[Zeitgeist]

By Thomas H. Maugh II
July 25, 2009
Hundreds of thousands of Americans could die over the next two years if the vaccine and other control measures for the new H1N1 influenza are not effective, and, at the pandemic’s peak, as much as 40% of the workforce could be affected, according to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That is admittedly a worst-case scenario that the federal agency says it doesn’t expect to occur.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-sci-swine-flu25-2009jul25,0,3387335.story

That should take care of the unemployment and overpopulation problems.

[Zeitgeist]

By Thomas H. Maugh II
July 25, 2009
Hundreds of thousands of Americans could die over the next two years if the vaccine and other control measures for the new H1N1 influenza are not effective, and, at the pandemic’s peak, as much as 40% of the workforce could be affected, according to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That is admittedly a worst-case scenario that the federal agency says it doesn’t expect to occur.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-sci-swine-flu25-2009jul25,0,3387335.story

That should take care of the unemployment and overpopulation problems.

[Zeitgeist]

By Thomas H. Maugh II
July 25, 2009
Hundreds of thousands of Americans could die over the next two years if the vaccine and other control measures for the new H1N1 influenza are not effective, and, at the pandemic’s peak, as much as 40% of the workforce could be affected, according to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That is admittedly a worst-case scenario that the federal agency says it doesn’t expect to occur.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-sci-swine-flu25-2009jul25,0,3387335.story

That should take care of the unemployment and overpopulation problems.

[Zeitgeist]

By Thomas H. Maugh II
July 25, 2009
Hundreds of thousands of Americans could die over the next two years if the vaccine and other control measures for the new H1N1 influenza are not effective, and, at the pandemic’s peak, as much as 40% of the workforce could be affected, according to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That is admittedly a worst-case scenario that the federal agency says it doesn’t expect to occur.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-sci-swine-flu25-2009jul25,0,3387335.story

That should take care of the unemployment and overpopulation problems.

[Zeitgeist]

By Thomas H. Maugh II
July 25, 2009
Hundreds of thousands of Americans could die over the next two years if the vaccine and other control measures for the new H1N1 influenza are not effective, and, at the pandemic’s peak, as much as 40% of the workforce could be affected, according to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That is admittedly a worst-case scenario that the federal agency says it doesn’t expect to occur.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-sci-swine-flu25-2009jul25,0,3387335.story

That should take care of the unemployment and overpopulation problems.

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Author]

Posts