Last Days of Summer Festival is a Second Life Destinations Event!

Join London this month for some very special events which we have combined to call the Last Days of Summer Festival!  Throughout the month of August you will see some very special events, including Tribute Bands, a London decades music festival, a week long beach event in Mayfair, and a merchants fair from all your favorite London merchants!  We are pleased to announce the Last Days of Summer Festival is also a FEATURED Second Life event!  Read our blogs and join the London Gossip Group in world to keep up to date on events and times!

The Last Days of Summer Festival

Join London for the entire month of August for special events, including a concert, a street merchant's fair, a week long summer beach party in Mayfair, and a music festival featuring music from different decades from the 1950s to the present day. The festival ends with a week-long street carnival.

Visit in Second Life

London Shines at the Entertainment Awards Banquet!

Today was the London Entertainment Awards Banquet, where DJ's, Hosts, Greeters, Managers, and the London Team was honored with a variety of awards.  Staff and vips voted the past week on their favorite picks for sims, clubs, djs, hosts, and greeters!  London Sims founder and owner, Debs Regent was also honored and received a standing SL ovation for her hard work in creating London in the first place! All winners received gift boxes which contained a variety of gift cards from some of their favorite Second Life merchants and 1 week free stays on the S.S Galaxy! Three lucky winners also each won 500L's from the Raffle board at the event!  Below is a listing of award recipients and photos of this event.  Look for another blog post that contains some of the award recipient speeches.  As always Team London continued to shine and made the day theirs!

Club Capital VIP Award:

3 way tie – DJ -Anakin, Crysis,and Morphman Resident

Host – Rinka Haiku

Club Capital Staff:

DJ-Steph Lytham

Host-Roseanne Rosenstar

Coach and Horses Staff Award:

DJ Mia Deluca

Host Tamara Daxeline

Coach and Horses VIP Award:

DJ Steph Lytham

DJ Tamara Daxeline

5^th Ave Staff Award:

DJ Zang

Host Sammy

5^th Ave VIP Award:

2 way tie:  DJ Zang and DJ Julianne

Host Sammy

Mayhem Staff Award:

DJ Anakin 

Host AJ

Mayhem VIP Award:

DJ Crysis

Host EA

Retrograde Staff Award:

DJ Baylor

Host Donna

Retrograde VIP Award:

DJ Croft

Host Donna

The Greyhound Awards:

DJ Keif

Ed Follet

London Gossip Award:

Best Club-3 Way Tie: Coach & Horses, Capital, and Retrograde

Best Sim-Hyde Park-went to blonde

London Web Award:

Retrograde

London Mayfair

London Greeter Staff  Award:

Croft Atolia

London Greeters Survey Award:

Ruby Tierbal

Managers Award (Chosen by the managers of London):

Hyde Park Manager's Award -Ruby Tierbal 

Coach & Horse's Manager's Award-Pyp Mifflin

Retrograde's Manager Award-Prettybones Flux

Rob Fenwitch & Sweetdizzy Dumpling received manager's awards from Jessii Warrhol

Created with flickr slideshow from softsea.

Boehner Releases "Sell Piece" Giving Details Of Compromise (Embedded)

 Embedded below is a power point Presentation sent out by the Speaker to sell the House on the compromise deal worked out between GOP leadership and the POTUS this weekend. I received the presentation from a Congressional Staffer so I know its legit.

As we stand right now, Harry Reid has endorsed the plan  pending approval of his caucus.  McConnell and Boehner negotiated the plan and endorse it, and irony of ironies, Nancy Pelosi wants to read the full bill before she gives an opinion.

This is a huge victory for the Conservative wing of the party.

TWO-STEP APPROACH TO HOLD PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE
Emerging framework has three main features:
(1) cuts government spending more than it increases the debt limit;
(2) implements spending caps to restrain future spending;
(3) advances the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment
Framework accomplishes this without tax hikes, which would
destroy jobs, while preventing a job-killing national default.

As Far as the BBA, well sorry Jennifer Rubin, the deal calls for a BBA vote, but it doesn't  require its passage, but there is a penalty if the BBA is not sent to the states:

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
‣ Same as House-passed bill, framework requires both House & Senate to vote on a BBA
after Oct. 1, 2011 but before the end of year.
‣ Similar to House-passed bill, framework authorizes POTUS to request second tranche of
debt limit increase of $1.5T if:
‣ Joint Committee cuts spending by greater amount than the requested debt limit hike,
OR
‣ A Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states.
‣ Creates incentive for previous opponents of a BBA to now support it.

Read the full plan below. (If you cannot see the embedded presentation below please click here) And make sure to look below the Boehner Power Point for what finally seems to be a look at the President's plan.


3 7-31-11 Debt Framework Boehner

The White House Released his summary of the agreement, to be used sell the public.  The Obama version doesn't mention the BBA, probably because the POTUS doesn't believe a BBA is a "good thing"



Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

• Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;

• Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;

• Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;

• Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;

• Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.

Mechanics of the Debt Deal

• Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.

• President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.

• Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

• Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

1. REMOVING UNCERTAINTY TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

• Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.

Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.

2. A DOWNPAYMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION BY LOCKING IN HISTORIC SPENDING DISCIPLINE – BALANCED BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND PENTAGON SPENDING

• More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.

• Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.

• Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

• Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.

3. ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011

• The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.

• This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.

• To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.

4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER

• The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.

• Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.

• Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.

5. A BALANCED DEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITMENT TO SHARED SACRIFICE

• The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.

• The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

• In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

 And the President's Plan?

Assassination As Political Strategy: Islamists Eliminate Rival Leader in Libya

Annie Hall: “Sometimes I ask myself how I’d stand up under torture.”
Alvie Singer: “You kiddin’? If the Gestapo would take away your Bloomingdale’s charge card you’d tell ‘em everything.”
–”Annie Hall”

By Barry Rubin

Abdel Fattah Younes, the top military commander of the Libyan rebels and a former Libyan government official, has been assassinated by–according to opposition officials–an Islamist militia. That’s a problem with Islamists: they murder people and intimidate with threats and violence. Consequently, they often get their way. Reformers can’t compete with that kind of thing. That’s why prospects in Libya or Egypt are not good. That’s the kind of thing that Westerners tend to forget since, despite what the mass media might say, Sarah Palin for example doesn’t have an armed militia dedicated to wiping out her enemies by decapitation.

In a few weeks or months, the Salafists in Egypt will probably start killing (or at least trying to do so) outspoken secularists. The Muslim Brotherhood won’t be involved directly but will point its finger and denounce people who are then targeted by other Islamist groups. The Western media will then remind us constantly that the Brotherhood has “renounced” violence and even that the Brotherhood is “protecting” Egypt from the “real” hardliners. Of course, for every person shot at, wounded, or killed (10, or is it 100 or 1000?) are thus intimidated.

This is the tactic used by Hizballah and Syria in Lebanon. The leader of the opposition, Rafik Hariri, was killed by them along with several parliamentarians, journalists, and judges. Others were threatened or attempts were made on their lives. The West stood by and did nothing. Naturally, some people became silent; others fled the country, while still others changed sides. Today, Hizballah and Syria are running Lebanon.

Similar things are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. One reason there are no real Palestinian moderates is due to intimidation, delegitimization, and some murders over the years of those who wouldn’t shut up or toe the line. This is a tactic the West isn’t going to be able to counter. It is not prepared to kill those on the other side (with the rare exception of al-Qaida leaders) and it isn’t able (or, under the current U.S. government, doesn’t even try) to defend those on its own side.

So who is more likely to win? Reformers can promise a better life but their opponents can promise both a better life and a better afterlife plus a much shorter life for those who dare dispute them.

Western intellectuals like to talk as if they are courageous–especially when repeating what all their compatriots say. But the Salman Rushdie and “Danish cartoon” controversies showed that they aren’t very brave at all if there’s the slightest possibility of being called names (“racist,” “Islamophobic”), much less being murdered. Imagine if you lived in the Muslim-majority world and anything on the following list would probably lead to your becoming a pariah or being killed: supporting equality for women; proposing to reform Islam; advocating good relations with the United States; backing peace with Israel; etc. How many would speak up?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

The Musical Time Lord Reappears Again....

Saturday concluded the Dr Who Exhibition in Hyde Park, with DJ Croft and Host Donna giving a great four hour Retrograde performance!  Below are photos of DJ Croft reprising his musical time lord persona:

The Dr Who Exhibition was brought to London, by Vic Mornington, one of the owners of the Dr Who Exposition in the Katrina sim.  Special thanks to Vic Mornington and the Katrina sim!  If you are wanting a bit more of Dr Who in Second Life, then check out the Katrina Sim.  This past week, we featured some of the highlights of the Katrina Dr Who Exposition.  Below is our last highlight, The Temporal Architects Gift Shop:

 TEMPORAL ARCHITECTS GIFT SHOP

The Doctor Who Experience staff has a lot of talented builders, scripters and texturers running and building up the region.  The new gift shop is the latest addition to the sim which features ships, avatars, textures, and items (including the highly detailed Eye Of Harmony) from Doctor Who, Red Dwarf and Sci-Fi in general...the best thing?  All the items are FREE!  At the time of writing this article more than 25 items are on offer, from Dalek Avatars, Cyberman Avatars to ships and stations.  You'll find the gift shop at the welcome hub side entrance of the main Millennium Centre mall.

Directions to The Dr Who Experience:

Alteran Stargate - /d doctor who

AGA Stargates - /d doctor who or /d tardis

Hands Of Omega Console - Listed as "Cardiff" and "Boom Town" in the database

Or...click on this landmark link below to save it to your inventory...

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Katrina/183/64/28

A Stupid, Stupid Decision By CPAC

The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor. -Ronald Reagan

 A "funny thing happened" while we were concentrating on the debt ceiling crisis at the end of last week, on Friday it told GOProud the organization for Gay Conservatives that its sponsorship dollars were no longer welcome.

"The American Conservative Union is preparing to open registration and announce sponsorship opportunities for our Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012. As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle."

The letter noted that GOProud "members" are welcomed and encouraged to attend "as individual registrants."

The John Birch Society received a similar letter but it is a different category as GOProud is an organization that will expand the reach of conservative politics, while just the name of the John Birch Society drives people away.

For those of you not familiar with GOProud one look at it's website shows that its priorities goals are the same as any other conservative group.

GOProud’s Conservative Agenda
The so-called “gay agenda” is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. In contrast to the approach of the left, GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.
1 – TAX REFORM - We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax.  Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.  Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity to leave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.
4 - RESPECTING THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY - We believe our Constitution should be respected and that judges appointed to the federal bench should recognize the proper and appropriate role of the judiciary as laid out by our Founding Fathers.
5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.
7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.  Marriage should be a question for the states.  A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.
8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship.  Such reforms would create jobs for all Americans – including gay Americans.
9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.
10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

In other words they are more conservative than most of the Republicans in office today. So someone please tell me the problem? Heck, the even the group's stance on Gay Marriage is a conservative one, that it is a state issue.

The Wall Street Journal reports on remarks about same sex marriage made by Governor Rick Perry (R – TX) to GOP donors in Aspen, Colorado yesterday -

Perry, who has been weighing a presidential run, said he opposes gay marriage — but that he’s also a firm believer of the 10th Amendment.
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

Governor, you are absolutely right!  Thank you for staying true to your conservative principles by supporting states’ rights.

Whats behind the CPAC exclusion of GOProud, sadly its because some groups such as the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women of America dropped out last year because GOProud was invited.

The next CPAC convention is a very important one, as it comes just nine months before what has the opportunity to be a turning point American election.  For the future of the country it is crucial that Conservatives become a real force in the Senate, Take over the White House and add to our number in the House.  Fighting the liberal/progressive machine of both parties will not be easy. The only way we can win is to grow the conservative base and to remain united in our purpose.

What the American Conservative Union did with CPAC has nothing to do with true conservative values, because GOProud supports those,  just reread the list above.  Sadly the ACU is trying to divide its ranks at a time when it should be uniting, it is trying to retract the conservative movement at a time it should be expanding.

Not allowing GOProud to sponsor CPAC again in 2012 was a stupid, stupid move. It made achieving our election 2012 goals that much more difficult.

My friend Doug Mataconis has the reaction from Andrew Breitbart and Roger Simon at his site....click here to read

BREAKING----DEAL! Boehner And White House Reach Debt Ceiling Accord

 The first indication of a deal was when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) abruptly delayed a late-Saturday night test vote on his plan lifting the federal debt ceiling until 1 p.m. Sunday afternoon, and said the move was made at the request of the White House.

Then around 11pm Jonathan Karl of ABC and Major Garrett of National Journal (formerly of Fox) have both announced a deal to end the debt ceiling stand off. Both reporters are describing a similar deal, which is very close to the Boehner plan but it has an automatic trigger in place to secure the "second half" of the debt ceiling increase, so no new negotiations will be necessary in December.


The deal begins with a short term increase of the debt ceiling, just a few days worth so the deal can be put in legislative language and passed.

Other component parts of the tentative deal include:

• $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.

• The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.

• The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.While medicare benefits would not be cut, other cost savings would be achieved here which seems like nonsense.

• If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification (at least according to Major Garrett, the ABC report is that there has to be a Balanced budget vote either way)

• The Super Committee is allowed to discuss spending cuts only...No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee's deliberations.

Jennifer Rubin of WAPO also reported a deal, but without a BBA.  Which gave Ms. Rubin another opportunity to show her hatred of conservatives.

And the GOP extremists don’t get their balanced budget amendment passed and sent to the states or the satisfaction of blowing up the deal. As for the country, if it passes, the agreement will take us from the days of automatic debt-ceiling raises to the first, tentative steps toward fiscal sanity.

Her column is called "Right Turn"  maybe it should be called I hate the Right.  I don't know what the woman's problem is, maybe a conservative once pushed her aside to take away a cab from her, or maybe when she was in kindergarten a mean conservative stole her lunch money, possibly she once dated a conservative who broke her heart. Its just hard to understand why Jennifer Rubin has such venom for the right.

The Associated Press has weighed in they say the deal requires a vote for the BBA but not passage.

Congress would be required to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but none of the debt limit increase would be contingent on its approval.

Getting late..will update in the AM

UPDATE: My Friend Dan Riehl disagrees, he doesn't believe that Jennifer Rubin hates conservatives, its just that Jennifer Rubin Is An Asshole

Peace Process Profiteers and The Blessings of a Preferable Status Quo

By Barry Rubin


Israel's historic position toward the territories captured in the 1967 war has been: Israel will control this land until it can achieve peace or at least a better situation for itself by leaving them. Jordan made peace. And it agreed to pull out of most of the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank when the PLO promised (that’s a key word and a promise not kept) to make peace.

In contrast, Israel later withdrew from the Gaza Strip and dismantled all of the settlements there for two reasons. First, as a gesture that it hoped would show its desire for peace and would promote that goal. Second, because it seemed better to have its forces on a defensible line.

Believe it or not, there are some military advantages to the withdrawal and Israel's casualties might have been higher if it hadn't been carried out. Nevertheless, this policy did not work out so well and Israel ended up in a worse strategic situation without making any serious gains (arguably the reverse was true) in international support.

Regarding the West Bank, the lesson of the Gaza Strip withdrawal and also the southern Lebanon withdrawal have been learned. There, Israel turned over all of the populated sections (except for a small portion of Hebron) to the Palestinian Authority. Since 1993, no new settlements have been established (there have been small new outposts against government policy though the government has not always removed them) or expanded in their size. The status quo isn't wonderful but itis quite tolerable.

Recently, a number of people--many of them with a wide public audience--in the West have started clanging the bell that Israel must clear out of the West Bank as soon as possible or else face a terrible situation. Their arguments have no merit but since the other side is not given equal time (and often no time at all) their audiences are deprived of seeing how ridiculous are the claims being made.

What are these arguments? That more Palestinians are being born. So what? That Israel won't be a democratic state if it continues to control part of the West Bank? If Israel survived as a democratic and decent society for decades when it ran everything in the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and all of the West Bank, it can certainly do so when it controls just part of the West Bank where virtually no Arabs live.

Another argument is that the regional situation is worsening. Well, when you are facing greater security threats on your borders is not the best time to shrink your borders further and turn total control of land over to those who either don't want to make peace or who soon would be bullied, persuaded, or overthrown by those who want to tear up the commitments and renew the conflict. And that would be renewing the conflict on terms much less favorable to Israel.

There is the argument that once a piece of paper was signed that there would be perfect and lasting peace with no more problems. But both the politics of the PA and events in Egypt show that's ridiculous.

So finally there is the fall-back argument: We must do something! We must try! Do what? Make things worse? Of course, trying means more busy work for the highly paid official and non-government peace processors. Free air fares! Banquets! Papers and articles to write! Meetings to go to! Pretending to be important and doing great things!

And just because they can imagine a wonderful peace in their heads--rather than understand what's going on in the heads of people in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Gaza, and the West Bank--they deem that sufficient to inflict their glorious visions on others.

I am tired of the professional peace processors. In most cases, what they are doing is akin to someone who wants to press buttons at random on a complex piece of machinery with no understanding of how it works, having barely read the manual, and being totally indifferent to the consequences for others who live in the building, while the peace processors go home to their nice mansions purchased with peace-processing income.

As long as the status quo is preferable to the alternative, the status quo looks pretty good. You don’t compare the status quo to your fantasies but to realistic alternatives, weighing the material price for each risk or concession.

And if conditions ever change so that real and lasting peace based on compromise is actually possible--and it won't be soon--that situation can be met with a changed Israeli policy.

Until then, or at least until they start acting responsibly instead of playing dice with our lives, the peace processors can, to quote an Egyptian proverb, "Go drink the Nile."

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Today's Debt Ceiling Votes --Some Unanswered Questions

Like most political junkies, I have spent most of this week closely following the debt ceiling debate. With the help with some contacts on the hill I gained a good insight into what happened and why it happened.  Despite all the knowledge gained there are still so many questions remaining. Here are just a few, and if anyone has the answers please contact me via email or as a comment and let me know.

• Why is the GOP accused of not wanting to negotiate because it insists on no taxes in the debt ceiling plan, but the President is given a free pass for holding on to his demand that there should be taxes?

• Why all the hatred against the Tea Party?  Bill O' Reilly, when you are done filming the gig on Rizzoli & Isles please answer this question, why are you busting the chops of tea party supported members of congress for keeping their campaign promises?  I always thought that keeping campaign promises was a good thing.

•  Why are the TV talking heads, the POTUS, and the Democratic politicians claiming that we will default should there be no deal by August 2? That is a lie. The US will still be paying its interest after that date, therefore there will be no default.

• If this is such a serious issue (and it is) why isn't anyone complaining that the President is planning to spend August 3rd in Illinois  raising cash for his re-election campaign?

• Why do the Democrats get away with saying that the House was wasting is time passing the Boehner plan because it wouldn't pass in the Senate, but no one says the Senate is wasting its time passing the Reid plan which will never pass the house?

• Why is the President allowed to make a speech about bi-partisanship this morning, then go back home and urge his twitter followers to spam the GOP members of congress? 

• To my friends in the tea party, why the circular firing squad? There is nothing wrong with urging congressional Republicans to stand their ground, but calling for the ouster of John Boehner the other day was probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  Well until today when one tea party group Tea Party Founding Fathers said they are going to challenge Allen West.  Allen West?  What are you guys freaking crazy?  He is the essence of an honorable public servant, and may one day be President of the United States. Lets all have some decaff and realize we are all on the same side and we are all working to get the same result.

I will continue to think about these questions, please think about it also.

Boehner Bill Passed, Moody's Says No Change and Boehner's Emotional Speech

Thankfully, the Boehner bill passed (as expected) but by a relatively close margin 218-210 and 7 abstentions .

Most of the debate was the normal political hoo-ha, but Boehner's speech was emotional and hard hitting.

Boehner said in part:

“I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising.

"I've offered ideas, I've negotiated," Boehner said in closing debate on his bill. "Not one time, not one time did the administration ever put any plan on the table. All they would do is criticize what I put out there.

"I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States," Boehner continued to grumbling among Democrats. "Hey, I put revenues on the table i order to try to come to an agreement in order to avert us being where we are. But a lot of people in this town can never say yes."

Boehner closed his remarks by thundering: "This House has acted. And it is time for the administration and time for our colleagues across the aisle… put something on the table! Tell us where you are!" (if you cannot see video below click here)

Good News, Moody's the major ratings service least likely to downgrade US debt announced:

Moody’s Investors Service said today it expects the U.S. will get to keep its Aaa credit rating, “albeit with a shift to a negative outlook,” provided Congress and the White House can work out a deal to avoid missing payments to U.S. bondholders.


Moody’s launched a review of the U.S. credit rating on July 13, as the fight over how to raise the current $14.3 trillion federal borrowing limit was starting to heat up. Moody’s review will finish when the debt limit is extended “for more than a short period of time,” the company said. That line gives some ammunition to Democrats and President Barack Obama, who have said any debt deal should lift the borrowing cap through the end of 2012.


Moody’s also offered a definition of “default” – which could be of some comfort to conservative lawmakers who have said that action on the debt ceiling isn’t strictly necessary by the Treasury’s Aug. 2 deadline.


“What would Moody’s consider a default? We do not consider delayed payments for obligations other than debt service to be a default.” In other words, President Barack Obama could make good on his warnings that Social Security checks wouldn’t go out, and that wouldn’t constitute a “default.”

 It would have been much better if that announcement came from Standard and Poor's which is the credit rating service most likely to downgrade  US debt.

Bottom Line:  Senator Reid, your dice

Top Congressional Democrats Complain OBAMA IS NOT A LEADER!

This morning on Morning Joe the hosts were discussing the debt ceiling and the president’s handling of the issue with Peggy Noonan who wrote an article very critical of Obama in the WSJ today (among other things she called him a loser).

Scarborough interrupted Noonan to  reveal that just two days ago his co-host ultra-liberal Mika Brzezinski had heard from many Democrats about how disappointed they were in Obama. “Forty or fifty of the most powerful Democrats on the Hill” thought that “the president has been invisible,” and that “he is not a leader,” said Scarborough. They also felt he was abandoning the Congressional Democrats the same way he abandoned them during the Obamacare debate:

(if you cannot sea video below click here)




As for Noonan, she really lit into the POTUS in her column this morning saying he still has the support of the Democrats, but that support has become more tepid.

.....I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It's something I've never seen in national politics.

It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard. At the height of Bill Clinton's troubles there were always people who'd say, "Look, I love the guy." They'd often be smiling—a wry smile, a shrugging smile. Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama. There were people who loved George W. Bush when he was at his most unpopular, and they meant it and would say it. But people aren't that way about Mr. Obama. He has supporters and bundlers and contributors, he has voters, he may win. But his support is grim support. And surely this has implications.

Basically even his supporters don't really trust the man.

The past few weeks I've asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does." Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? "Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring." With Bush, "if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is 'genuine.'" He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine."

The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire.

And so his failures in the debt ceiling fight. He wasn't serious, he was only shrewd—and shrewdness wasn't enough. He demagogued the issue—no Social Security checks—until he was called out, and then went on the hustings spouting inanities. He left conservatives scratching their heads: They could have made a better, more moving case for the liberal ideal as translated into the modern moment, than he did. He never offered a plan. In a crisis he was merely sly. And no one likes sly, no one respects it.

So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. Senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.

 I couldn't  have said it better.  And what is becoming clearer by the day, his own party is beginning to believe him a loser.

Happy Birthday Retrograde!!

28th July 2011 RetroGrade held its first birthday party in Hyde Park at the Doctor Who exhibition, with the Musical TimeLord, DJ Crofty, and his companion Donna.... Dressed as Amy Pond

The contest fitted in with the surroundings, L$1000 Sci-Fi (eventually raised to L$1750)
Music was played throughout the history of rock and pop from the "Musical TimeLord" himself, playing 50s, 60s, 70,s 80,s and 90s and also music from the 21st century, along with a few of the guests favourite tracks which they had requested.

It was a great night on a warm summer's evening in Hyde Park in the shadow of St Stephen's Clock Tower (more commonly known as Big Ben) as old friends and new friends gathered to celebrate the first anniversary of RetroGrade... London's #1 for Oldies.
RetroGrade is a Second Life destination and is situated in Knightsbridge, just off the SouthWest corner of Hyde Park. Do feel free to pop in and join the "Crazy Gang" and have a ride on the "Choon Choon Train"... open 6 nights a week with a Live DJ and contests

Merchant's Spotlight: "xXx"TREME Fashion Designs

Today's merchant's spotlight is for "xXx"TREME Fashion Designs:

Business Owner: tzutzi carissa

Name of your business: "xXx"TREME Fashion Designs

Type of business: womens store ( clothing+skins+shapes)

Description of your business: As the name suggests, its clothes  are out of the ordinary. They are of  the greatest quality and fits every wallet.. fashion on the “safe” side of naughtiness.

Slurl of your business:  http://slurl.com/secondlife/LONDON%20Mayfair/55/76/22

The Balanced Budget Amendment Text in Boehner 2.0

Having just gotten off the phone with some house staffers I can confirm the following:

A balanced budget amendment has been added to the Boehner bill.  After this morning's caucus meeting, GOP leadership is confident that the bill now has enough support to pass.

The details of the BBA provision are:

• In order for the second debt ceiling rise to happen in 6 months a BBA must be passed by both Houses and sent to the states.

• The original house version of the BBA which requires a 2/3 majority for a balanced budget to be waived in time of crisis is not part of the language.

Now there is no reason to object to the bill, it is a short term so the cuts are not as big as we would like to see, but as promised the cuts cover the amount the debt ceiling is raised, plus it sets a spending cap and requires a BBA.

For those who say that the inclusion of a BBA is an indication that the GOP is unwilling to compromise...Horse Poop!  The Democrats originally complained they didn't have enough time to consider a BBA, this bill gives them six months to have a nice discussion.

Another complaint of the Democrats was the 2/3rds majority needed for the balanced budget to be waived. Here is another compromise. This provision leaves it open to be negotiated between the two houses.

The choice is clear, pass Boehner plan and the conservative wing of the party will most likely win the battle and  gain an advantageous position to win the war (2012 Election) giving us a the opportunity to exorcise Obamacare,  and make the necessary  changes needed to save our country.  Reject the Boehner plan, we may very well lose the battle and the war.

The vote is will happen early this afternoon. I urge you to call your Rep and ask for the passage of  the Boehner plan.


Full Text of the Amendment to the Boehner Bill below as posted by the House Rules Committee.

AMENDMENT TO S. 627
AS MODIFIED BY THE AMENDMENTS IN HOUSE
REPORT 112-184

In section 301, in the matter proposed to be inserted as section 3101A(a)(2)(A) of title 31, United States Code, strike ‘‘is greater than $1,600,000,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘is greater than $1,600,000,000,000 and the Archivist of the United States has submitted to the States for their ratification a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to a joint resolution entitled ‘Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States’ ’’.

◊

Newsbusted Exclusive: Anthony Weiner To Promote Anti-Sexting Law

Anthony Weiner's rehabilitation is taking somewhat a different tact, in a Newsbusted exclusive we learn that the disgraced congressman may be back in the halls of Congress not as a member but to lobby for an anti-sexting law. This is is just one of the stories covered in today's edition of Newsbusted, the twice-weekly feature from Newsbusters.org.

Other reports included in today's edition are; Budgets that Barack Obama has already cut, a look at the kind of deportations that have been made by the Obama Administration, how high experts are predicting the price of gold may go, and the benefits of MSNBC's hire of Al Sharpton.

Please don't let yourself miss this special episode of Newsbusted. Because if you miss this episode Harry Reid will publicly declare your love life "Dead on Arrival."

If you cannot see the video below-box, please click here.

Palestinian “Moderate” Shows Why Real Peace is Impossible At Present

By Barry Rubin

Nabil Shaath has given a fascinating and insightful interview that is well worth analyzing. But first let’s take a look at who Shaath is.

Supposedly, he is the archetypal Palestinian moderate. There was a time when the Western media ridiculed the Israeli declaration that he was a secret Fatah member. When Israel agreed to negotiate with non-PLO Palestinians, the PLO put his name forward although it knew, of course, that he was no such thing. Peace processors ridiculed Israel’s refusal to accept him.

Since 1994, he has held several high positions. He has been credibly accused, by Fatah militants who criticized Yasir Arafat’s corruption, of taking a lot of Palestinian Authority money for himself and his family.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to call Shaath as moderate as anyone in the PA’s leadership, more moderate than the Fatah leadership. And what does Shaath say in an interview on July 13, 2011:

Nabil Shaath: The recognition of a [Palestinian] state…will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states, and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. At the end of the day, we want to exert pressure on Israel, in order to force it to recognize us and to leave our country. This is our long-term goal.”

In other words, the goal is not to come to a deal with Israel but to gain recognition from other countries which will pressure Israel and force it to give the PA what it wants. (Incidentally, this is pretty much Yasir Arafat’s strategy from 30 years ago, though he was using a higher level of violence in that process.)

But what does the phrase “leave our country” mean as a “long-term goal?” Does “leave our country” mean just the West Bank and east Jerusalem (pre-1967 borders without mutually agreed swaps) or wiping Israel off the map and replacing it with an Arab Muslim state? It’s ambiguous, isn’t it? So perhaps Shaath is a moderate (as advertised in the Western media? In this case, though, Shaath gives us an answer.

“[The recent French proposal, quite friendly to the Palestinians generally] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us-–two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of `two states for two peoples’ means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this….We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country.”

In other words, Shaath, one of the most important and relatively moderate Palestinian Authority leaders, is against a two-state solution. First, there will be a Palestinian state “for one people,” that is an Arab, Muslim state. But there can be no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state because that implies a permanent peace. Shaath and the Palestinian leadership almost unanimously seek a second stage in which the “Palestinians with Israeli citizenship” plus the “returning…to their country” of Palestinian refugees will turn Israel into an Arab Muslim Palestinian part of Palestine.

This is merely a restatement of the “two-stage” solution of the PLO adopted forty years ago. No real progress in 40 years, despite all the disasters and potential lessons seen by the Palestinians! I have been very skeptical about the peace process, especially for the last 15 years, but I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that has so brought home to me why this is such a mirage because Shaath is so open about it and if anyone could be expected to support a real two-state solution it would be him.

Will anyone read and understand what Shaath is saying who believes that peace is at hand and that the Palestinian leadership is eager for a two-state solution?

Incidentally, Shaath also accurately reflected what many Arabs—including relatively moderate ones—think about U.S. policy. He sees Obama as weak: “President Obama will not make his presence felt in the coming 14 months….In practical terms, the US does not play a role any more in the Middle East, although it does not want to acknowledge or accept this….The US has no real presence.”

This observation is equally devastating. And again will it penetrate at all into much of the mass media? Guess you should be congratulating yourself that you read other sources.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
 

MSNBC's Sharpton Hire Was a "Payback" For Helping Comcast/NBC Merger Gain Approval

Earlier this week I criticized MSNBC for hiring "Reverend" Al Sharpton to host the 6pm slot

Even their usual biased version of the news would be preferable to a supposed “Reverend” who bears false witness and who was complacent in the deaths of eight innocent people. This is a new low in cable news, while CNN hired a lying misogynist, MSNBC has gone even further a lying murderer. It was not Sharpton's  hand that beat Jews in Crown Heights or  started the fire at  Freddy's but it was his words that incited the murderers into action.

Today we may finally have an explanation of what really was behind the hiring of the professional bigot/ racial arsonist, according to the Daily Beast it may have been a quid pro quo for helping to gain approval for the Comcast/NBC merger. 

It’s gone remarkably unnoticed that Sharpton was the first major black leader to endorse the Comcast merger, which met fierce resistance. Michael Copps, a Democrat who’d served on the FCC since 2001, declared, when he ultimately voted against it, that the merger “erodes diversity, localism and competition” and was “a huge boost for media industry (and digital industry) consolidation” as well as “a stake in the heart of independent content production,” charges that were echoed in a New York Times editorial. But Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn and the only minority member on the FCC, threw her decisive support behind the deal, citing a comprehensive diversity memorandum of agreement (MOU) signed by Sharpton as a mechanism that “will serve to keep the new entity honest in promoting diversity.”

Without Clyburn, FCC chair Julius Genachowski, the third Democrat on the commission, seems unlikely to have backed the deal, which he did a week after the MOU was sent to the FCC. The MOU was significant because it countered opposition from Jesse Jackson, a variety of black organizations, and some black House Democrats.

So Al Sharpton, who in his four days in the host chair has shown little or no talent for his new position got the seat to satisfy a diversity initiative set up and blessed by...hey whattayaknow, Al Sharpton.  But there's more. You see, Mignon Clyburn's dad Rep James, owed Rev. Al some "chits" also.

(Just a couple of weeks before the MOU was sent to the FCC, Sharpton aggressively championed James Clyburn in his post-election fight to retain his leadership position in the House, while Comcast contributed $10,500 to Clyburn’s political committees. Mignon Clyburn, who is reported to have met with Sharpton, declined to respond to Beast questions.)

A Comcast spokesperson told The Daily Beast that Comcast has given $140,000 to Sharpton’s National Action Network since 2009—the same year the merger was first proposed. Though MSNBC president Phil Griffin was honored with a top prize at the April 2011 annual conference of NAN—and he, Chris Mathews, and other NBC notables had a table at NAN’s dinner—NBC would not answer questions about how much it's given Sharpton. Comcast also insisted in an email to The Daily Beast that the company “pledged we would not interfere” with NBC news operations, and “we have not and we will not,” a response similar to the only answer we got from NBC. Neither, however, directly answered the question of whether there was any connection between Sharpton’s merger role and his anticipated selection for the show.

So Al helps the dad of the key FCC vote, who gives the merger support, and then there's the Cenk Uygur angle. We all laughed at him when he said last week the reason he lost his show was that he was too hard on the Obama administration. As Glenn Greenwald of Salon reported:

When I first heard Ugyur make this claim, I assumed it was hyperbole -- until I watched the video and read the transcript of the Sharpton interview.  The 60 Minutes segment was aired on May 19, 2011, and chronicles what it calls Sharpton's "metamorphosis: today he's down right tame. So much so, that he has made his way into the establishment."  I includes this:

Sharpton told us that having a black president is a challenge: if he finds fault with Mr. Obama, he'd be aiding those who want to destroy him. So he has decided not to criticize the president about anything -- even about black unemployment, which is twice the national rate.

Strike Three.

So lets summarize the NBC/Comcast merger is in trouble because people think the new company will not be racially diverse enough. Al Sharpton, who gets almost $200,000 from Comcast gets involved and gives the merger his racial blessing.  Al also helps the father of the one African-American member of the FCC retain his Congressional leadership position, and that one African-American member of the FCC comes out in favor of the merger guaranteeing its passage.

A few months later, the one person at MSNBC who has been told he is too critical of the administration (in their opinion only) gets replaced by Al Sharpton who has publicly said he will not ever criticize the president.

Incredible coincidence right?  That of course is if you believe in coincidences, I don't.

New Peer-reviewed Study "Looks Out the Window" to Prove Global Warming is Hoax

One of the problems with the Global Warming Hoax is that the climate scientists are too reliant on computer models. They will work for years coming up with proprietary computer models containing all their prejudices, input thousands of numbers and come up with a prediction such as it will rain today.  The problem is their heads are stuck up so far into their hard drives, the never bother to put their heads out the window to see if it is really raining.

A new peer reviewed report actually looks out the window, well actually it uses data coming from a satellite's window. Using NASA satellite data from 2000-2011) the study proves  CO2 is not trapping as much heat into the atmosphere as the global warming hoaxers' models predicted. As reported in Forbes:

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

When the new data is combined with existing NOAA and NASA data the study reflects  that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted. 

The bottom line is that the basic premise of the global warming hoaxers is between all of the coal, cars, human exhalation etc, CO2 is collecting in the atmosphere and trapping a certain amount of heat preventing it from escaping into space and eventually heating to the planet up and causing us all do die by heat, drowning and skanky beer. But by simply looking out the window this new study proves that far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere and it is escaping much faster meaning you will still be able to attempt to hike to the North Pole a decade from now and NY is not going to be buried under the ocean (well not because of global  warming anyway).

The Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill: Why It Needs To Pass

Allow me to begin by saying as a true large-sized tea party hobbit, I am disappointed in John Boehner's plan to raise the debt limit.  I was hoping for much deeper cuts along the lines of the Ryan budget plan, and the thought of new bi-partisan committee to come up with ideas to close the budget as the second half of the speaker plan gives me the creeps. Somehow those groups always come up with tax increases instead of budget cuts. That being said, I believe it essential for the house to vote yes on the bill today.

On the positive side, the plan cuts spending $1 trillion dollars immediately, does not raise taxes and imposes a spending cap.  In all probability it will not pass the Senate, but the plan's passage put the onus on the progressives to finally come up with a plan and eventually it will lead to a deal.

The bottom line is, as Charles Krauthammer told Bill O'Reilly the other day

“I respect what they want to do; I share what they want to do: shrink the government. But at a time when the country is going into debt and destroying everything in its path, Conservatives need to understand the only way to stop the damage, according to our Constitutional system, is to control the White House and the Congress.

“You cannot govern from one branch. All the Conservatives control now is half a branch … and under our system, you’ve got to have it all.” he said. “All of us respect the Constitution; it sort of defines the new Conservatism. If you believe in it, then respect the Constitution, understand its restraints, and win the election in November.”

Allow me to explain where this will end up. If the Boehner plan passes the House it will not pass the Senate, if the Senate passes the Reid plan it will not pass the House, but as sources inside the Beltway are starting to whisper, the plans are close enough that it will lead to a compromise.

In all probability, if it does lead to a compromise, it will probably take the debt ceiling past the election, have cuts higher than the rise of the debt ceiling ($2.6-2.8 trillion), will not count the bogus war savings, will not raise taxes  and will require a vote in the Senate for the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Think about that for a second, before this debate really heated up, if conservatives were presented with a plan legitimately cutting $2.6 trillion, no taxes and a balanced-budget Amendment vote there would be a huge celebration, not only for what we got, but for the major defeat suffered by President Obama.

And look what the house works on next the budget debate--- an opportunity to cut more.

On the other hand, practically speaking if the Boehner bill fails today, the conservative position loses its leverage, the progressives in the Senate will passe the Reid plan with its bogus cuts and they become the ones who offered the only compromise plan.

Barack Obama and the progressives will become heroes, and the message"the house filled with those evil tea party-backed Republicans who want Granny thrown off the cliff is even too radical to get a plan passed"

As Bill Kristol said yesterday:

To vote against Boehner is to choose to support Barack Obama. It is to choose to increase the chances that worse legislation than Boehner's passes. And it is to choose to increase the chances that Obama emerges from this showdown politically stronger. So when the Heritage Action Fund and the Club for Growth, and Senators Vitter, Paul, et al., choose to urge House Republicans to join the Democrats to defeat Boehner, they're choosing to side with Barack Obama.

The Boehner plan, whether it passes the Senate or leads to a compromise, shackles Obama for the final year and a half of his first term and shows Obama to be ineffectual in this debate. A missile shot into his chances of (God Forbid!) being elected for a second term.

The choice is clear, pass Boehner plan and the conservative wing of the party will most likely win the battle and  gain an advantageous position to win the war (2012 Election) giving us a the opportunity to exorcise Obamacare,  and make the necessary  changes needed to save our country.  Reject the Boehner plan, we may very well lose the battle and the war.

The vote is around Five-O'clock this after noon. I urge you to call your Congressman and tell them to support the Boehner plan.

Norway Terror Attack: Lessons and Illusions

 by Barry Rubin

Once one gets beyond the polemics and clichés, there is a huge amount that could be learned from an honest discussion about the mass murders in Norway. Let’s look at some of them.

An editorial in the New York Daily News contains both valid points and dangerous silliness. It begins:

In his ravings, Anders Behring Breivik, confessed to having murdered 76 people, repeats a familiar refrain: He killed to save his country, his continent and Western civilization itself from an attempted takeover by Islam.

The trouble with a 1500-page manifesto is that one can find almost anything in it. For example, people, groups, and sites who have been cited once or twice in that manifesto are now being called complicit with the murders. In the case of one group in that position, Breivik actually attacked them for being non-violent! Another author in the United Kingdom had two articles footnoted by the killer that didn’t even deal with Islam. Now people are being incited to go after her in revenge.

Of course, Breivik did see Islam as a threat, but he didn’t attack mosques, he attacked two government targets: a camp of the ruling party and a government building. Thus, the main target was not an “Islamic takeover” but his view that the country was being destroyed by left-wing policies, of which unlimited immigration is one. I have no agenda in making that point, but it is surprising that this hasn’t been a bigger focus of the discussion. Breivik was not a single-issue guy.

A second question is whether his violent action “proves” that there is no such problem regarding Islam. Radical Islamist violence is not mindless. It is a response to a problem. Many view this problem as the oppression of Muslims. My opinion is that it is a strategy for revolutionary takeover, a radical Islamist government, and the fundamental transformation of society. Of course, this is far more likely in Muslim-majority societies.

The Daily News continues:

Breivik’s belief is the photo negative of al-Qaeda’s contention that the United States and its allies are hell-bent on destroying Islam.

That’s a clever point and has some merit. But after studying Islamism for 30 years, I’d say that equally or more important — and certainly the one used more in inner and sophisticated Islamist circles — is the idea that the real crime of the West is “preventing” Islamist revolutions by supporting existing regimes. On this one, they are right generally. The first argument is propaganda; the second is programmatic.

To argue that Western governments want the Islamists to win and take over their societies is paranoid. To argue, though, that Western governments follow bad policies that make it look that way has a lot of merit. Left-wing movements — as in Norway — hope that the Islamists will benefit them. They are wrong. An analogy here is the Communist Party in Germany (at Stalin’s orders, of course) arguing that the growth of the Nazis would benefit them at a certain point. They were dead — literally — wrong. That doesn’t mean the Communists were pro-Nazi, it meant that they were disastrously stupid.

But the next contention of the editorial is more questionable:

The belief, that Islam at large conspires to triumph over all Judeo-Christian society, is a delusion.

Of course, the trick here is to say “Islam at large,” that is all the Muslims, everywhere and all the time. So yes the extremists on the Breivik channel do help the people who say that the threat is a “delusion.” But if radical Islamism gains hegemony and then largely controls the dominant devision of contemporary “Islam,” then it will be no illusion at all.

For now, we know that large elements of Muslims — especially revolutionary Islamists and notably the Muslim Brotherhood as well as the far less significant al-Qaeda — want that triumph because they say so all the time. So do Hamas and Hizballah and Iran’s government, less often perhaps but often a lot. They can quote extensively from Islamic texts — the same ones that “counter-jihadists” point out — and thus persuade Muslims a lot more easily that they represent “authentic Islam” than can moderate Muslims.

That’s one big reason why “reform” or “moderate” Islam is so weak. Others include the fact that the radicals are willing to kill and intimidate people, have more supporters, and have more money.

What most decidedly isn’t a delusion is:

• Revolutionary Islamist movements seek to take over all Muslim-majority countries.

• Where they have taken over they seek to transform those societies permanently into Islamist-run dictatorships. Iran and the Gaza Strip are the two most prominent current examples.

• Revolutionary Islamists seek to wipe Israel off the map and expel Western influence. In practice, they also seek to get rid of Christians. Their seizure of power is against Western interests.

• In Western countries, Islamists seek to gain hegemony over Muslim communities both ideologically, religiously, and through instituting Sharia.

• More speculatively, they dream of total conquest. Of course, that is more speculative, less likely, and far longer-term.

The fact that the last paragraph is pretty unlikely does not invalidate the previous four paragraphs.

A lot of the discussion among “anti-jihadists” is based on quoting from Muslim religious texts, clerical interpretations, and political statements by Islamist groups. The mass media simply refuses to deal with this evidence. That’s why the arguments can easily be labeled fantasies. Yet if you can provide dozens of quotes and hundreds of actions as examples, who is it engaged in “paranoid and poisonous fantasies”?

I partly agree with the editorial’s statement that:

Demonizing a religion rather than those who pervert it is destructive and only wins sympathies to radical fanatics.

I wouldn’t use the word “pervert,” which implies the Islamists are lying. They are using material that actually is in Islam and if one doesn’t understand that then one is powerless to deal with it. But there’s also a nice irony in the quote: which “radical fanatics” are we talking about? The editorial no doubt wants to refer to radical fanatics like Breivik. It is also true, however, that it wins sympathies for the “radical fanatics” who deny that there’s a problem. And those people are far more powerful than the murderous Breiviks, a group that one can count so far on the fingers of one hand.

In fact, the editorial then proves my point:

Counterjihadists are fighting an imaginary enemy. In the United States Muslims constitute less than 1% of the population. In Europe, it is about 7%….[Muslim immigrants]…seek to practice their faith and to assimilate.

The editorial — and the mass media generally — defuses a serious discussion by making the only issue as to whether Muslims will take over. But the immediate dangers are different.

First, will the pool of potential terrorists and their supporters grow? We can add up attacks that total far more than the one in Norway. When, for example, a convert is inspired to murder a military recruiter in Arkansas or a radicalized Muslim opens fire at Fort Hood, this should be a warning bell. Will the number of attacks steadily increase?

Second, will Muslim communities be taken over — or at least the most energetic activists in them — by radical Islamists? There is real reason to believe this has been happening in many places. While one can show to a far more limited extent that “creeping Sharia law” in the West is affecting non-Muslims, it is certainly affecting Muslims.

And when, to cite just two examples, the Archbishop of Canterbury and a leading judge support the imposition of Sharia law on Muslims in Great Britain, can anyone call that a delusion?

Third, Muslims who want to “assimilate” may be targeted or even killed by Islamists, who might be receiving state subsidies. Virtually every “honor killing” is against a woman who wants to assimilate. And since moderate Muslims are few, subject to intimidation, and receive little or no support from the Western establishments, those who often control these communities inhibit assimilation and teach people not to do so.

Any Muslims who are secular in their behavior, want to stop being Muslims, or who believe themselves properly religious but disagree with the extremists are being victimized.

When a woman is murdered in an “honor killing” or has her rights trampled on by Sharia as radically interpreted, she is also a Muslim. Often, governments have turned these people over to control by the radicals. They also finance the radicals, either because of the looseness of Western laws, misguided “multiculturalism,” or a conscious belief that helping radicals who aren’t committing terrorism this week will ensure there won’t be terrorism in future.

Fourth, there are real decisions to be made: Should public schools allow prayer (only, in the US) for Muslims? Can women wearing a veil have that picture on their driver’s license? Are cab drivers going to be allowed to refuse seeing-eye dogs? Will governments register polygamous marriages and give social welfare benefits on that basis? What is the definition of practicing their faith?

And then non-Muslims are being affected by being forced to observe Sharia law in an increasing number of cases, small in the overall extent of society, yet narrowing the freedom of those who experience it.

The final sentence of the editorial says:

Those who see “Muslim domination” and “creeping Sharia law” around every corner are imagining things. Their fictions only feed extremism.

True enough. Nobody should see anything “around every corner.” But saying that the problem is only imaginary and ignoring the real problems is also a fiction that will “only feed extremism,” including Islamist extremism, the triumph of the most radical interpretations of Islam, and extremists who want their own societies to decline.