by: Clark Barrow
Editorial comments by the Common Constitutionalist [ ]
A looming tax increase or the threat of higher unemployment usually receives a lot of attention in Washington, D.C. Many politicians can’t wait to lead a charge to avoid any hardship on American families. But there is eerie silence on another front that is fast approaching our country: a tidal wave of costly federal regulations.
According to an analysis by the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business), more than 4,000 federal regulations are scheduled to be implemented over the next four years with a cost of more than $515 billion to the U.S. economy. In our world of trillion-dollar deficits, anything in the billions may not sound like such a big deal anymore, but recent regulations have already added $140 billion, sending the total annual regulatory cost to $1.75 trillion. If no action is taken to stop this, the NFIB estimates that the regulatory costs will quadruple over the next four years.
So what in the world are all these new regulations? Well, most of them have to do with protecting the environment. Unfortunately, the sheer cost of the regulations may produce a severe economic downturn, rather than any valuable environmental impact.
One of the most damaging regulations will force power plants to install expensive pollution control technology, which is expected to cost as much as $90 billion over 10 years – the most expensive regulation in U.S. history. This means higher energy bills that will direct small business funds to utility bills, instead of jobs.
Other regulations include the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, a measure that President Obama postponed in 2011 because of its enormous cost to the economy. Imagine that! Even our own president understood the impact! This far-reaching piece of regulation would establish an unnecessarily strict air quality standard for the entire country at a cost of up to $90 billion. [Years ago freon was effectively banned because it was said to kill ozone. Now we have too much?]
To make matters worse, the science behind these new regulations is not solid. A report by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that the proposed standards produce little, if any, health benefits. Their analysis found that under the current standards, levels of ozone and other pollutants have largely decreased to safe levels. The current standards are working and there is little science to that says tighter standards will meaningfully improve the air quality for anyone. [It matters little to the enviro-weenies whether the “science” is crap. They want to send us back to stone age and they’ll promote any junk science to hasten that journey.]
While the environmental science is not solid, the economic impact is certain – it will be paid with billions of dollars, millions of lost jobs and the lost dreams of millions of Americans.
The solution, as with many of our problems, is to grow our economy. Excessive regulations will only increase the cost of living for Americans, forcing lower-income families to sacrifice the things that contribute to a healthy lifestyle. Progress is good! Advances in environmental protection, health care treatments and nutrition have saved countless lives, but expensive household energy bills will only devour money that could be used for a higher standard of living. [The solution is actually to rid ourselves of most the regulation in this country and the growth will take care of itself.]
Putting aside all of these other figures, the true cost of the proposed regulations can be summed up in the fact that the American Thoracic Society found that the number one risk factor for asthma is poverty, not pollution. It’s time environmental regulations protected us.
[ Isn’t it interesting that progressive administrations can’t be honest with the people. They always postpone harsh mandates and regulations until after elections. It’s as if they know the mandates will kill the economy and thus they would never be reelected. Yet after the election, it doesn’t seem to matter. That’s what I call looking out for the American people. Is that why most of the Obamacare mandates don’t start kicking in until 2013? I wonder.]
from: The Drudge Report and the Common Constitutionalist
Currently, 51% say they support Obama or lean toward him, while 41% support or lean toward Romney. This is largely unchanged from earlier in July and consistent with polling over the course of this year. Across eight Pew Research Center surveys since January, Obama has led Romney by between four and 12 percentage points.
Obama holds only a four-point edge (48% to 44%) across 12 of this year’s key battleground states. While the data does not allow a state-by-state analysis, the overall balance of support in these closely contested states has remained level in recent months, with Obama slightly ahead, but neither candidate holding a significant advantage.
The poll also finds that Romney’s favorability has taken a hit this summer:
By a 52% to 37% margin, more voters say they have an unfavorable than favorable view of Mitt Romney. The poll, conducted prior to Romney’s recent overseas trip, represents the sixth consecutive survey over the past nine months in which his image has been in negative territory. While Romney’s personal favorability improved substantially between March and June – as Republican voters rallied behind him after the primary season ended– his image has again slipped over the past month.
Barack Obama’s image remains, by comparison, more positive – 50% offer a favorable assessment of the president, 45% an unfavorable one. Even so, Obama’s personal ratings are lower than most presidential candidates in recent elections.
Now for the punchline. As is the case with virtually all polls produced by leftist organizations like Pew, the results are horribly skewed toward the democrat. Republican sample size: 459, Democrat sample size: 813. Close to a 2 to 1 ratio. That sounds fair. One must read the fine print.
My advise, don’t read or listen to the polls. Most are crap.
Is it wrong to “Hate” the policies of this administration with their jackbooted thugs at the EPA and their war on everything, including jobs, in the name of JUNK science? Just one more example of tyranny on parade.
by: Moe Lane
Well, your ability to guess why the Murray Energy Corporation today announced that it is closing a mine in Brilliant, Ohio will be largely dependent on whether you rely on local news or not. If you’re just paying attention to local news… you won’t be told at all why a coal mine that employed 239 people at its peak laid off 24 of its remaining 56 employees today, with the remaining to be (hopefully) integrated into the company elsewhere; in fact, you won’t even be told that the mine employed that many people directly. But if you go to the company’s own press release… yeah. That’s a different story.
Regulatory actions by President Barack Obama and his appointees and followers were cited as the entire reason.
“Mr. Obama has already destroyed 83,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation in America,” said Mr. Michael T. W. Carey, Vice President of Government Affairs for Murray Energy. “Electric prices in the recent PJM Interconnection monthly auction were bid up 800 percent (8 times) for 2015-2016 because of this,” he added.
“At its peak, OhioAmerican employed 239 local people in high-paying, well-benefited jobs,” said Mr. Stanley T. Piasecki, General Manager and Superintendent. “University studies show that our Mines can create up to eleven (11) secondary jobs in our communities, for store clerks, teachers, etc., to serve our direct employees. Thus, if one uses the eleven (11) to one (1) multiplier, the Obama Administration has destroyed 2,868 jobs in eastern Ohio with this forced Mine closure,” stated Mr. Piasecki.
Although, to be fair, the local news article did at least link to the press release; it also mentioned another set of layoffs (29) at Murray’s Powhatan No. 6 mine in Alledonia, OH. They just forgot to note that Murray Energy squarely laid the blame for that closure too on the Obama Administration’s War on Coal. And make no mistake: this administration hates coal.
The deadly ‘mother cells’ that drive the growth of tumors have been pinpointed for the first time – a breakthrough which could help in the development of a ‘real cure’, scientists say.
In three separate studies on different cancers, researchers have shown the growth and life of a tumor to be dependent on one small group of cells.
They are believed to be resistant to radiotherapy and chemotherapy and so to be to blame for cancers coming back after treatment.
But, until now, no one had proved them to exist in tumors.
The breakthrough, reported simultaneously in the prestigious journals Nature and Science, raises the prospect of better treatments for cancer.
Some scientists liken the killing of cancer stem cells to pulling dandelions out by the roots, rather than merely removing their heads.
Ben Simons, of Cancer Research UK’s Cambridge Research Institute, said that knowing just which cells to target ‘might be a much better strategy to effect a real cure and prevent relapse’.
Professor Simons’s study tracked the development of skin cancer in mice. By tracking individual cells, it showed a small number of them drive the growth of the tumor.
A second study identified a group of cells that allow the most common type of brain tumor to regrow after chemotherapy.
University of Texas researcher Luis Parada showed that killing the stem cells, with the help of genetic wizardry, stopped the brain tumors from growing any further in mice.
The third study showed the importance of cancer stem cells in early-stage stomach cancer.
The experiments are important because they tracked the progress of individual cells in tumors as they appeared. This makes the results more reliable than those of previous experiments, which have used more artificial scenarios.
In time, the work could lead to new drugs that home in on and destroy the ‘mother cells’. Options could include combining these with standard therapies to mop up cancer cells left behind by traditional treatment.
However, the work is still in the early stages and any patient benefits are likely to be many years away.
Hurdles include finding a drug that kills cancer stem cells without harming essential healthy stem cells.
Dr Michaela Frye, a Cancer Research UK scientist based at the University of Cambridge, said: ‘Their results add even more weight to the theory that cancers are driven by a distinct group of cells called cancer stem cells.’
Attribution: Mail Online
The following is a perfect example of the so-called tolerant left that are actually the most intolerant hatemongers. There can be no other viewpoint or diversity of thought. This is not a homosexual vs hetrosexual issue. It is a free speech issue. Does a citizen have the right to speak out or not? To some, evidently not.
So we recently learned the ancestry of our lord and savior, Barack Hussein Obama. After an exhaustive and no doubt expensive geneology search including DNA evidence & Ouija Boards, the Associated Press reports magical concrete evidence that our dear president is not only the descendent of slaves but undeniable proof he descended from the very first American slave. He’s even more authentic & awesome that we thought!
Of course, it’s not until nearing the end of the article (you know, the part that no one reads), the wholly unbiased AP admits the links are weak at best and really can’t be proved. What’s important is that it could be true if one just wants it to be badly enough.
Hearing of this revelation the RGCA (Republican genealogical Committee of America) decided to conduct its own study on presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
Here are the indisputable facts:
Washington was known to sleep in many places, if you know what I mean.
We’ve all seen the signs, “Washington Slept Here”.
Well it seems George Washington may have taken a secret trip down below, to Ole Mexico.
After Washington’s swift departure, most didn’t believe her, as she attempted to describe her tryst with George. She, however, retained proof of the affair. During the height of their night’s passion together, she got a splinter in her lip from one of George’s wooden teeth. The splinter, I hear, is still housed, under glass, in the Mexican museum of Antiquities.
The press of the day, hearing rumors upon Washington’s return to the states, asked him for comment. Was there any truth to the rumored affair with Mexican house girl Consuelo Romneskasketa? And what about this “Splinter”?
Washington’s purported answer was, “It depends on what the word, “Splinter” is.
They also discovered the origin of Mitt’s name, which is apparently American Indian. Being that Southwestern American Indians and Mexicans have a similar heritage this was not uncommon, nor a surprise to the highly skilled linguists of the RGCA.
The english translation is as follows:
Mitt was derived from the Indian Mittaskeshaw, meaning outsourcing.
The linguists claim Romney comes from the Indian Romneskasketa, meaning, capitalist exploiter.
I wasn’t aware the Native Americans language had such words, but I am not going to question the experts.
So, there you have it. Absolute proof. Obama = First American slave, Romney = Father of our country.