policy; and they should empower environmental ministers at the cabinet table. UNEP's message is not for environment ministers — the already converted.... It must aim higher."

As UNEP's four-year strategy more circumspectly puts it: "Mobilizing sufficient finance to meet environmental challenges, including climate change, extends well beyond global mechanisms negotiated under conventions. It will require efforts at local, national and global levels to engage with Governments and the private sector to achieve the necessary additional investment and financial flows."

As far as UNEP itself is concerned, the document says, the organization "will raise contributions from the private sector, foundations and non-environmental funding windows…Funds will also be drawn from humanitarian, crisis and peacebuilding instruments, where appropriate."

—Perhaps the most important function both documents see for the newly enhanced UNEP is to seek influence as the world's guiding arbiter of a new measurement of human development. "We believe the environmental argument should be recast in terms of its importance for and potential contribution to prosperity, stability and equity," the Swiss paper argues.

Or, more discreetly, as the strategy document puts it: "Integrated environmental assessments that highlight the state of the environment and trends will be used to inform decision-makers and ensure UNEP plays its lead environmental role in the United Nations system and strengthens its capacity to respond better to the global, regional and national needs of Governments."

According to Halle, however, in an e-mail exchange with Fox News, there are signs that the hugely ambitious role he and his fellow-thinkers sketched for UNEP as religion's main competitor are "beginning to happen." Halle pointed to UNEP's espousal this year of a so-called Green Economy Initiative, a proposal to radically redesign the global economy and transfer trillions of dollars in investment to the world's poorest developing countries, but one that is couched in terms of providing new green jobs, an end to old, unfair carbon-based energy subsidies, and greater global fairness and opportunity. Halle called the development "quite exciting."

The Green Economy Initiative, also called the Global Green New Deal, is a major counterpart to the new treaty on greenhouse gas suppression that all branches of the United Nations, and a horde of environmental organizations, are lobbying loudly to bring to agreement at the environmental summit in Copenhagen.

It is certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News.