Countervailing Truths

FINAL POST

2009-08-06T09:43:00.000-07:00

There are two reasons for this being my final post to Countervailing Truths. First, I feel that the truth is out about Barack Obama. His agenda has been so radical that the vast majority of Americans now know that they made a mistake in electing him. His profligate spending, radical socialist agenda for healthcare and energy, and the certainty that he lied to us about tax increases have contributed to his drop in popularity, and he will be stopped.

The second reason for suspending Countervailing Truths is the amount of time it takes for me to research and publish posts. I have a new job that starts on August 7th, and I want to focus 100% on my new career.

From time to time, however, I will continue to forward emails I receive that are worthy of forwarding.

I am proud to be an American conservative and even prouder of the way we have come together to stop Obama & Co. in their tracks. While we haven't officially stopped him yet, I'm convinced that our collective behind the scenes activities have delivered the truth to millions of Americans, and they will finish the job.

I predict that the U.S. House of Representatives, and maybe even the U.S. Senate, will flip back to the Republicans next November, and that Barack Obama will be run out of town on a rail in November of 2012.

Perhaps this time the Republicans will keep their noses clean and start representing the American people for a change.

~Ron

Obama's Broken Tax Pledge

2009-07-13T18:35:00.000-07:00

Click the link below to hear Dick Morris describe how Obama has egregiously violated his presidential campaign tax pledge...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC4pK5AKS48

The Truth About America's Financial Condition

2009-07-13T16:29:00.000-07:00

- The United States is now the most indebted civilization in the history of the world and ground zero for the financial crisis.

- The United States government's national debt has now hit $11.5 TRILLION and is growing at the rate of about $3.88 billion a day. That's $2.7 million per minute, and $44,000 per second!

- The federal budget deficit is exploding higher, now at $1.84 trillion ... equal to almost 13 percent of GDP — hocking our children and grandchildren's lives to an insurmountable mountain of debt that would require more than 80 percent of the world's surplus savings to finance.

- The Federal Reserve, the steward of the nation's dollar, is in hock up to its eyeballs, its balance sheet having ballooned from $860 billion in liabilities in September 2008 to more than $2 trillion today, and likely to rocket even higher as the Fed continues to print money out of thin air like there's no tomorrow.

- Then there are the unfunded government IOUs coming due for Social Security, Medicare, and Federal pension payments — totaling an estimated $104 TRILLION.

When will the Obamamaniacs wake up?

New Immigration Law

2009-07-12T17:06:00.000-07:00

This 2-minute video should be mandatory viewing for every US citizen. It's an immigration law passed by your US House of Representatives. It is so egregious that Minority Leader Boehner called the law "sh*t"...

Politics, Chicago Style

2009-07-12T16:51:00.000-07:00

In the January 24th issue of the New York Post was a short column entitled "Replacing Michelle". Here it is, word for word...

"Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting". In 2005 , the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000 -- nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator.

Oh, did we mention that her husband had just become a US Senator? He sure had. Requested a $1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact. Way to network Michelle! But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?

We can think of only one explanation: Senator Roland Burris's wife wasn't interested. Let me add that Michelle's position was a half time, 20 hour a week job. And to think they were critical of Blagoyovich's wife for taking $100,000 in fuzzy real estate commission!"

So let me review that for you:

1. While her husband was an Illinois state senator, Michelle Obama was hired for a 20-hour a week job at UC Medical Center for which she was paid $120,000 a year.

2. Her husband became a US Senator and her salary at the UC Medical Center was raised to $317,000.

3. Shortly after becoming a US Senator, her husband got Michelle's employers (UC Medical Center) a $1 Million earmark grant.

4. When her husband became President of the United States, and Michelle moved on to the White House, her position at the hospital was eliminated.

See any connection?

Change the Subject!

2009-07-12T06:38:00.000-07:00

Do you actually think, Mssrs. Holder & Obama, that we don't know what you're doing? Obama's popularity is sinking like The Titanic and you need to change the subject...and what better subject than "Blame Bush?

Independent’s Day

Obama doesn't want to look back, but Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture anyway.

By Daniel Klaidman NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 11, 2009

It's the morning after Independence Day, and Eric Holder Jr. is feeling the weight of history. The night before, he'd stood on the roof of the White House alongside the president of the United States, leaning over a railing to watch fireworks burst over the Mall, the monuments to Lincoln and Washington aglow at either end. "I was so struck by the fact that for the first time in history an African-American was presiding over this celebration of what our nation is all about," he says. Now, sitting at his kitchen table in jeans and a gray polo shirt, as his 11-year-old son, Buddy, dashes in and out of the room, Holder is reflecting on his own role. He doesn't dwell on the fact that he's the country's first black attorney general. He is focused instead on the tension that the best of his predecessors have confronted: how does one faithfully serve both the law and the president?

Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."

These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do.

While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

The Second Revolution

2009-07-10T04:26:00.000-07:00

This guy's video on YouTube has been so popular that Obama called him personally. He said that he was very disturbed with the video and invited him to the White House. Obama also said he wanted the White House to handle the press and not to talk about the video or the White House visit. Watch it now to find out why. This may be the best six minutes you will ever invest in your future and the future of America...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

The Great Con

2009-07-07T07:11:00.001-07:00

It's reassuring to see that not everyone falls for Obama's "laying on of hands" routine...

Hypocrisy One

2009-07-06T17:18:00.000-07:00

"Do as I say, not as I do," is one of the great admonishments of liberal elites to the great unwashed. Never doubt where the Obama's stand on the small matter of who is whom and who is not...

A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour

On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sightseeing. We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:

“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”

Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife. The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way: "Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital."

The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”

Michelle’s motorcade shut down a London street as the First Lady of the World and her children had Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair. The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite our circumstances, we'll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip.

You Remember Goldman Sachs, Don't You?

2009-07-06T14:29:00.000-07:00

That's right, we bailed them out...

Goldman Prepares To Pay Biggest Bonuses Ever

John CarneyJun. 22, 2009

Remember the days when the age of excess on Wall Street were over? We were told the new normal would mean smaller bonsues, reduced egos, no more bottle service and a New York City devastated by the loss of income trickling down from investment bankers to the rest of us.

Well, Goldman may have received that memo but it didn't care much for it. Because the big bonus is back at 85 Broad, baby.

From The Guardian:

Staff at Goldman Sachs staff can look forward to the biggest bonus payouts in the firm's 140-year history after a spectacular first half of the year, sparking concern that the big investment banks which survived the credit crunch will derail financial regulation reforms.

A lack of competition and a surge in revenues from trading foreign currency, bonds and fixed-income products has sent profits at Goldman Sachs soaring, according to insiders at the firm.
Staff in London were briefed last week on the banking and securities company's prospects and told they could look forward to bumper bonuses if, as predicted, it completed its most profitable year ever. Figures next month detailing the firm's second-quarter earnings are expected to show a further jump in profits.

Warren Buffett, who bought $5bn of the company's shares in January, has already made a $1bn gain on his investment.

Goldman Sachs: The Villian

2009-07-06T14:13:00.000-07:00

This stunning feature story in Rolling Stone Magazine, of all places, is further evidence that we really need to clean out the closet...

The Great American Bubble Machine

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again

By Matt Taibbi
Rolling Stone Magazine
July 9-23, 2009

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/3

Big Brother Has Arrived

2009-07-06T09:02:00.000-07:00

He will follow you everywhere you go, and will tax you for every mile you drive...

By-the-mile road tax could replace by-the-gallon federal fuel tax

By STEVE EVERLY
The Kansas City Star

The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.

Besides the technological advances making such a tax possible, the idea is getting a hard push from a growing number of transportation experts and officials. That is because the traditional by-the-gallon fuel tax, struggling to keep up with road building and maintenance demands, could fall even farther behind as vehicles’ gas mileage rises and more alternative-fuel vehicles come on line.

The idea of shifting to a by-the-mile tax has been discussed for years, but it now appears to be getting more serious attention. A federal commission, after a two-year study, concluded earlier this year that the road tax was the “best path forward” to keep revenues flowing to highway and transportation projects, and could be an important new tool to help manage traffic and relieve congestion.

The decision by the 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was unanimous, which surprised Robert Atkinson, the group’s chairman. But he said it became clear as the commission’s work progressed that a road tax on miles traveled was the best option.

“If you’re committed to the system being improved then it was a no-brainer,” he said.
The commission pegged 2020 as the year for the federal fuel tax, currently 18.5 cents a gallon, to be phased out and replaced by a road tax. One estimate of a road tax that would cover the current federal and state fuel taxes is 1 to 2 cents per mile for cars and light trucks.

The commission said work needed to start soon to prepare for a road tax. But more work has already been done than most people probably realize.

Oregon did a field test in 2007, concluding it was possible to collect a road tax. The University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center — with support from the Federal Highway Administration and 15 states, including Kansas and Missouri — began work a decade ago on how a road tax could be deployed.

Now the University of Iowa, with the help of a $16 million federal grant, is beginning the field test that will eventually include 2,700 vehicles in six states. The vehicles equipped with computers and GPS devices will keep track of the miles traveled and send the data through wireless technology to a billing center that will compute “simulated” tax bills.

“There is a lot of work nationally going on that is beneath the surface,” said Pete Rahn, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation.

Missouri, like the federal government and other states, has been watching revenues from the gas tax decline. Last year that revenue was down more than 3 percent, and so far this year it has declined a similar amount. The state’s highway budget was about to “hit the rocks,” he said, but federal stimulus funds gave it some breathing room.

Even when the economy recovers, the gas tax will remain under pressure.

“The Chevrolet Volt won’t pay a penny of fuel tax,” Rahn said of the electric car that will make its debut next year.

Rahn, past president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, said some states have considered implementing a road tax without waiting for the federal government to act, but a national system would probably work best.

Quote of the (Next) Century

2009-07-06T08:35:00.000-07:00

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." - Barack Obama (on the 2008 presidential campaign trail)

CITGO is now PETRO EXPRESS

2009-07-06T08:25:00.000-07:00

Announced just recently...

"CITGO", BEING AWARE THAT SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO U.S. CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM 'CITGO-CHAVEZ', HAVE STARTED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR STORES TO 'PETRO EXPRESS'.

DO NOT BUY FROM CITGO OR PETRO EXPRESS.

PETRO EXPRESS IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY CHAVEZ.

KEEP THIS MEMO GOING SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING.

BOTTOM LINE: BOYCOTT CITGO & PETRO EXPRESS!

The Unmitigated Gall!

2009-07-05T11:01:00.000-07:00

This latest legislative travesty by congress is the greatest invasion of privacy in the history of American politics...

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses

July 01, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.

This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.

“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads. It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”

The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.

“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says. States may contract with private agencies to oversee the retrofitting and measuring of improved efficiency and environmental friendliness of houses and other buildings, making sure that private citizens have a variety of choices for retrofitting their homes.

“States and local government entities may administer a REEP program in a manner that authorizes public or regulated investor-owned utilities, building auditors and inspectors, contractors, nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, and other entities to perform audits and retrofit services,” reads the bill.

It further says, “A State or local administrator of a REEP program shall seek to ensure that sufficient qualified entities are available to support retrofit activities so that building owners have a competitive choice among qualified auditors, raters, contractors, and providers of services related to retrofits.”

In fact, individual homeowners are even allowed to retrofit buildings themselves. The bill gives specific protection to individual owners’ rights to choose who inspects and retrofits their property.

“Nothing in this section is intended to deny the right of a building owner to choose the specific providers of retrofit services to engage for a retrofit project in that owner’s building.” Even though Congress says the states are responsible for carrying out the retrofits, the EPA and the Department of Energy will establish the guidelines and rules for doing so.

“The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish goals, guidelines, practices, and standards for accomplishing the purpose stated in subsection (c) [the retrofits],” the bill says. The program would involve a system of certified auditors, inspectors, and raters who inspect homes and businesses using devices such as infrared cameras (which measure how much heat a building is giving off) to measure their energy efficiency. The results of these energy audits would then be used to determine what retrofits need to be performed.

The audits would examine things like water usage, infrared photography, and pressurized testing to determine the efficiency of door and window seals, and indoor air quality. Those retrofits would be performed by licensed retrofit contractors using government-approved methods and resources including roofing materials that reflect solar energy.

“[B]uilding retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program utilize, especially in all air-conditioned buildings, roofing materials with high solar energy reflectance,” the legislation states. After the retrofitting is complete, the government – state, local, or federal – will come back and re-inspect the house to determine how much energy has been saved and whether the retrofit is up to federal government standards.

“Determination of energy savings in a performance-based building retrofit program through — (A) for residential buildings, comparison of before and after retrofit scores,” the proposal states. To help pay for the cost of these retrofits, states and localities may provide loans, utility rate rebates, tax rebates, or implement retrofit programs on their own. In fact, the government will even pay up to 50 percent of the cost of a retrofit through financial awards to individual home and building owners.

“PERCENTAGE.—Awards under clause (i) shall not exceed 50 percent of retrofit costs for each building,” reads the bill.

The Signers of the Declaration of Independence

2009-07-05T10:44:00.000-07:00

Read this and remember: Freedom isn't free...

4TH OF JULY

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his Ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown , Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters.

He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots.

It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!

Photo of the Year!

2009-06-30T20:56:00.000-07:00

Your New Senator!

Gangster Government

2009-06-30T08:30:00.000-07:00

Is this the change America voted for...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHP5UM6WgZM

Quote of the Week

2009-06-30T08:23:00.000-07:00

“Should we buy gold or U.S. Treasuries? The U.S. is printing dollars on a massive scale ... there is no doubt that the dollar will fall. So gold should be a better choice.”

-Top Communist party bureaucrat Li Lianzhong, People's Republic of China

Suppressing the Truth

2009-06-30T06:57:00.000-07:00

When the truth contradicts your strongly held false beliefs, suppress it...

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.

By Judson Berger
FOXNews.com
Monday, June 29, 2009

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate despite President Obama's energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure.

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."

Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.

Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."

Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.

McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to "move on to other issues and subjects."

"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote.

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of political interference sparked a backlash from Republicans in Congress.

Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request.

Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."

"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.

In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on the entire finding.

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."
"Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. ... That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."

The controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration -- only the administration was taking the opposite stance. In that case, scientist James Hansen claimed the administration was trying to keep him from speaking out and calling for reductions in greenhouse gases.

Click here to read Carlin's report.

Total Insanity

2009-06-29T20:52:00.000-07:00

There's no other way to describe the House of Representatives passing the Waxman-Markey Bill. And if the Senate passes it, there will be a lot of Senators out of work the next time they come up for re-election...

Waxman's Economy Killer
by Steven Milloy
06/25/2009

The House of Representatives will vote Friday on the so-called “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” -- a.k.a the “Waxman-Markey” global warming bill. But whatever you want to call this legislative atrocity, if enacted into law, it will go down in history as the death knell of the American standard of living and way of life. If you hate America, this bill is for you.

After decades of fierce battling between rabid greens -- that is, left-wingers masquerading as “environmentalists” -- and the global warming skeptics, few Americans seem to have bought into the bill’s premise that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are causing the planet to run a fever, as Al Gore is fond of saying. Just this week, a public relations firm advising House Democrats recommended that the notion of “global warming” be dropped as a primary message since “almost no one in our focus groups expressed such concern.”

So despite all the frantic global warming alarmism and the vicious smears of skeptics by Gore and his fanatic green activists (they liken skeptics to Holocaust-deniers and many in the media repeat the smear) -- the out-manned and out-gunned skeptics have largely succeeded in being heard by Americans and in changing their minds.

Yet that is not stopping House Democrats who are under pressure not only from the greens who see the bill as the best way to advance their political agenda (Marxist? Socialist? Venezuelan?), but also big businesses who have given up on capitalism in favor of federal laws requiring that taxpayers and consumers pay through the nose for products and services they don’t need or want.

What would Waxman-Markey mean to you? It starts with much higher cost of living, less personal freedom and a less comfortable, convenient, dignified and hopeful existence.Waxman-Markey is fundamentally anti-economic growth in nature. If you don’t yet grasp the significance of national economic growth, just look around at the recession we and the rest of the world are now enduring. Waxman-Markey would be a permanent clampdown on economic growth. The bill does this by making energy, the life blood of our economy, much more expensive and scarce.

Waxman-Markey will add $9 trillion in costs to the production of energy between 2012 and 2050 -- that works out to almost $800 per American per year for the next 38 years. Those are just the direct costs imposed by the bill’s cap-and-trade regime. These costs will ripple throughout the American economy -- everyone uses energy -- making all goods and services more expensive.

Electric utilities will be required to produce 20 percent of their power through so-called “renewable” energy sources, like wind and solar, by 2020. But such technology is incredibly expensive and requires heavy taxpayer subsidies -- 100 times greater than for fossil fuels. At the scale required by Waxman-Markey, such energy is more imaginary than renewable.Worse than the increased cost of energy, perhaps, is that the Waxman-Markey bill will essentially result in artificial limits on electricity production and, ultimately, electricity rationing. The bill will create a permanent energy crisis.

In addition to the limits imposed by the renewable energy requirement, Waxman-Markey essentially phases out coal-generated electricity (50% of our current supply) while failing to guarantee the construction of the only realistic substitute for coal -- nuclear power. In the end, what we’ll have is an energy grid constrained by the supply of natural gas -- much of which will have to be imported. Even so, there’s simply not enough natural gas to affordably meet all our energy needs, so supplies will have to be rationed somehow.

Waxman-Markey tries to head-off the path to rationing by requiring that everything from cars to new buildings to appliances become dramatically more energy efficient. This may sound good, but it’s a fool’s errand that can only end in higher prices for inferior products. The only way to make cars get better gas mileage is to shrink them, making them more dangerous, less useful and less comfortable. New buildings will have to be more 50% more efficient by 2016; if it can be done, it will be very, perhaps prohibitively, expensive. All of this ignores the fact that, since the 1970s and despite all out leaps forward in technology, we’ve only increased energy efficiency on a societal basis by about 7% or so, according to the Congressional Research Service.

What will you get for all the pain associated with Waxman-Markey? The bill will not improve the environment one iota. For those who insist that carbon dioxide emissions are somehow bad for the climate, even if the U.S. cuts its emissions as prescribed by Waxman-Markey, China, India and other developing countries will not cut their emissions as they refuse to sacrifice vital economic growth. If you plug this scenario into the existing climate models, their gloom-and-doom forecasts don’t change.

Moreover, since it is the wealthiest nations that have the cleanest environments -- consider the dirty China and India, for example -- Waxman-Markey is more likely to damage the environment as it retards U.S. economic growth and wealth creation, and saps funding for environmental protection on an individual and societal basis.

Waxman-Markey necessarily supersizes government and increases its intrusiveness. In addition to expanded authorities and budgets for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and other existing federal behemoths, the bill creates a whole new bureaucracy of government agencies and boards that will dictate who can use how much energy. There’s the Offsets Integrity Advisory Board, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel, National Climate Service, and the Centers for Energy and Environmental Knowledge and Outreach to name a few.

America under the 1,200-page-long Waxman-Markey bill -- and the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that would necessarily follow it -- would be a fantasy world for central planners and their oppressive tendencies. Given the 20th century’s horrific experience with central planning, that should be enough reason for House members to vote ‘NO’ on Friday.

Editor's Note: the House voted 'YES' on Friday.
***********

Mr. Milloy is the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com, co-founder of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, and co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. His columns and op-ed pieces have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Financial Times, and Los Angeles Times. He is the author of "Green Hell," a new book from Regnery Publishing.

The Biggest Tax in American History

2009-06-25T12:08:00.000-07:00

The Cap and Tax Fiction

The Wall Street Journal
June 25, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars.

Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

Warren Buffett: U.S. Economy In "Shambles"

2009-06-24T16:41:00.000-07:00

In a live interview on CNBC today, Warren Buffett said there has been little progress over the past few months in the "economic war" being fought by the country. "We haven't got the economy moving yet," he told Becky Quick.

While the economy is a "shambles" and likely to stay that way for some time, he remains optimistic there will eventually be a recovery over a period of years.

BECKY: The last time we sat down to talk to you was on May 4, and at that point you told us that you think we're in an economic war right now. How much progress do you think we've made in that war?

BUFFETT: Well, it's been pretty flat. I get figures on 70-odd businesses, a lot of them daily. Everything that I see about the economy is that we've had no bounce. The financial system was really where the crisis was last September and October, and that's been surmounted and that's enormously important. But in terms of the economy coming back, it takes a while. There were a lot of excesses to be wrung out and that process is still underway and it looks to me like it will be underway for quite a while. In the (Berkshire Hathaway) annual report I said the economy would be in a shambles this year and probably well beyond. I'm afraid that's true.

Taking a firm position in an ongoing debate in the financial markets, Buffett says he's not concerned about deflation, but thinks inflation will be a problem in coming years.

Buffett repeated his criticism of "cap and trade" as a method to control pollution, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax.

Can You Imagine a Male Nominee Getting Away with This?

2009-06-24T16:26:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor resigned Friday from an elite all-women's club after Republicans questioned her participation in it. Sotomayor said she resigned from the Belizean Grove to prevent the issue from becoming a distraction in her confirmation hearings.

In a letter to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the federal appeals court judge said she is convinced that the club does not practice "invidious discrimination" and that her membership in it did not violate judicial ethics.

But she said she didn't want questions about it to "distract anyone from my qualifications and record."

Federal judges are bound by a code that says they shouldn't join any organization that discriminates by race, sex, religion or nationality.

The Belizean Grove bills itself as women's answer to the 130-year-old all-male Bohemian Club in California. The club owns a 2,500-acre camping area in northern California called the Grove.

Chief Justice Earl Warren belonged to the Bohemian Club beginning in the 1940s, before he joined the court and long before the federal judiciary adopted a code of conduct.

"The Belizean Grove is a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same," the group says on its Web site. There are about 115 members, the club says.

Earlier in the week, Sotomayor defended her participation in the group, telling senators that it involves men in some of its events and that she was unaware of any man who had tried to become a member.

Sotomayor's backers noted that the court's only current woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, belongs to the membership-only International Women's Forum. So did former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who defended her involvement in all-women groups during her Senate confirmation hearings in 1981.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy faced similar questions over his longtime membership in the all-male Olympic Club in San Francisco. Kennedy resigned his membership in October 1987, as he was under consideration for the high court.

Government Math

2009-06-24T15:49:00.000-07:00

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean?

A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman and child), you each get $516,528.

B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.

C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.

Earth to Washington, D. C: HELLO!

Are all of your calculators broken??

Canadian Healthcare

2009-06-24T15:15:00.000-07:00

Is this what you want...?

* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada

* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients

* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US

* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing

* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available

* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself

Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody, and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession.

When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States.

By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.

Say "No!" to ObamaCare!

Commander In Chief, My A**!

2009-06-24T15:00:00.000-07:00

For those who do not know Dave Borden, he is a former Black & Decker employee who lives in Hanover, MA. His son, Dave Jr., was serving in Iraq and was badly injured from a bomb explosion. Dave Jr. has had over 38 surgeries to date. The email below is from Dave Borden about a recent visit to his son by President Obama. The email speaks for itself...

Since Dave Jr. has been injured he has met and been overwhelmed by many, many political and military celebrities. The list includes Secretary of State Bob Gates, who came into his room and told him 3 or 4 times that if Dave Jr. had any issues to call his cell phone number.

It includes General Petraeus who sat and talked with Dave Jr. for almost 45 minutes. The general recalled vividly all of the circumstances around the events that led to fighting that Dave was involved in.

It includes Sen. McCain who arrived late on a Saturday afternoon during a thunderstorm, unannounced, and talked to Dave Jr. about how similar their experiences with fate were.

It includes George Bush when Dave Jr. was invited to attend the very last Christmas party at the White House for the White House Staff. President Bush and his wife entered the ballroom and immediately went to Dave Jr. President Bush knew Dave Jr.'s name as well as when and how he was injured. Dave Jr. had a picture taken with Laura and the President that he has framed and will cherish forever.

The list goes on and on of people coming in to meet Dave Jr. and the other wounded warriors at Waler Reed and Bethesda. Yesterday, Dave Jr. was ordered to be at the National Naval Hospital with another 12 soldiers and Marines to meet with Obama. Obama was supposed to arrive at 11:30 a.m. He finally got there at 3:00 p.m. He entered the room with the wounded warriors and quickly shook each of their hands. He never asked their names, where they were from, or how they were injured. Then he left.

Dave Jr. has met the people who really care about the military. All he remembers from Obama is a weak handshake. The others in the room, younger and less exposed to the people that Dave Jr. has met, were so disappointed.

Word about Obama's "insensitive" visit has spread to the MATC (the rehab facility) at Walter Reed and throughout Bethesda. The military sees through his phoniness. All I can say is that it is such a disappointment that this man is Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. He is an embarrasment to our nation.

Regards,

Dave Borden, Sr.

Quote of the Week

2009-06-24T14:42:00.000-07:00

"If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would the media have approved? And if George W. Bush then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would the media have approved?"

California: A Glimpse Into America's Future

2009-06-23T07:52:00.000-07:00

Thanks to runaway liberalism, California is going bankrupt...

California Collapsing

by Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.

Washington and Wall Street seem to be treating California as if it were a sideshow in the financial circus of these turbulent times.

It's not.

California is home to the largest manufacturing belt in the United States and to Silicon Valley, the nation's largest high-tech center.

California is America's most populous state with 38 million people. Its GDP of $1.8 trillion is the largest in the U.S. Its economy is bigger than those of Russia, Brazil, Canada, or India.

And it's collapsing.

Major California counties are ground zero in the continuing mortgage meltdown:

Los Angeles County with 5.32 percent of mortgages 90 days past due ... Monterrey County, 8.02 percent ... Imperial, 8.13 ... San Bernadino, 8.66 ... Madeira, 9.21 ... San Joaquin, 9.53 ... Riverside, 10.2 ... Merced, 10.57 ... and more!

California's inventory of foreclosed homes is skyrocketing. Home prices are plunging. And the impact of surging unemployment is just beginning to show up in the data ...

Worst Unemployment in 64 Years

The state's unemployment rate has surged to 11.5 percent, the worst since World War II.

Last month, California lost 68,900 jobs. And since July 2007, it has lost 859,000 jobs, including 739,500 just in the past 12 months.

Even if the economy recovers, an unlikely scenario in my view, economists agree that California will continue to be slammed by layoffs, at least through the end of this year and probably well into 2010.

And even assuming a national recovery, UCLA's Anderson Forecast projects an average unemployment rate of 12.1 percent from this fall through next spring.

What about without a national recovery? California's jobless could go beyond 15 percent.

Worse, if you include part-time workers seeking full-time work plus workers who have given up looking entirely, it could reach 25 percent, exceeding the worst national unemployment levels of the Great Depression.

"Our wallet is empty.Our bank is closed. Andour credit is dried up."

These are not the words of a Dr. Doom in New York or a forlorn banker in Georgia. They represent the confession of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger before a rare joint session of the California legislature ... and with no exaggeration!

The state faces a stunning $24.3 billion budget deficit, even assuming no significant deterioration in the economy from this point onward. And the state has lost virtually all hope of President Obama declaring, "California is too big to fail."

California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer tried to make that argument to Washington, and did so with great vigor. But he was rejected. After the long line-up of failed companies with hat in hand in recent months — on the steps of Congress or the White House lawn — some folks in government finally appear to have learned how to just say "no."

"You're on your own," is the message from the president to the governor. "Beyond your share of the stimulus package, that's it! No more!"

Result: The inevitability of massive state cutbacks, including large numbers of state jobs getting axed — all while the California jobless rate is already 11.5 percent.

How many state jobs are in jeopardy? Right now, Schwarzenegger is proposing laying off 5,000 state employees, as well as slashing education and social welfare programs. But the Anderson Forecast projects that Schwarzenegger's budget cuts will eventually result in 64,000 job cuts from state government plus countless private-sector and local government jobs.

Massive Downgrades Coming

California's credit rating is already the lowest among all U.S. states.

But with Moody's, S&P, and Fitch still greatly influenced by massive conflicts of interest, it's not nearly low enough.

And sure enough, on Friday, Moody's tacitly admitted as much, announcing that it may have to cut California's rating by several notches in one fell swoop!

Standard & Poor's put California on watch for a possible downgrade a few days earlier. Fitch did the same May 29.

The big problem: Once downgraded, California's rating is likely to fall below the minimal level legally required for most money market funds, forcing these funds to dump California paper posthaste.

Moody's wrote:

"If the Legislature does not take action quickly, the state's cash situation will deteriorate to the point where the controller will have to delay most non-priority payments in July. ... Lack of action could result in a multi-notch downgrade."

But lack of action is precisely what Sacramento is now becoming most famous for. In fact, in their latest scuffle, Democrats proposed a budget that would raise $2 billion from cigarette taxes and oil companies. But the governor promptly vetoed the plan. So now Sacramento is in a new, escalating battle over the deficit just weeks before the state is expected to run out of cash to meet payroll and other bills.

State officials continue to insist that a state default is unthinkable ... much like GM executives said their bankruptcy could never happen.

In my view, there is a very HIGH probability that California will default.

It's obvious its debt merits a junk bond rating from every Wall Street rating agency.

And it's equally obvious that the ratings agencies are artificially inflating the rating, stalling downgrades, and grossly understating the risk to investors.

My recommendations:

1. If you wait for Moody's or S&P to act, it could be too late. Even if you can't get what you might consider a good price, sell all California paper now!

2. Seriously consider dumping all tax-exempt bonds. I know the income is better than equivalent Treasuries. But if California defaults, it could set off a chain reaction of bond price plunges and defaults throughout the municipal bond market.

3. Don't underestimate the impact California's depression is having — and will continue to have — on the rest of the U.S. economy. At $1.8 trillion, the state's GDP is so large, any further deterioration could wipe out every so-called "green shoot" in the national economy seen to date.

4. Stay safe, with a big portion of your nest egg in cash, tucked away in short-term Treasury bills ... and with a very modest portion in gold, as an insurance policy against a dollar decline.

Good luck and God bless!

Rebranding ACORN

2009-06-22T21:10:00.000-07:00

That's what liberals do...they just rebrand themselves. Homosexuals became "gays", global warming became "climate change", and even liberals themselves became "progressives". But it's all a ruse. They never change their behavior. They're still liberals, with liberal views.

Tarnished by Vote-Fraud Investigations, Liberal ACORN Launches Re-Branding Effort

ACORN's entanglements with vote-fraud allegations have grown so radioactive that the organization may jettison the ACORN name altogether.

ACORN's global entity, ACORN International, announced June 17 that it has changed its name to "Community Organizations International."

Speculation is rampant that the parent ACORN organization, whose formal name is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is considering a name-change as well.
The rebranding is seen as an indication that mounting fraud allegations are taking a heavy toll.

"This may indeed be the beginning of an ACORN network-wide rebranding, but a rotten ACORN by any other name still stinks," Matthew Vadum, a staunch ACORN critic at the Capital Research Center think tank, tells Newsmax.

Vadum describes ACORN International as "a nonprofit group that aspires to spread the gospel of [radical community organizer] Saul Alinsky across the globe."

Criminal prosecutions and investigations pending against ACORN and its former workers include:

An ongoing FBI probe.

Fourteen states are looking into vote-fraud allegations against ACORN.

In Las Vegas and Pittsburgh, prosecutors have filed indictments against several former ACORN operatives. Charges focus on the organization's alleged practice of establishing quotas specifying the number of registrations workers were required to submit each day. Many states outlaw such quotas, for fear they may pressure canvassers into encouraging fraudulent registrations.

Ohio's Cuyahoga County has indicted Darnell Nash, an ACORN-registered voter, for voting illegally. Nash registered to vote on nine occasions, using different names and addresses each time.

Investigators have said that as many as 4,000 ACORN voter registrations in Ohio could be fraudulent.

ACORN International has stated that its mission is to "sustain grassroots organizing throughout the world."

ACORN and ACORN International have interlocking directorates. In its 2007 tax filing, ACORN International listed its president as Maude Hurd, who also serves as president of the parent ACORN organization. Both organizations are based in New Orleans.

"ACORN's brand has been damaged through their own actions. It would certainly be understandable if they decided to change their name,” Marcel Reid, a former ACORN board member who now serves as chairman of ACORN 8, tells Newsmax.

ACORN 8 is a group of former ACORN reformers who concluded that what really needs reform is ACORN.

On June 11, ACORN attorneys wrote a letter to ACORN 8 alleging its name "has confused third-parties into believing that you are part of, you speak for, or have been endorsed by ACORN."

The letter threatens "monetary damages and injunctive relief" if ACORN 8 does not "cease and desist from using the ACORN name."

Reid counters that while ACORN is an acronym, ACORN 8 is her group's actual name. "We have no intention of changing our name unless required to do so," Reid tells Newsmax.

Reid adds: "ACORN's brand has been damaged through their own actions. It would certainly be understandable if they decided to change their name.”

ACORN's attorneys wrote in their letter to ACORN 8: "It appears you are benefiting from the goodwill established by ACORN at great expense to ACORN."

Last fall, then-presidential candidate John McCain charged that ACORN was “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country.”

At the time, media critics suggested McCain was overreacting.

This Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

2009-06-22T14:48:00.000-07:00

The very companies that caused the worldwide financial crisis are about to announce record Q2 profits and record bonuses for their employees, but wait 'til you read WHY...

Goldman to make record bonus payout

Phillip Inman
The Observer
June 21, 2009

Staff at Goldman Sachs staff can look forward to the biggest bonus payouts in the firm's 140-year history after a spectacular first half of the year, sparking concern that the big investment banks which survived the credit crunch will derail financial regulation reforms.

A lack of competition and a surge in revenues from trading foreign currency, bonds and fixed-income products has sent profits at Goldman Sachs soaring, according to insiders at the firm.

Staff in London were briefed last week on the banking and securities company's prospects and told they could look forward to bumper bonuses if, as predicted, it completed its most profitable year ever. Figures next month detailing the firm's second-quarter earnings are expected to show a further jump in profits. Warren Buffett, who bought $5bn of the company's shares in January, has already made a $1bn gain on his investment.

Goldman is expected to be the biggest winner in the race for revenues that, in 2006, reached £186bn across the entire industry. While this figure is expected to fall to £160bn in 2009, it will be split among a smaller number of firms.

Barclays Capital, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank are among the European firms expected to register bumper profits, along with US banks JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley following the near collapse and government rescue of major trading houses including Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland.

In April, Goldman said it would set aside half of its £1.2bn first-quarter profit to reward staff, much of it in bonuses. It is believed to have paid 973 bankers $1m or more last year, while this year's payouts are on track to be the highest for most of the bank's 28,000 staff, including about 5,400 in London.

Critics of the bonus culture in the City said the dominance of a few risk-taking investment banks is undermining the efforts of regulators to stabilise the financial system.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman, said: "The investment banks more than any other institutions created the culture of excessive leverage, excessive risk and excessive bonuses that led to the downfall of the financial system. Now they are cashing in and the same bonus culture has returned. The result must be that we are being pushed to the edge of another crash."

Goldman Sachs said it reviewed its bonus scheme last year and switched from a system of guaranteed rewards that were paid over three years to variable payments that tied staff to the firm. It told employees last year that profit-related bonuses would be delayed by 12 months.
Until the release of its first quarter profits in April, it seemed inconceivable that a firm owing the US government $10bn would be looking to break all-time records in 2009.

David Williams, an investment banking analyst at Fox Pitt Kelton, said: "This year is shaping up to be the best year ever for investment banks, or at least those that have emerged relatively unscathed from the credit crisis.

"These banks are intermediaries in the bond markets where governments and companies are raising billions of pounds of new money. There is also a lack of competition that means they can charge huge sums for doing business."

Last week, the firm predicted that President Barack Obama's government could issue $3.25tn of debt before September, almost four times last year's sum. Goldman, a prime broker of US government bonds, is expected to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from selling and dealing in the bonds.

DISGUSTING!

2009-06-18T11:07:00.000-07:00

Here is yet another reason to hate arrogant, pompous, liberals...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBnbv4rmOmg&feature=email

Talk about disrespecting our military!

WE ARE COMING!

2009-06-18T06:34:00.001-07:00

This woman speaks for me...she lives in Arizona, and she recently sent the following letter to the president and congress. Does she speak for you?

"I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.

Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone.

Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three, Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows that the right buzzword is "unsustainable". Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far.

Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us who will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our Constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear?

We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming."

Congressional Medal of Honor Winner Talks About Real Torture

2009-06-17T10:33:00.001-07:00

I'll take Bud Day's word over Barack Obama's on the subject of torture any day...

Medal of Honor Recipient Bud Day Talks of Torture

I got shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 as a squad commander. After I returned in 1973, I published two books that dealt a lot with "real torture" in Hanoi. Our make believe president is branding our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is.

As for me..put thru a mock execution because I would not respond...pistol whipped on the head...same event..

Couple of days later...hung by my feet all day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple of weeks later.. I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK...what happened after was not.

They marched me to Vinh..Put me in the rope trick..almost pulled my arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.

Next day hung me by the arms...rebroke my right wrist...wiped out the nerves in my arms that control the hands..rolled my fingers up into a ball. Only left the slightest movement of my left forefinger. So I started answering with some incredible lies.

Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.

Hanoi ..on my knees..rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.

Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel. Much kneeling--hands up at Zoo. Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson. Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone thru kneeling holes.

There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the senior officer of a large building... because of escape they started a mass torture of all commanders. I think it was July 7, 1969.

They started beating me with a car fan belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes..then stopped counting because I never thought I would live thru it. They continued day-nite torture to get me to confess to a non-existent part in the escape.

This went on for at least 3 days. On my knees..fan belting.. Cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke. Opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger..I could not lie on my back.They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape..and that my 2 roommates knew about it.

The next day I denied the lie.They commenced torturing me again with 3-6-or 9 strokes of the fan belt every day from about July 11 or 12 to 14 October 1969. I continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again.

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared to the world that we ( U.S. ) are a bunch of torturers. Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us....because that is what the U.S. Does.

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on someone's face, or hanging a pair of women's pants over an Arab's head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.

I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness who was also in my squad in jail...as was John McCain...and we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group when he claims that Abu Ghraib was torture orr that "water boarding" is torture.

Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our great country are a disgrace to the United States.

Please pass this info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding...which has no after effect...is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC ... hurrah for the guy who poured the water.

Bud Day,
MOH
*********
George Everett "Bud" Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. Service member since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor.
Click here for the full story of Bud Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Day

Change?

2009-06-17T04:48:00.000-07:00

Here's a recycled idea that just came across my desk...

Not long ago I read a joke ... It said all the politicians running for president are promising change to the American people. We send them billions and billions of tax dollars and they send us the change.

Funny? Not really; there is too much truth in it to be funny. That got me to thinking ... They all promise change. How about if they run on a promise of restoration rather than change. A restoration that would take us back in time to a place where things ran better, smoother and life was more enjoyable.

Change? That, in truth, is what they have been giving us all along.

We used to have a strong dollar ... Politicians changed that.

Marriage used to be sacred .. Politicians are changing that.

We used to be respected around the world ... Politicians changed that.

We used to have a strong manufacturing economy ... Politicians changed that.

We used to have lower tax structures ... Politicians changed that.

We used to enjoy more freedoms ... Politicians changed that.

We used to be a large exporter of American made goods ... Politicians changed that.

We used to teach patriotism in schools ... Politicians changed that.

We used to educate children in schools ... Politicians changed that.

We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship ... Politicians changed that.

We used to have affordable food & gas prices ... Politicians changed that, too. ... and one could go on and on with this list.

What hasn't been changed, politicians are promising to change that as well, if you will elect them.

When, oh when, is America going to sit back with open eyes and look at what we once were and where we have come and say, enough is enough? The trouble is, America 's youthful voters today don't know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago.

They see the world as if it has always existed, as it is now . When will we wake up? Tomorrow may be too late. When will America realize ... Politicians are what is wrong with America ?
What is needed is for the constitution to be amended to limit all Senators and Representatives to TWO terms in office like the president. No big pension either. Social Security just like the rest of us.

Being a politician shouldn't be a persons life work but rather a call to service then back to being an honest hard working citizen.

Government Land Grab

2009-06-17T04:37:00.000-07:00

Watch out for this bill: The Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) (S787). It is NOT about clean water. Here is what it will do...

Besides private property, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) (S 787) threatens businesses, agriculture, small communities, grazing, forestry, mining and many other uses on private and Federal land. It will affect many kinds of manufacturing companies and businesses.

The Real Goal of the Clean Water Restoration Act (S787) is to give Corps and EPA Control over your water and all your watersheds. That means National Land Use Controls as well as control over all your water and land. That’s because all land is in a watershed. The proposed Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) (S787), which has no House bill number yet, will give the Corps and EPA jurisdiction and control over your property and water.

It will redefine what the term “wetlands” means in the law. It will eliminate the requirement that the Corps and EPA limit their jurisdiction to “Navigable” waters and give those agencies control over all waters of the US or “activities” affecting those waters.

Congress is considering expanding the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include “all waters of the United States” and not limit it to “navigable waters” as is currently the law under two Supreme Court Decisions, the Rapanos and SWANCC Supreme Court Decisions of 2006 and 2001.

Congress is also considering expanding Clean Water Act jurisdiction to include “all activities affecting these waters.” In other words, the bill is a double whammy: It expands the definition of waters and gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Corps of Engineers (Corps) and other Federal agencies control over activities that affect waters—any land use activities.

We need to stop this in its tracks. There must be an all out call of outrage to the Senators on the Committee opposing a vote until they hold a hearing this year on the new bill S 787. You can call any Senator at (202) 224-3121. Make sure they know you oppose S 787 and urge them to vote against it. Remind them that a "Yes" vote on this bill could cost them their jobs!

Not Out of the Woods By a Long Shot!

2009-06-17T04:25:00.000-07:00

This sobering report is from Martin Weiss, a renowned financial consultant...

By Martin D. Weiss
June 16, 2009

While most pundits are still grasping at anecdotal "green shoots" to celebrate the beginning of a "recovery," the hard data just released by the Federal Reserve reveals a continuing collapse of unprecedented dimensions.

It's all in the Fed's Flow of Funds Report for the first quarter of 2009, which I've posted on our website with the key numbers in a red box for all those who would like to see the evidence.
Here are the highlights:

Credit disaster (page 11). First and foremost, the Fed's numbers demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the credit market meltdown, which struck with full force after the Lehman Brothers failure last September, actually got a lot worse in the first quarter of this year.

This directly contradicts Washington's thesis that the government's TARP program and the Fed's massive rescue efforts began to have an impact early in the year.

In reality, the credit market shutdown actually gained tremendous momentum in the first quarter. And although it's natural to expect some temporary stabilization from the government's massive interventions, the first quarter was SO bad, it's impossible for me to imagine any scenario in which the crisis could be declared "over."

Here are the facts:

We witnessed one of the biggest collapses of all time in "open market paper" — mostly short-term credit provided to finance mortgages, auto loans, and other businesses. Instead of growing as it had in almost every prior quarter in history, it collapsed at the annual rate of $662.5 billion. (See line 2.)
Banks lending went into the toilet. Even in the fourth quarter, when the meltdown struck, banks were still growing their loan portfolios at an annual pace of $839.7 billion. But in the first quarter, they did far more than just cut back on new lending. They actually took in loan repayments (or called in existing loans) at a much faster pace than they extended new ones! They literally pulled out of the credit markets at the astonishing pace of $856.4 billion per year, their biggest cutback of all time (line 7).
Meanwhile, nonbank lenders (line 8) pulled out at the annual rate of $468 billion, also the worst on record.
Mortgage lenders (line 9) pulled out for a third straight month. (Their worst on record was in the prior quarter.)
And consumers (line 10) were shoved out of the market for credit at the annual pace of $90.7 billion, the worst on record.
The ONLY major player still borrowing money in big amounts was the United States Treasury Department (line 3), sopping up $1,442.8 billion of the credit available — and leaving LESS than nothing for the private sector as a whole.

Bottom line: The first quarter brought the greatest credit collapse of all time.

Excluding public sector borrowing (by the Treasury, government agencies, states, and municipalities), private sector credit was reduced at a mindboggling pace of $1,851.2 billion per year!

And even if you include all the government borrowing, the overall debt pyramid in America shrunk at an annual rate of $255.3 billion (line 1)!

Asset-backed securities (ABS) got hit even harder (page 34). This is the sector where you can find most of the new-fangled "structured" securities — the ones Washington had already identified as a major culprit in the credit disaster.

Did they make any headway in stopping the ABS collapse? None whatsoever! The total outstanding in this sector (line 3) fell at an annual pace of $623.4 billion in the first quarter, the WORST ON RECORD!

U.S. security brokers and dealers were smashed (page 36). Brokers were forced to reduce their total investments at the breakneck annual pace of $1,159.2 billion in the first quarter, after an even hastier retreat in the prior quarter (line 3)!

What's even more revealing is that they were so pressed for cash, they had to dump their Treasury security holdings in massive amounts — at an annual pace of $424 billion (line 7)!

Given the Treasury's desperate need for financing from any source, that's not a good sign!
Government agencies got killed (page 43). Households dumped their Ginnie Maes, Fannie Maes, Freddie Macs, and other government-agency or GSE securities like never before in history, unloading them at the go-to-hell annual clip of $1,395.7 billion (line 6).

And the rest of the world (mostly foreign investors), which had started unloading these securities in the third quarter of last year, continued to do so at a fevered pace (line 10).

Mortgages got chopped again (page 48). Home mortgages outstanding were slashed at an annual clip of $87.3 billion in the second quarter of last year, $324.2 billion in the third quarter, $271 billion in the fourth, and another $61 billion in the first quarter of this year (line 2).

A slowdown in the collapse? For now, perhaps. But the first quarter also brought the very first reduction in commercial mortgages, an early sign of bigger commercial real estate troubles ahead (line 4).

Trade credit is dying (page 51, second table). If you're in business and you don't have cash on hand to buy inventories, supplies, or other materials, beware! Large and small corporations all over the country have been slashing trade credit at an accelerating pace (line 3).

In the first quarter of last year, this aspect of the credit crisis was still in its early stages; trade credit outstanding was shrinking at an annual pace of just $15 billion. But by the second quarter, this new disaster burst onto the scene at gale force, with trade credit getting docked at the rate of $151.2 billion per year. And most recently, in the first quarter of 2009, it was slashed at the shocking pace of $277.2 billion per year.

And I repeat:

With ALL of these figures, we're not talking about a decline in new credit being provided, which would be bad enough. We're talking about a collapse that's so deep and pervasive, it actually wipes out 100 percent of the new credit and brings about a net reduction in the credit outstanding — a veritable dismantling of America's once-immutable debt pyramid!

For the long-term health of our country, less debt is not a bad thing. But for 2009 and the years ahead, it's likely to be traumatic, delivering...

The Most Wealth Losses of All Time

Who is suffering the biggest and most pervasive losses? U.S. households and nonprofit organizations (page 105)!

The losses have been across the board — in real estate, stocks, mutual funds, family businesses, life insurance policies, and pension funds.

In U.S. households alone, the losses have been massive: $1.39 trillion in the third and fourth quarters of 2007 (not shown on page 105) ... a gigantic $10.89 trillion in 2008 ... $1.33 trillion in the first quarter of 2009 ... $13.87 trillion in all, by far the worst of all time.

And these losses have equally massive consequences for 2009 and 2010:

Deep cutbacks in consumer spending ahead, plus a virtual disappearance of conspicuous consumption ...
More massive sales declines at most of America's giant manufacturers, retail firms, transportation companies, restaurants, and more, plus...
Big losses replacing profits at most U.S. corporations!
Rescues That Make the Crisis Worse

The U.S. government has taken radical, unprecedented steps to counter this credit collapse. And for the moment, it HAS been able to avert a financial meltdown.

But no government, even one run amuck with spending and money printing, can replace $13.87 trillion in losses by households.

Consider just two of the government's most egregious escapades:

On January 7, Fed Chairman Bernanke was so desperate to revive U.S. mortgage markets that he embarked on a new, radical program to buy up mortgage-backed securities. So far, he has pumped over a half trillion dollars of fresh federal money into that market. But it has barely made a dent; despite all his efforts, mortgage rates have zoomed higher anyway, snuffing out a mini-boom in mortgage refinancing.

Four months later, on May 17, the Fed was so desperate to revive other credit markets, it even caved in to industry appeals to finance recreational vehicles, speedboats, and snowmobiles, according to Saturday's New York Times. But that has barely made a dent in those industries.

And the expansion of direct Fed financing to these esoteric areas is not possible without greatly damaging the credibility — and credit — of the U.S. government. Result: Higher interest rates.
Can Mr. Bernanke take even MORE radical steps? Can he trek where no other modern-day central banker has ever gone before?

Not without shooting himself in the foot! It still won't be enough to avert a continuation of the debt crisis. Indeed, all it can accomplish is to kindle inflation fears, drive interest rates even higher, and actually sabotage any revival in the credit markets.

Look. The nearly $14 trillion in financial losses suffered by U.S. households has inevitable consequences. And massive, nonstop borrowings by the U.S. Treasury in the months ahead — driving interest rates still higher — can only make them worse.

My urgent warning: If you fall for Wall Street's siren song that "the crisis is over," you could be in for a fatal surprise.

Don't believe them. Follow the numbers I have highlighted here. Then, reach your own, independent conclusions.

My Kind of Teacher!

2009-06-17T03:56:00.000-07:00

This letter was written by a fourth grade teacher and sent to President Obama. We need more teachers like this...

April 17, 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States, telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage.

Do you not understand this? Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You didn't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter withyou?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you. You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses.What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now?

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get achance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

Sincerely,

Ms Kathleen Lyday
Fourth Grade Teacher
Grandview Elementary School
11470 Hwy. C
Hillsboro, MO 63050

Government Motors

2009-06-17T03:45:00.000-07:00

This story is from a Ford engineer who reports on the type of people the Obama administration is sending to the auto industry. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be hilarious...

"I recently attended a breakfast meeting where the speaker/guest was David E. Cole, Chairman, Center for Automotive Research (CAR). You have all likely heard Cole CAR quoted, or referred to in the auto industry news lately.

Mr. Cole, who is an engineer by training, told many stories of the difficulty of working with the folks that the Obama administration has sent to save the auto industry. There have been many meetings where a 30+ year experience automotive expert has to listen to a newcomer to the industry, someone with zero manufacturing experience, zero auto industry experience, zero business experience, zero finance experience, and zero engineering experience, tell them how to run their business.

His favorite story is as follows:

There was a team of Obama people speaking to Mr. Cole (engineer, 40+ years automotive experience, Chairman of CAR). They were explaining to Mr. Cole that the auto companies needed to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas (LNG) with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles so we wouldn't "need" so many gas stations (a whole other topic).

They were quoting BTU's of LNG and battery life that they had looked up on some website. Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries and a LNG tank as big as a car to make that happen and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from...

At this point, the Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here) "The laws of physics? Whose rules are those, we need to change that."

As this government schmuck expounded on the topic, some of his cohorts frantically wrote down the “law name” so they could look it up.

The Obama person continued: “We have the congress and the administration. We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem. That's why we are here, to fix these sorts of issues."

Ford Engineer (Name withheld for obvious reasons)

P.S. Liquid natural gas (LNG) is stored at -260F. I don’t believe they had their facts correct. Perhaps they were thinking about compressed natural gas (CNG) in which case a huge tank would be required for that service. In any event, tis very sad.

Absolutely Shameless

2009-06-16T19:10:00.000-07:00

This is the same man who QUADRUPLED the annual deficit in just FOUR MONTHS in office...

Obama frets on debt, sees U.S. unemployment rising

ReutersTuesday, June 16, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that worrying about the U.S. government's finances "keeps me awake at night" and the country needed to start planning now to tackle soaring deficits.

In a pair of interviews on CNBC and Bloomberg television, Obama defended increasing government spending to prevent the recession from worsening, and warned the unemployment rate may hit 10 percent this year, a level not seen since 1983.

"There's no doubt that we've got a serious problem in terms of our long-term deficits and debt," he told CNBC. "I make no apologies for having acted short term to deal with our recession."

But he said once the recession ends, "we're going to have to close that gap between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the federal deficit would hit $1.43 trillion in fiscal 2010 under Obama's budget plan, slightly higher than it had previously forecast.

Obama said unless the United States can contain its long-term debt and deficits, foreign investors may shun U.S. assets, driving up borrowing costs for the government as well as households and businesses.

"I am concerned about the long-term issue of our structural deficit and our long-term debt because if we don't get a handle on that then there's no doubt that at some point whether it's the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, whoever else has been snatching up Treasuries are going to decide that this is too much of a risk," he told Bloomberg.

Rising health care costs put the biggest strain on the budget, so curbing those costs would help shore up U.S. finances, he said. Obama has proposed overhauling the health care system to cover those without insurance, but critics have questioned how he will pay for that without worsening the fiscal position.

He said the pace of job losses was slowing and the economy was "going to turn around," but the unemployment rate would probably rise from its current level of 9.4 percent.

Economists advising the American Bankers Association forecast earlier on Tuesday that the U.S. unemployment rate would peak at 10 percent, although they did not expect it to reach that mark until early in 2010.

"You're starting to see the engines of the economy turn," Obama said on Bloomberg. "It's going to take a long time. We had a huge deleveraging that took place, but I'm confident that if we take the steps that are necessary on healthcare, on energy, on education. If we get a strong financial regulatory system in place so people have confidence in the markets again, that we will end up seeing a recovery shortly."

Obama Administration Needs Your Help

2009-06-16T13:31:00.000-07:00

They can't decide which of the following slogans best describes their mission. Perhaps you can help them. Just click on the Comments link below and let them know what you think...

The $9 Trillion Fraud

2009-06-16T13:06:00.000-07:00

Click the link below to see how $9 Trillion of YOUR money just evaporated in eight short months as an "off balance sheet" transaction by the Federal Reserve. This five-minute video is an interrogation of the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and it is a stunning and downright damning indictment of our central banking system...

http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

New Bill Bans You From Selling Your Home Without a Bank!

2009-06-16T12:59:00.000-07:00

That's right, your government is about to tell you that you can't sell your home using owner financing...

H.R. 1728: The Death of Creative Financing

Mandelman Matters blog
June 11, 2009

H.R. 1728 passed the House by an overwhelming majority in a record three days time. Now it’s in the Senate and is widely expected to pass quickly as well. Why the rush? Is AIG planning to hand out zillions in bonuses again?

My guess would be that our elected representatives and their banking benefactors would prefer that we don’t know anything about it.

Consider this scenario:

You own a house. You want to sell it.

Someone wants to buy it.

You decide to sell it to the person who wants to buy it and carry the paper yourself for whatever reason. Maybe you want the income instead of the cash. Maybe you’re just particularly fond of the buyer, I don’t know.

I’m sorry… you can’t. It’s illegal.

Huh? Excuse me. It’s my house… Why can’t I sell it to whomever I choose, however I choose.

Nope, sorry. You’ll have to become a “lender” and get a lender’s license.

Why? I’m not a lender.

Well, because you’re only allowed to sell your own house once every three years without going through the bank for a mortgage. And there are a lot more rules than that, believe it or not.

It has to be a 30-year, fully amortizing loan and you must comply with RESPA regulations, provide Truth in Lending documentation, and “verify” that the borrower is able to repay the loan, just like the banks don’t.

You can read the bill for yourself… I’m going to stop right here for a moment.

The moniker for the HR 1728 bill is the Mortgage Lending and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, so it sounds absolutely fabulous, doesn’t it? It sounds like something we’ve needed for a long time… a bill to stop “predatory lending”. Who could possibly be against that?

(Before I go on, I’d like to register my extreme displeasure at being treated like I’m four years old by our elected representatives. They obviously believe that I’ll be happy to eat cow pies if they’ll just call them Ding Dongs.)

Look, obviously this is an important piece of legislation. After all, just look at what caused this unstoppable catastrophic meltdown in the first place. If it weren’t for a bunch of individual homeowners selling their own homes to other people and carrying back the paper themselves we never would have gotten into this mess in the first place. Those sellers obviously have to be stopped.

There’s another clause in this bill that I found absolutely unbelievable. The bill says that if you own rental units and the government decides that you’re at risk of foreclosure, the government can seize your property… before you’re foreclosed on, mind you. Someone wakes up in the morning and decides that you might lose your units to foreclosure, and you are screwed.

You want time to go over that one again? It’s perfectly understandable if you do.

What it said was that the legislation makes it possible for the government to seize your rental units if they deem that you are at risk of losing the property to foreclosure. I assume the intent is to prevent renters from being put out of their rented homes, which is perfectly understandable because everyone knows that it’s only okay to put actual homeowners out of their homes.

Now, I know that usually I like to go into some level of detail on these types of things, but this time I’m keeping it short and sweet. A memo ought to do it…

[Click here for the entire blog: http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2009/06/now-the-banks-want-to-stop-you-from-selling-your-own-home-without-them/]

The Truth About Obama's Healthcare Bill

2009-06-16T12:54:00.001-07:00

Reality Begins Bursting Healthcare Hype

The Heritage Foundation

Yesterday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary analysis of the Kennedy-Dodd health care plan, and the results were truly frightening. Assessing just Title I of the draft legislation, CBO estimated the plan would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit while only extending health insurance to a net 16 million more Americans.

As scary as that is, what is even more disturbing is what costs the CBO did not estimate: “The proposal does not include a ‘public plan’ that would be offered in the exchanges, nor does it contain provisions that would require employers to offer health insurance benefits or impose a fee or tax on them if they did not offer insurance coverage to their workers.”

Even without the public plan, the CBO analysis undercuts one of the fundamental promises President Barack Obama has repeatedly made about health care reform. Speaking to the American Medical Association yesterday, President Obama promised: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

The CBO disagrees. According to their analysis, while the Kennedy-Dodd bill would enable 39 million Americans to obtain health insurance, the plan would kick about 15 million people out of the system because their employers would no longer offer insurance, and coverage from other sources would decline by 8 million.

These numbers will only look worse once a public plan is factored in. And the public plan is just one of the biggest problems in the Kennedy-Dodd bill: A Public Plan Will Deprive Millions of Americans of Their Current Health Care - An independent analysis by the Lewin Group, for example, shows that a public plan depending on eligibility and payments rates could result in up to 119.1 million Americans being switched by their employers from their existing coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage so that employers can reduce benefit costs.

Thus a public plan, especially combined with a mandate on employers to offer government-specified coverage or pay a tax, would mean that millions of Americans would be pushed out of the private coverage they have today.

Mandates on Businesses and Individuals Act as Costly New Tax - The committee bill would impose “a shared responsibility” on both individuals and employers to pay for health coverage. These requirements amount to mandates, though the penalties are not spelled out.

An employer mandate would be a regressive tax on business that would be directly shifted to employees in the form of reduced future wages or job losses. It would also spur many employers to drop private coverage, paying the tax rather than having to buy government-specified insurance. An individual mandate would force Americans to buy a set of health benefits designed by the government or suffer some penalty.

Federal Regulation of Health Insurance Undermine State Flexibility - Under the committee bill, Congress and federal officials would exert a high degree of control over health insurance, including underwriting and rating rules, and would prescriptively organize the market for competing health plans. That would limit the ability of states to design rules and market rules that fit local conditions.

As more details are added to the Kennedy-Dodd plan, its trillion-dollar price tag will only go up. And there is still nothing in the bill about how to pay for all the new spending. That means trillions more debt for our children.

There is an alternative. A patient centered alternative that keeps health care decisions between doctors and patients instead of centralizing power in Washington. Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) bill, the Patient’s Choice Act, is just one example of what that approach could look like. Listen to Ryan explain his proposal, here.

Go Ahead, Obama, Make Our Day!

2009-06-12T17:47:00.000-07:00

This will be the dagger in the heart of the Obama reign of terror...

Obama won't rule out releasing detainees in US

WASHINGTON (AP) — A White House spokesman says the Obama administration hasn't decided whether or not to release Guantanamo Bay detainees in the United States.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama has made clear "we're not going to make any decision about transfer or release that threatens the security of this country."

Asked if that meant he was ruling out releasing any detainees in the United States, Gibbs said: "I'm not ruling it in or ruling it out."

A tentative plan to release some Guantanamo detainees in the United States drew fierce opposition from Republicans and many Democrats in Congress, forcing the Obama administration to shelve the plan to bring some Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs to Virginia. The Uighur detainees at Guantanamo were found not to be enemy combatants by the Pentagon, but few nations have been willing to accept them, out of fear of angering China.

This past week, four of the 17 Uighurs being held at Guantanamo were sent to Bermuda, and the Pacific islands nation of Palau said it would accept others.

Gibbs told reporters progress has been made this week in the administration's goal of closing the detention center in Cuba by early next year.

Seven detainees have been shipped out of Guantanamo so far this week.

The REAL Barack Obama

2009-06-11T14:12:00.000-07:00

This is a real email from the wife of a U.S. soldier currently serving our country in The Sinai...

Subject: Please read this....very personal to me.

I am sending this to everyone in my contact list.

It is very important to me that as many people as possible know what happened when my husband (who everyone knows is deployed in The Sinai) went to Cairo to meet Obama.

He paid money to take a 2nd trip to Cairo because the president was doing a photo opp and meeting some military at the pyramids before or after the big meeting. After hours of Brandon standing around in the summer heat outside of the pyramids, the president landed in his helicopter, did some sightseeing and then came over about 20 feet from 30 soldiers waiting to shake his hand.

This is what they got.......

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After totally ignoring them, Obama was told that part of the Ohio National Guard who are currently deployed to the Sinai were there...He looked over and nodded his head....

THAT IS IT!!! Not a thank you. Not a smile. Not a hand shake. NOTHING>>>>

I am so angry that even as I write this email I am shaking.. HOW DARE HE!!!! Who does he think he is. My husband is away from his 2 little girls for 13 months. He is coming home to no job. AND THIS IS THE THANKS HE GETS FROM THE LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY???????

Obama is absolutely disgusting.

He is out there APOLOGIZING to these people who would wipe us off the face of the earth if they could. HE MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH!!!!!!!!

I don't want to offend those of you who like Obama, but I hope you can understand why this whole thing would be so upsetting to a military wife. This isn't one of those forwarded emails that you can say, "Oh, that's just something someone is sending to make the president look bad." THIS HAPPENED TO MY HUSBAND..

I love this county more than I could ever put into words. Many men in my family have fought for and served in the military. Even though I cry when I see what has become of America sometimes, there is still no other country in the world where I would want to live.

Would ANY of you say that you would want to live anywhere else??? Think about it. The reason we are different than anywhere else is because of the men and women who have done and are doing exactly what my husband is doing right now. How could Obama do that to him??? It makes me cry when I think of how disrespected Brandon must have felt.

Kelly Chaffee

Instinct Over Wishful Thinking

2009-06-11T11:14:00.000-07:00

The Party of 'Know,' Not 'No'

by Ted Nugent
06/11/2009

In an effort to deflect criticism of their ongoing program to bankrupt the entire nation, the Democratic leadership has labeled Congressional Republicans as the "party of no." The Democrats would have been correct had they checked their spelling. It is not "no" that defines the Congressional Republicans but rather "know." Let the guitar boy help the spelling-challenged Democrats understand what the bedrock of the Republican Party -- conservatives -- instinctively know. We know that stimulating the economy and getting America growing again begins with tax cuts across the board, including payroll, corporate and individual taxes.

We know that prosperity can not be brought about by taxing, borrowing and spending trillions of dollars. We know that leveraging the future tax dollars of our children and grandchildren is immoral, unethical, and should be illegal.

We know the economic producers cannot be punished without also punishing the working class. We know that bad economic decisions roll downhill quickly. We are surprised that everyone doesn't seem to either know this or care.

We know that GM and Chrysler will ultimately fail because they are now being run by the federal government and the labor unions. We know they are hopeless. We know that the people who brought us the U.S. Postal Service and the Internal Revenue Code are incapable of managing a three-car funeral in the desert.

We know energy independence includes drilling off-shore and building many new nuclear power plants. We know that "cap-and-trade" is nothing more than a tax that will punish those who can least afford it.We know that bailing out failing businesses with tax dollars is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

We know that more gun control laws will not reduce violence but will instead create more victims. We know that more guns equal less crime.We know more government programs, requirements, agencies and employees are not the answer. Instead, like all Americans of reasonable intellect, we know President Reagan was correct when he said that government was the problem, not the solution.

We know that we have adequate immigration laws but lack the political will to enforce them in order to enhance political power.

We know that judges should interpret the law, not make law. We know that judges should be impartial, not empathetic to any group based on race, creed or sex.We know that throwing more money at a social problem does not correct the problem, but often exacerbates it. We know that Democrats have shoveled hundreds of billions of our tax dollars at various social and cultural problems not with the intent of solving the problems, but to attract votes.

We know political correctness is a euphemism for "brain dead" and that all crime is a hate crime. We know we don't need special criminal laws to protect certain people.We know that too many young people do not graduate from high school, and the reason is because too many of their parents do not value education. We know that more money for education is not the answer.

We know our worst enemies are violent Muslims who hate America for our freedoms and Western values. We also know that we cannot negotiate with them and that defeating them decisively is our only hope.

We know that compromising our values, beliefs, and ideals under the smog of "getting along" may satisfy Democrats and some lukewarm Republicans, but we know this is a losing strategy.

These are things we know to be true. Why do Democrats say "no" to "know"?

The Stimulus Bill Isn't Working

2009-06-11T10:37:00.000-07:00

INFLATION LOOMS: O'S DEFICIT DILEMMA

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on June 11, 2009

It's increasingly looking like President Obama may be sunk by his own deficit.Yes, the recession started under George W. Bush -- and voters will still blame him for unemployment and related woes. But rising interest rates and inflation are the coming fears -- and Americans will increasingly see Obama's big-spending ways as the cause.

Deficit spending has always been Americans' bete noir; the gospel of balanced budgets is deeply ingrained in our political and economic psyche. Through all the Keynesian experiments of the '60s and '70s, voters remained committed to a balanced budget. They worried as deficits rose in the Reagan years -- then calmed as the economy turned up.

But when the news turned bad under the first President George Bush, they blamed the deficit -- the issue was a major source of Ross Perot's appeal in the 1992 election. And when President Bill Clinton (and a Republican Congress) finally balanced the budget, the economy bloomed -- reinforcing public beliefs about the dangers of deficits.Still in shock over the financial collapse, voters tolerated the massive government stimulus package in January. But now they're starting to turn on the deficit-makers.

In the latest Gallup Poll, Obama's favorability remains high (67 percent), as does his job-approval rating (61 percent). But only 55 percent approve of his handling of the economy, just 45 percent approve of his handling of federal spending and only 46 percent approve of his treatment of the budget deficit.

Meanwhile, the Rasmussen poll finds that the public now trusts Republicans over Democrats in managing the economy (for the first time in two years) by 42 percent to 36 percent.

There lies the president's vulnerability. As the consensus among economists and journalists grows that the deficit is pushing up interest rates and weakening the dollar, Obama's weakest link will come under strain. If, say, the falling dollar pushes up gasoline prices and rising interest rates kill off any revival in the construction industry, the deficit will cause a perfect economic storm for the president.

The United States has to borrow a net $3 trillion to $4 trillion over the next two years -- far more than the $1 trillion a year average of the last three years. Obama may well face a tough choice: Print more money (monetizing the debt), triggering a run on the dollar -- or let interest rates skyrocket, killing off the recovery.

Alternately, he could raise taxes to try to fund his programs (particularly his health-care proposals). But even tax hikes confined to the upper brackets will undermine his popularity -- and slow the economy.

Plus, voters will fear that the added government spending will just grow the deficit further. They won't believe Obama's claims that he can save by spending, worrying instead that he's just on another big spending spree.

Indeed, deficit fears -- rather than concerns about whether the program will work, or even opposition to the needed tax hikes -- may prove to be the telling argument against Obama's health-care plans.

The one thing Obama should do is the one thing he won't do: cut spending.The public has begun to realize that the stimulus package is doing little to help the economy. Obama's answer is to ramp up spending -- but voters in the Rasmussen poll believe, 45-36, that he should cancel the rest of the stimulus outlays.

Stoked by ongoing bad economic news, the firm public conviction that new deficit spending will do more harm than good will increasingly wear on Obama's popularity -- and may bring him down.

Absolutely Unbelievable!

2009-06-11T07:52:00.001-07:00

Since when do prisoners of war captured on foreign soil have the same rights as U.S. citizens?

Since Obama, that's when!

Miranda Rights for Terrorists

The Weekly Standard

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.

Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.

If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning – so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration’s approach. “If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future.”

But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. “When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.”

According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people – ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’”

Rogers adds: “The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer – you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”

One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, “I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people.”

There's Nothing Like The Truth

2009-06-11T07:17:00.000-07:00

It shines the light on the process...

Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor

New York Times (Excerpts)

By Charlie Savage

Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as "a product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to "cultural biases" that are "built into testing."

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances.

"If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted," she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated "early 1990s" in Senate records.

Her comments came in the context of explaining why she thought it was "critical that we promote diversity" by appointing more women and minority judges, and they provoked objections among other panelists who pointed out that she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and had been an editor on Yale's law journal.

But Sotomayor insisted that her test scores were subpar - "though not so far off the mark that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions." Her scores have not been made public.

"With my academic achievement in high school I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates," she said. "And that's been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that - there are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects."

Sotomayor's approach to affirmative action has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Conservatives have criticized her remarks in speeches that her personal experiences will influence her judging.

If she is confirmed, Sotomayor would fill the seat being vacated by Justice David Souter, who has voted to uphold affirmative-action programs.

Foreign Policy Matters

2009-06-11T07:01:00.000-07:00

Obama Continues Bush's 2nd Term -- Badly

By John R. Bolton
Former U.N. Ambassador

June 10, 2009

Conservative foreign and national-security policies do not need remaking, rebranding or remessaging. They need not be escorted by prefixes or adjectives, nor do they need "moderating."

Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.

These sentiments bear repeating because the fundamental principles underlying conservative foreign and national-security policy have never been stronger, and the consequences of deviating from them have rarely been so clear. The Obama administration's first few months already provide compelling evidence of the enormous costs of embracing the alternative worldview of the European and American left. Of course, that was equally true when the Bush administration all-too-frequently deviated from conservative precepts, especially in its failure-ridden second-term. In many ways, unfortunately, the Obama administration is a continuation of the second Bush term, only worse.

Former President George W. Bush's mistakes resulted from sleep-walking away from conservative values, whereas President Obama openly repudiates them, both believing in and fully understanding what he is doing. Accordingly, conservatives need engage in no "agonizing reappraisals" of their fundamental views. They need to adjust to being in opposition, but that is the purest kind of opportunity, not a burden. Mr. Obama's wearying and unpresidential refrain of blaming his predecessor is implicitly a trap, an effort to entice us to reflexively defend the Bush administration.

Instead, we should forthrightly explain where Mr. Bush went wrong, when he did, repudiating his errors as cheerily as Mr. Obama does, and then, agreeably to conservative principles, just as cheerily critiquing Mr. Obama's even more egregious mistakes.

Defending U.S. interests is neither arrogant nor disrespectful of others, but is instead the basic task of our presidents. Despite the 2008 election, neither the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nor international terrorism, nor the challenges of geostrategic adversaries have in any way diminished.

Overseas "apology tours," public displays of empathy and inviting the likes of Iran to Fourth of July receptions at our embassies will not alter these underlying realities. Nor will reducing national-security budgets on such key items as missile defense and advanced weapons systems (while dramatically increasing unnecessary and inevitably inflationary domestic spending) make our adversaries more amenable to sweet reason. Sadly, such gratuitous indications of self-doubt and weakness only encourage the very adversaries whose favor we are currying.

The Obama administration finds itself surprised almost daily by, among other things:

• The recalcitrant and unyielding regime in North Korea, testing its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

• Iran's persistence in pursuing precisely the same weapons programs, as well as continuing its activities as the world's central banker for terrorism.

• Hamas' continued refusal to renounce terrorism, acknowledge the state of Israel's existence and abide by prior Middle East agreements (which is hardly surprising, given that doing so would require Hamas to repudiate the fundamental principles on which it was founded).

• Russia's continued belligerent attitude toward former territories of the Soviet Union and Moscow's generally unhelpful attitude in dealing with North Korea, Iran, the Middle East and countless other problems.

Conservatives understand that these and numerous other threats are not anomalies in an otherwise peaceful and friendly world, but manifestations of the inevitable international clash of interests and philosophies. Conflict with our interest and values is not some unfortunate exception to normality, it is normality. While harmony is desirable, it is far from inevitable, and the causes of disharmony are just as natural and human as their opposites.

Understanding the Hobbesian nature of international relations fundamentally grounds conservative foreign policy in reality. In particular, conservatives reject the idea that America's actions are the foundation for most international discord, and that it is our deviation from international "norms" that must be "corrected" for the natural state of harmony to return.

To the contrary, in the last century, America has repeatedly sought to solve problems others have created, but which risk our own security. Left to ourselves, we would have been more than happy for the others to solve their own problems. That option, however, has not been open to us for quite some time, nor will it return in the foreseeable future, if ever.

The future of conservative national-security policy thus looks very much like its past, and, as in the past, will include considerable healthy debate among conservatives over concrete application of their principles. This is as it should be, both as sound philosophy and also because it makes for good domestic politics.

The American people actually expect to be defended against international threats and adversaries, and they will undoubtedly punish any American president who does not understand and implement their strong and entirely justifiable views. That is why we may well see the future of conservative foreign policy bloom as early as 2012.

OBAMA'S MORTGAGE RESCUE PLAN IS A FAILURE

2009-06-09T13:07:00.000-07:00

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on June 9, 2009

The data for April and May prove that Obama's plan to rescue those facing mortgage foreclosure is a dismal failure. Since this issue was the cornerstone of his economic program during the campaign, its abject failure is a significant setback for the Administration's economic plan.

In the month ending on May 26th, 464,983 foreclosures of subprime and Alt-A mortgages (out of a universe of 3.2 million studied). So 15% of all subprime mortgages were foreclosed in May! Only 19,041 -- a paltry 6% -- were modified during this period. And of those modified, only 11,200 involved any reduction in the monthly payments! Only 12% involved any write-off of interest, fees, or principal and 27% of the loan modifications actually increased the monthly payments due.

Alan M. White of the Valparaiso Law School, who conducted the study, noted that the data showed that "the Administration's plan to stimulate mortgage modifications does not seen to have had much effect yet, at least in this market segment" [i.e. subprimes].

And the trend lines are all bad:

• The number of loan modifications dropped 11% from April to May.

• The ratio of foreclosure losses to modification write downs (the amount lost in foreclosure: the amount rescued by write-downs) doubled in the past month. For every dollar saved in modifications, $150 was lost in foreclosure.

When Obama launched his mortgage rescue plan, he promised that it would help five million households. So far, he is about 4,969,000 short of his goal!!

When will the subprime foreclosures stop? In about a year when all of these unfortunate people have lost their homes!

Why is Obama's plan falling so far short of the mark? The fault is its own restrictions. You cannot get a loan modification if:

• You have lost your job

• You owe more than 5% above what your house is worth

• You are already in default

• You have not yet missed at least one payment

• Your lender does not want to participate

• Your mortgage is not one of the half of all mortgages insured or owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac

• The reworked mortgage payment would come to more than 31% of your income

• Your mortgage is over $759,000

• The home is not your primary residence

The number of beleaguered homeowners who can slip through the eye of this particular needle and qualify for a mortgage modification is tiny.

And yet there is an easy remedy at hand. Obama should simply say, as they did in Sweden, that the government will simply buy the distressed mortgages from the banks and adjust the payments to make them possible for the homeowners. Then, when the economy comes back, the homeowners could either pay back the government what they owe for the postponed payments or sell the house and repay the feds from the proceeds. If they won't do either, the feds could then seize the house and get their money back. Cost to the taxpayers: zero. In f act, they would likely make a profit.

Why won't Obama do this? It's because a Democratic administration cannot throw people out of their homes. Better to let them default and make the big, bad bank do the dirty work.

All these facts underscore how cynical was Obama's campaign in predicating so much of its economic message on an appeal to help those facing foreclosure. You don't hear Obama talk about foreclosures any more do you? That's because he knows he has no solution and that he won't offer any.

Buchanan on Obama's Anti-Americanism

2009-06-09T12:58:00.000-07:00

The Anti-Reagan

by Patrick J. Buchanan
06/09/2009

Despite his boldness, Barack Obama seems as fated to fail as were Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. And for the same reason: a belief in his own righteousness and moral superiority, and a belief that his ideals and his persona count mightily in the modern world.

Wilson declaimed about America's fight to "make the world safe for democracy" when in harness with the British, French, Russian, Japanese and Italian empires, all slavering to feast on the carcasses of the Hohenzollern, Habsburg and Ottoman empires.

By 1920, Wilson was a tragic failure, mocked by ex-allies and reviled by former enemies for having dishonored his own 14 Points.

Jimmy Carter declared in 1977 that "we have gotten over our inordinate fear of communism that caused us to embrace any dictator who shared in that fear." So, we undermined Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza and the Shah, and got the Sandinistas and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

As for Barack, he behaves on the world stage like some Ivy League kid ashamed of the people he came from, letting one and all on campus know that he is nothing like his benighted family with its sordid history.

In Cairo, he confessed that America had a hand in dumping over the regime in Iran in 1953. He did not mention that the United States forced the retreat of Joseph Stalin's army from Iran in 1946.

For the 100th time, he declared, "I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."

Is Obama unaware that Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia run prisons that make Guantanamo look like The Breakers at Palm Beach?

How many Guantanamo inmates plead to be sent home to Muslim countries?

In Trinidad, Obama sat for 55 minutes enduring Daniel Ortega's diatribe against the United States for mistreatment of Castro's Cuba and for the Bay of Pigs. Obama protested that he could not be held responsible for something that happened the year he was born.

Why could not he say to Ortega: "We also intervened in the Dominican Republic in 1965 to block a communist takeover, and in Grenada in 1983. The only problem with the Bay of Pigs is that we should have done it right and removed the odious Cuban dictatorship, and put Fidel, Raul and Che up against that same wall where so many patriots perished and spared the Cuban people 50 years of tyranny and the prostitution of their island into a base camp for the greatest despotism of the 20th century."

What is the matter with Obama that he cannot defend our Cold War conduct and Cold War presidents like Ike and JFK?

Answer: Obama cannot, because at heart he buys into the anti-American narrative that ours is a deplorable history -- of genocide against the Indians, of slavery and segregation, of robbing Mexicans of their land and of disrespecting our Latin neighbors.

Obama is determined to make the requisite apologies to show the world he does not condone the sins our fathers committed.

Thus, as Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation has cataloged, Obama has apologized to Europe for our having "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." He apologized to Latin America for our having been "disengaged and at times ... sought to dictate."

He told the Turks that we are "working through our own darker periods in our history. ... Our nation still struggles with the legacy of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."

Obama, however, did not ask the Turks to confess to their own "darker periods," which might have taken some time.

Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us -- and everyone within earshot -- of our own and our fathers' sins.

Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it.

If Obama believes he can build himself up by tearing America down, he is mistaken. Cynical foreigners will view it with snickering contempt, patriotic Americans with disgust. What kind of leader is it who talks down his own country on foreign soil?

America's performance in the Cold War was hardly flawless. But does anyone deny that we were on the right side, that the Soviet Empire and Mao's China and communist Vietnam and Castro's Cuba were on the side of tyranny -- and that the neutrals were by and large irrelevant or worse in that great cause?

A nation is an extended family. While families fight and quarrel, often bitterly, you do not take the family quarrel outside the family.

You don't hang the family's dirty linen on the communal clothesline.

Obama, however -- like some Hollywood actress seeking sympathy and public approbation with her tell-all biography detailing how she was abused by her father -- trolls for popularity with America's adversaries by reciting for the benefit of the world all the sins his country has allegedly committed.

When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?

*******

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "The Death of the West," "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Liberal Bureaucracy at its Absolute Worst

2009-06-09T08:51:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco...

Bureaucrat scuffs dream of homeless shoe shiner

C.W. Nevius

June 4, 2009

He sleeps under a bridge, washes in a public bathroom and was panhandling for booze money 11 months ago, but now Larry Moore is the best-dressed shoeshine man in the city. When he gets up from his cardboard mattress, he puts on a coat and tie.

It's a reminder of how he has turned things around. In fact, until last week it looked like Moore was going to have saved enough money to rent a room and get off the street for the first time in six years. But then, in a breathtakingly clueless move, an official for the Department of Public Works told Moore that he has to fork over the money he saved for his first month's rent to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit.

"I had $573 ready to go," Moore said, who needs $600 for the rent. "This tore that up. But I've been homeless for six years. Another six weeks isn't going to kill me."

The bureaucrat told Moore that she found out about his business after reading about his success in this paper.

Along Market Street, Moore's supporters are indignant. Nothing happens when mentally ill men wander the street talking to themselves and drunkards pee in the alleys. Yet Moore creates a little business out of thin air, builds up a client base, and the city takes nearly every penny he's earned.

Christine Falvey, spokeswoman for Public Works, said the department's contact with Moore was meant to be "educational."

"We certainly don't want to hamper anyone's ability to make a living," Falvey said. "Our education efforts are actually meant to support that effort by making our streets an enjoyable place for people to visit."

That is unlikely to mollify Moore's clients.

"Nothing like kicking someone when they are down," ranted attorney Loren Lopin, one of Moore's clients who donated $100 to help him get housing. "I am pissed."

Moore is nothing if not dutiful. He attempted to work his way through the byzantine city government channels, although he didn't get much help.

"I guess my gripe is that when the city came by and told him to get his papers in order but couldn't tell him how to do it," said Travis See, who manages the Custom Shop Clothiers on the corner of Market and New Montgomery. "This lady couldn't even tell him which building to go to so he could stand in line and waste all day."

When Moore found the permit application, he got a money order and headed down to the appropriate department to pay. But because he didn't have a valid ID card, they wouldn't take his money.

Could this be any more difficult? Moore doesn't want to get into city housing, preferring to make it on his own. But could you blame him if he gave up, kicked back and settled into a life of panhandling, subsidized housing and soup kitchen meals?

Luckily, Moore has quite a few fans. Lopin recruited a fellow attorney to donate to the first month's rent fund. She lets Moore keep his shoeshine stand in the store so he doesn't have to roll it up from the Bay Bridge exit ramp on Folsom where he sleeps.

Some of them remember Moore from the days when he was pushing a shopping cart down Market Street and holding the door open for customers at McDonald's on the chance they might hand him a quarter.

"As soon as I got that money I ran down and got a bottle," he said. "I took my alcoholism very seriously. I just got to thinking, why not take this seriously too? In 11 1/2 months, I haven't touched a drop."

He's turned into a bit of an institution at Market and New Montgomery. His regulars drop off shoes in the morning and pick them up when they leave the office. Guests at the Palace Hotel have become clients. See said Moore has become so popular that panhandlers swipe his brushes and polish because he's too much competition.

"He's the best thing to happen to this corner in a long time," said See. "It just seems like this process is turning out to be particularly uphill for him."

The only one who isn't furious about this is Moore. He insists that city functionaries are giving him a break because they are letting him continue to shine shoes while he waits for a copy of his birth certificate to be sent from Kansas. Once it arrives they will allow him to get an ID card and then hand over almost every cent he has.

What a deal.

"I'll do whatever they want," Moore said. "But I won't jump through no more of those $491 hoops. Those are getting expensive."

The Fruits of Political Correctness

2009-06-09T08:38:00.001-07:00

This is what you get when you fly in the face of public opinion and force diversity on television viewers...

KATIE COURIC AND CBS EVENING NEWS FALLS TO ALL-TIME LOW

EVENING NEWS RACEWEEK OF JUNE 1, 2009

NBC 7,960,000
ABC 7,150,000
CBS 5,180,000**

**Lowest Total Viewer delivery since NIELSEN records kept

What Obama's Forced Unionization Legislation Will Do

2009-06-09T08:35:00.000-07:00

1) DENY workers the right to a secret ballot when voting on whether or not they want to be part of a union (this is at top of the agenda for Big Labor, because it would enable union organizers to forcibly unionize millions more workers into dues-paying union ranks);

2) BAN companies in effect from running their companies during a strike -- a right they have held for roughly 70 years;

3) ATTACK all 22 state Right to Work laws, which make union membership and union dues voluntary;

4) INSTALL hundreds of Big Labor cronies on the federal courts, throughout the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, and other federal agencies;

5) EXPAND the definition of "employee" and narrow the definition of management, thereby placing more employees under union boss control; and

6) FORCE state and local governments under the monopoly control of union bosses as the monopoly bargaining agents for police, firefighters, and other first responders.

Obama Tells American Businesses to Drop Dead

2009-06-09T08:03:00.000-07:00

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- I’ve finally figured out the Obama economic strategy. President Barack Obama and his team have been having so much fun wielding dictatorial power while rescuing “failed” firms, that they have developed a scheme to gain the same power over every business.

The plan is to enact policies that are so anticompetitive that every firm needs a bailout.

Once that happens, their new pay czar Kenneth Feinberg can set the wage for everybody and Rahm Emanuel can stack the boards of all of our companies with his political cronies.

I know, it sounds like an exaggeration. But look at it this way. If there were a power ranking of U.S. companies, like the ones compiled by football writers for National Football League teams, Microsoft would surely be first or second to Google. But last week, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer came to Washington to announce what Microsoft would do if Obama’s multinational tax policy is enacted.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said, “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.” If Microsoft, perhaps our most competitive company, has to abandon the U.S. in order to continue to thrive, who exactly is going to stay?

At issue is Obama’s policy to end the deferral of multinational taxation.

The U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries. That rate is so high that U.S. firms have an enormous disadvantage versus competitors. The average corporate tax rate for the major developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2008 was about 27 percent, more than 10 percentage points lower than the U.S. rate.

Tax Burden
U.S. firms have nonetheless prospered because our tax code allows a business to set up a subsidiary in a low-tax country. When that subsidiary earns profits, they are taxed at the rate of that country, and don’t face U.S. tax until the money is mailed home.

The economically illiterate partisan Democratic view is that this practice is unpatriotic and bleeds jobs from the U.S. The economic reality is that American companies use this approach to acquire market share overseas. The alternative is losing the business to foreign competitors.

Don’t just take my word for it. A recent paper by Harvard economists Mihir Desai and C. Fritz Foley and Berkeley economist James Hines and published in the distinguished American Economic Review, gathered data on American multinationals to explore the impact of foreign investments on domestic U.S. activity.

Encourage Overseas Sales
Their conclusion was striking. The authors found that “10 percent greater foreign capital investment is associated with 2.2 percent greater domestic investment, and that 10 percent greater foreign employee compensation is associated with 4 percent greater domestic employee compensation. Changes in foreign and domestic sales, assets, and numbers of employees are likewise positively associated; the evidence also indicates that greater foreign investment is associated with additional domestic exports and R&D spending.”

So when firms expand their operations abroad, taking advantage of the lower foreign tax rates, it helps their workers in the U.S. Higher sales abroad (surprise, surprise) are good for domestic workers.

It is worth noting that this study, which is confirmed by a boatload of evidence elsewhere, was coauthored by the same James Hines who recently wrote a sweeping review of international tax policy with Obama’s top economist, Larry Summers. Summers has to know what the literature says.

Inexplicable Stance
So the question is, why does Obama advocate a policy that so flies in the face of everything that economists have learned? How could Obama possibly say, as he did last month, that he wants “to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens?” Further, how could Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner call a practice that top scholarship has shown increases wages and employment in the U.S. “indefensible?”

I have to admit I am at a loss. Maybe it is good politics to bash American corporations, and Obama isn’t really serious about making this change happen. But if the change is enacted, and domestic corporate taxes aren’t reduced to offset the big tax hike, the result will be a flight from the U.S. that rivals in scale the greatest avian arctic migrations.

If that occurs, the firms that stay in the U.S. will be at such a huge tax disadvantage that they will absolutely need a “rescue.”

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Real Protection

2009-06-09T07:49:00.000-07:00

T-Shirt Truths

2009-06-08T20:42:00.001-07:00

The Climate-Industrial Complex

2009-06-08T20:30:00.000-07:00

Some businesses see nothing but profits in the green movement.

The Wall Street Journal

By Bjorn Lomborg
May 22, 2009

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."

This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers -- the Copenhagen Climate Council -- hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol's replacement in December.

The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy.

Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking."

The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon.

Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations.

American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch.

U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.

The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.

The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business."

The World Business Summit will hear from "science and public policy leaders" seemingly selected for their scary views of global warming. They include James Lovelock, who believes that much of Europe will be Saharan and London will be underwater within 30 years; Sir Crispin Tickell, who believes that the United Kingdom's population needs to be cut by two-thirds so the country can cope with global warming; and Timothy Flannery, who warns of sea level rises as high as "an eight-story building."

Free speech is important. But these visions of catastrophe are a long way outside of mainstream scientific opinion, and they go much further than the careful findings of the United Nations panel of climate change scientists. When it comes to sea-level rise, for example, the United Nations expects a rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100 -- considerably less than a one-story building.

There would be an outcry -- and rightfully so -- if big oil organized a climate change conference and invited only climate-change deniers.

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.

Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, and author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007).

The REAL Michelle Obama

2009-06-08T08:33:00.001-07:00

A picture is worth a thousand words...

The Liar in Chief

2009-06-05T20:16:00.000-07:00

"I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... and that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game" - Barack Obama

Letter from Granddad

2009-06-05T19:47:00.000-07:00

John is 63 years old and owns his own business. He is a life long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year is now all but gone. With the stock market crashing and all the new taxes coming his way, John knows he will be working for a good number more years.

John has a Granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a late model car, wears all the latest fashions, and also likes going out and eating out a lot. Ashley campaigned hard for Obama, an d after he won the election she made sure her Grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received more than an earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that Obama won the election.

Ashley recently found herself short of cash and cannot pay her bills, again. As she has done many other times in the past, she e-mailed her Grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply:

"Sweetheart,

I am replying to your request for more money. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and am sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your Grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own....the 'Ashley Economic Plan'.

Let me explain. Your grandmother and I are highly productive, wage-earning tax payers. As you know, we have lived a comfortable life and in return have forgone many things like fancy vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But this plan has changed.

Your president is significantly raising our personal and business taxes. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less income for us. Less income means we must cut back on many business and personal expenditures.

One example is, we were forced to let go of our receptionist today. You know her. She always gave you candy when you visited my office. Did you know she worked for us for the past 18 years? I can't afford her anymore.

That is a taste of the business side. Some personal economic affects of Obama's new taxation policies include none other than you. You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc.

By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. Judging from your Email requesting more money, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct telephone number for the White House.

You yourself repeatedly told me I was foolish to vote Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the people's president and is going to help every American live a better life. Based upon everything you have told me and things we heard from him as he campaigned, I am sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check or transfer money into your checking account. Have him call me for the transaction and account numbers, which by now I know by heart.

Perhaps you now can understand what I have been saying for all my life: those who vote for the president should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole, and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is all of the "government's" money he is 'redistributing' to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (deemed "less fortunate") comes from tax money collected from income tax-paying families.

Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Guess what, honey? Because of our business, your Grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way. But in the real world, we are far from it. But, as you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money. Less money for everything, including granddaughters.

Congratulations on your choice for "change". For future reference, I encourage you to attempt to add up the total value of the gifts and money you've received from us over the years, and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama.

Remember, we love you dearly...but from now on you'll need to call the number referenced above when you need help.

Good luck, sweetheart.

Love,Grampa

PS: How was your recent trip to Jamaica? I have never been there but I hear it is lovely this time of year."

More Truth...

2009-06-05T19:37:00.000-07:00

"Conservatives aren't the ones who morally equate the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques to save innocent lives with that of beheading innocent people." - David Limbaugh

This Will Come Back to Bite Obama

2009-06-05T19:35:00.001-07:00

A USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday states that "most oppose closing Gitmo," reporting that "by more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn't be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states." But nowhere in the USAToday story do they post the actual percentage points or the even more convincing internal results.

So Much for More Diversity

2009-06-05T19:12:00.001-07:00

A new Quinnipiac University poll taken after the Sotomayor nomination shows that 70 percent of Americans are opposed to granting preferences to minorities or women in hiring in order to promote diversity.

How Good is Our Military?

2009-06-05T18:41:00.000-07:00

Read and decide for yourself....

Outnumbered 8-1: 'A good day for the Corps'

By Peter Bronson

December 11, 2008

Our vehicles came under a barrage of enemy RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) and machine gun fire. One of our humvees was disabled from RPG fire, and the Marines inside dismounted and laid down suppression fire so they could evacuate a Marine who was knocked unconscious from the blast."

That's not from an episode of The Unit or 24. It's not from an anti-war movie. It's not from any newspaper or TV news reports I could find.The quote comes from a "designated marksman who requested to remain unidentified."

He was reporting what happened recently in the city of Shewan, Afghanistan. The story was told in a Marine Corps News report by Cpl. James M. Mercure. It will give you goose bumps and make you want to stand up and salute the nearest flag. Here's more, because it's a lot better than anything I could write today:

"The day started out with a 10-kilometer patrol with elements mounted and dismounted, so by the time we got to Shewan, we were pretty beat," the marksman said.

Mercure reported, "Shewan had been a thorn in the side of Task Force 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Afghanistan throughout the Marines' deployment here in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, because it controls an important supply route into the Bala Baluk district. Opening the route was key to continuing combat operations in the area."

"The vicious attack that left the humvee destroyed and several of the Marines pinned down in the kill zone sparked an intense eight-hour battle as the platoon desperately fought to recover their comrades. After recovering the Marines trapped in the kill zone, another platoon sergeant personally led numerous attacks on enemy fortified positions while the platoon fought house to house and trench to trench in order to clear through the enemy ambush site.'

"The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they're given the opportunity to fight,'" the sniper said. '"A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong."'

"During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire. He selflessly exposed himself time and again to intense enemy fire during a critical point in the eight-hour battle for Shewan in order to kill any enemy combatants who attempted to engage or maneuver on the Marines in the kill zone. What made his actions even more impressive was the fact that he didn't miss any shots, despite the 0Denemies' rounds impacting within a foot of his fighting position."

"I was in my own little world," the young corporal said. "I wasn't even aware of a lot of the rounds impacting near my position, because I was concentrating so hard on making sure my rounds were on target."

"After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies' spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.'"I didn't realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies' lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us," the corporal said.

"It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured."

Such an amazing story of heroism and victory would have been on Page One in every paper in the country during World War II. Just 30 Marines giving eight hours of hell to 250 insurgents is the kind of story that would make a good movie - if that kind of movie still could be made. But these days, it did not even make Page 10. I couldn't find a story about it anywhere. The only mentions were on conservative blogs and military Web sites.

The soldiers who are fighting for their lives and our country might as20well be in another dimension. News from the battlefronts in Iraq and Afghanistan is apparently not important.

It reminds the jaded anti-war crowd that they were wrong. We're winning. It reminds a self-centered nation that some Americans are making sacrifices much bigger than a loss in their 401(k)s. So we don't hear about it.

But we need to hear news like that, because a good day for the Marine Corps is a good day for freedom. And that's a good day for America.

The Results are In...

2009-06-05T17:56:00.000-07:00

THE FAILURE OF OBAMANOMICS

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on June 3, 2009

The data is in for April. Here's what happened:

1. Household personal income (inflation adjusted) rose but every penny - and then some - went into savings or paying down debts. Consumer spending, on which Obama is betting to stimulate the economy, actually fell. None of the stimulus money was sent. None.

2. Meanwhile, to pay for this stimulus spending that didn't stimulate, Obama had to borrow so much money that long term interest rates have almost doubled since he took office, forcing postponement of abandonment of business expansion and hiring across the board.

What a record!

Here are the details. In April, personal household, inflation-adjusted income rose by $122 billion. Of that increase, one-third or $44 billion came from the government's stimulus program. But while personal income was rising, household savings (which includes paying down credit card balances, mortgages, student loans, car loans, etc) rose by $132 billion -- $10 billion more than the rise in income. So personal consumption dropped 0.1%.

The stimulus package was a total and complete failure. As predicted, as happened with Bush's 2008 tax cut, as happened with the Japanese stimulus packages of the 90s, fearful consumers sat on their money and wouldn't spend it. Keynesian economics didn't work. Again.

But the debt sure piled up. The deficit quadrupled and is sending interest rates soaring as the government elbows aside businesses and consumers at the loan window, all in a desperate effort to borrow enough money to spend enough money to stimulate the economy which isn't happening.

As we describe in our new book (out June 23rd) Catastrophe, Keynesian economics doesn't work. The theory for rational expectations has taken its place. Consumers are not idiots. They know that when their paycheck is fatter - either because of tax cuts or government spending - that it is not the beginning of nirvana but just a short term, one shot respite from hard times. They know the difference between standing in front on an electric fan and a windy day.

Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability, and - ultimately - our economy all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

Is Obama a failure? Not by his lights. His goal was never to stimulate the economy. His goal was to expand government spending and he used the recession as an excuse to do so. And, by this standard, he is a raging success. With the stimulus spending, the government proportion of GDP will rise from about 35% to about 40% and with health care "reform" it will go soaring into the mid-forties, bringing us to parity with Germany en route to France!

But the results are in: None of Obama's spending is doing anything to help the economy.

Of course, the process of household savings, designed to pay down debt, is very healthy. Economists call it de-leveraging. By the start of the recession, the debt American households owe had risen from 70% of their annual income in 1995 to 140% (excluding mortgages). Now it is on its way back down again. And, eventually, that will lead to a real recovery -- If Obama doesn't wreck the currency and bring on mega-inflation before then. (But he probably will).

Finally: A Liberal Tells The Truth

2009-06-05T16:52:00.000-07:00

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." —Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff, November 19, 2008

Obama Country?

2009-06-05T15:53:00.000-07:00

Not exactly...

A man is sitting in a bar in Texas far from home when Barack Obama comes on TV. The man looks at the TV and says, "Obama is a horse's ass."

Out of nowhere, a local jumps up and punches him in the face, knocking the first guy off his bar stool, then stomps out. He gets up, rubbing his cheek and orders another beer.

Shortly after, Michelle Obama appears on the TV. He looks at the TV and says, "She's a horse's ass too!"

Out of nowhere, another local punches him on the o ther side of the face, knocking him off his bar stool again. He gets back up and looks at the bartender, "I take it this is Obama country?"

"Nope." replies the bartender. "Horse country."

The San Francisco Police Department

2009-06-05T15:49:00.001-07:00

Chief Heather Fong (left), the first SFPD female chief of police; Theresa Sparks (center, former male), president of the San Francisco Police Commission, CEO of a multi million-dollar sex toy retailer, and a trans gender woman. Sgt. Stephan Thorne (right, former female), the first transgender SFPD police officer.

Their Representative in Congress is Nancy Pelosi.

Obama's "Progress" To Date

2009-06-04T14:56:00.000-07:00

But it ain't what I'd call progress...

Government-Controlled Life

By The Heritage Foundation

• Stimulus: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 significantly grew the size and scope of government, doublingthe size of federal agencies—including Education and Energy—and moving America toward a government-mandated health care system, all while placing future generations further in debt.

• SCHIP: The State Children's Health Insurance Program was recently expanded to include wealthy adults in a government health care program designed for low-income children. The expansion is funded by a tobacco tax paid for predominantly bythe poor and dependent on future smokers.

• Health Care: President Obama has made a significant downpayment on a national health care plan that would force millions of Americans out of their private plans and into a government-run monopoly, providing lower quality care at a higher price to all.

• Housing: The Helping Families Save Their Home Act of 2009actually destabilizes neighborhoods by allowing bankruptcy judges to unilaterally renegotiate your neighbor's mortgage principal and interest rates, causing an unstable mortgage market and incentives for individual bankruptcy.

• Welfare: The stimulus bill abolished the welfare reform under President Clinton, adding nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. The cost amounts to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.

• Land Use: President Obama wishes to impose federal "smart use" regulations on local zoning, housing, and transportation laws so American cities will be developed by his standards, causing housing prices and foreclosures to skyrocket.

Government-Controlled Business
• Card Check: The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would eliminate the secret ballot in union organizing elections and create a federal arbitration board made up of bureaucrats in Washington who will tell private businesses how to operate.

• Auto Bailouts: After nearly $100 billion of taxpayer dollars has been distributed to two automakers, neither company is recovering. Meanwhile, the President and Congress dictate which cars they must build and who runs the companies.

• War on Paychecks: After fewer than 100 executives at AIG collected excessive bonuses for poor work, Congress retaliatedby passing a bill that would eliminate bonuses for thousands and set broad-based wage ceilings. But the President did not think it went far enough, adding that the government should regulate wages nationwide.

The Obama Legacy (So Far...)

2009-06-04T14:38:00.000-07:00

Stunning...

"By cloaking his domestic agenda in terms of economic recovery, President Obama and his team of liberals have been able to pass the largest spending bill in history, repeal welfare reform, set us on the course to socialized healthcare, advance a very costly energy policy, impose high costs on productive people, and enact unprecedented expansions of governmental power." - The Heritage Foundation

How Stupid Do These People Think We Are??

2009-06-04T06:15:00.000-07:00

For the last five months, all we've heard is that our government needs to DEFICIT SPEND to solve all of our financial problems. Now, the idiots in charge are telling us that the large deficits threaten our financial stability!

In case you haven't read between the lines yet, allow me to inform you that this is all a pre-arranged set-up to raise taxes dramatically on EVERYONE, including the middle class.

And, by the way, NONE of the story below includes President B.O.'s massive forthcoming spending on healthcare, education and so-called global warming (cap & trade) legislation. Bernanke is only addressing the SPENDING TO DATE and our current deficits, which just happen to be QUADRUPLE the deficits that B.O. inherited just a few short months ago....

Bernanke Warns Deficits Threaten Financial Stability

By Craig Torres and Brian Faler

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said large U.S. budget deficits threaten financial stability and the government can’t continue indefinitely to borrow at the current rate to finance the shortfall.

“Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,” Bernanke said in testimony to lawmakers today. “Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance.”

Bernanke’s comments signal that the central bank sees risks of a relapse into financial turmoil even as credit markets show signs of stability. He said the Fed won’t finance government spending over the long term, while warning that the financial industry remains under stress and the credit crunch continues to limit spending.

The Fed chief said in his remarks to the House Budget Committee that deficit concerns are already influencing the prices of long-term Treasuries.

Yields on 10-year notes have climbed about 1 percentage point since the Fed announced plans in March to buy $300 billion of long-term government bonds. The notes yielded 3.54 percent at 5 p.m. in New York, down from 3.61 percent late yesterday, as Bernanke’s warnings on the need to reduce the deficit supported the market.

Rise in Yields
“In recent weeks, yields on longer-term Treasury securities and fixed-rate mortgages have risen,” Bernanke said. “These increases appear to reflect concerns about large federal deficits but also other causes, including greater optimism about the economic outlook, a reversal of flight-to-quality flows and technical factors related to the hedging of mortgage holdings.”

The budget deficit this year is projected to reach $1.85 trillion, equivalent to 13 percent of the nation’s economy, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

“Either cuts in spending or increases in taxes will be necessary to stabilize the fiscal situation,” Bernanke said in response to a question. “The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt.”
Bernanke also addressed banks’ efforts to bolster common equity in the aftermath of regulators’ stress tests on the 19 largest U.S. lenders. He said the 10 firms that were found to have a total capital shortfall of $75 billion have now sold or announced plans to boost common equity by $48 billion.

Bank Plans
“We expect further announcements shortly” as the banks submit plans due by June 8, Bernanke said.

This year’s projected budget deficit, four times the size of last year’s shortfall, has been driven up mostly by costs associated with the financial crisis.

“Bernanke knows that fiscal financing problems are already complicating monetary policy and are in danger of undermining Fed credibility,” said Alan Ruskin, chief international strategist at RBS Securities Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut. “He knows that there is only so much quantitative-easing financing that can be done.”

A fiscal stimulus of almost $800 billion, the government’s financial rescue effort, takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and increased costs of running safety-net programs such as unemployment insurance have added billions to spending.

President Barack Obama has pledged to halve the deficit by the end of his term. Even if successful, his administration anticipates the government will still run what would be, by historical standards, large deficits for the foreseeable future. Bernanke said the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio is set to reach the highest since the 1950s.

‘Hard Slog’
“It is fine to have this budget deficit now,” said Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economics professor and former Fed vice chairman. “It will also be a long hard slog to get the budget deficit down to a manageable level.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters that Bernanke “is absolutely right, we need to be very concerned about incurring additional indebtedness.” The House plans to pass legislation before its July 4 recess to cut spending in one category before increasing it in another, he said. In addition, “we need to address entitlements.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in an interview with Bloomberg Television May 21, said the administration’s goal is to cut the budget shortfall to 3 percent of GDP or smaller.

Rising government spending, forecasts for a record fiscal deficit and an unprecedented expansion of central bank credit have also fueled investor concerns that inflation will rise. Bernanke said inflation “will remain low” as the economy operates with slack resource use.

‘Dangerous’ Mix
Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the committee, said in opening remarks that the Treasury’s debt issuance and the Fed’s monetary stimulus, including purchases of government bonds, “can be a dangerous policy mix” and risks “runaway inflation” in the longer term.

Ryan said he’s concerned about “substantial” political pressure on the Fed to delay plans to tighten credit should unemployment remain high.

“The Fed’s political independence is critical and essential for safeguarding its commitment to price stability,” Ryan said. “We policy makers should realize that our most challenging policy period is going to be ahead of us.”

In Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said yesterday she views “with great skepticism what authority the Fed has and the leeway the Bank of England has created for itself,” to purchase a range of assets in their efforts to end the crisis. She urged central banks to return to a “policy of reason.”

Asked by a lawmaker about Merkel’s comments, Bernanke said, “I respectfully disagree with her views.”

‘Inflationary Consequences’
“I am comfortable with the policy actions that the Federal Reserve has taken,” he said. “We are comfortable that we can exit from those policies at the appropriate time without inflationary consequences.”

The central bank is buying as much as $1.75 trillion of housing debt and Treasuries this year to lower borrowing costs across the economy after reducing the benchmark interest rate almost to zero in December. Fed officials hold their next policy meeting June 23-24 in Washington.

Bernanke said during the hearing he wouldn’t support any measure that would have the Fed’s 12 regional Fed bank presidents nominated by the White House and confirmed by the Senate. Fed bank presidents are currently appointed by the regional bank boards with the approval of the Board of Governors.

Michael Moore is an Idiot

2009-06-03T11:46:00.000-07:00

This mental midget is so dimwitted that he thinks we don't know that he flies all over the planet in his private jet, spewing his carbon footprint behind him as he flits about, telling us to reduce OUR carbon footprint...

Michael Moore: GM's Bankruptcy Fills Me With Joy

Filmmaker and leftist activist Michael Moore said the demise of General Motors filled him with ‘joy’ Monday and then suggested the Obama administration launch into a massive socialization of U.S. industry to build ‘green’ autos and bullet trains.

To pay for it all, he suggests a $2 per gallon federal tax.

Writing on The Daily Beast Web site, Moore said he was writing from Flint, Michigan, GM’s birthplace, which he described as abandoned and emptied by the company’s incompetence and eagerness for cheap labor.

“Who among us wants $50 billion of our tax dollars thrown down the rat hole of still trying to save GM?,” wrote Moore, who came to fame with a film, “Roger & Me” that mocked GM’s management in the 1980s.

“It refused to build automobiles that the public wanted, cars that got great gas mileage, were as safe as they could be, and were exceedingly comfortable to drive. Oh—and that wouldn't start falling apart after two years. GM stubbornly fought environmental and safety regulations. Its executives arrogantly ignored the "inferior" Japanese and German cars, cars which would become the gold standard for automobile buyers,” Moore wrote.

He then gives 10 suggestions for revamping the auto industry and the entire U.S. infrastructure.
First, he proposes taking the money being poured into GM to give laid off workers of all stripes jobs in a massive reindustrialization similar to the World War II effort.

“Announce that we will have bullet trains criss-crossing this country in the next five years. Japan is celebrating the 45th anniversary of its first bullet train this year. Now they have dozens of them. Average speed: 165 mph., “ Moore writes. “Average time a train is late: under 30 seconds. They have had these high-speed trains for nearly five decades—and we don't even have one! The fact that the technology already exists for us to go from New York to L.A. in 17 hours by train, and that we haven't used it, is criminal.”

In addition to the bullet trains, Moore suggests building light-rail systems across the entire United States. In small towns not served by the systems, he suggest setting up factories to build hybrid cars. GM factories will be converted into centers for wind power and solar energy construction.

How will he pay for all of this?

“To help pay for this, impose a $2 tax on every gallon of gasoline. This will get people to switch to more energy-saving cars or to use the new rail lines and rail cars the former autoworkers have built for them.”

“Please, please, please don't save GM so that a smaller version of it will simply do nothing more than build Chevys or Cadillacs,” he added. “This is not a long-term solution. Don't throw bad money into a company whose tailpipe is malfunctioning, causing a strange odor to fill the car.”

Live Free or Die

2009-06-03T07:55:00.000-07:00

By Mark Steyn

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered by Mark Steyn at Hillsdale College on March 9, 2009.

MY REMARKS are titled tonight after the words of General Stark, New Hampshire's great hero of the Revolutionary War: "Live free or die!" When I first moved to New Hampshire, where this appears on our license plates, I assumed General Stark had said it before some battle or other—a bit of red meat to rally the boys for the charge; a touch of the old Henry V-at-Agincourt routine. But I soon discovered that the general had made his famous statement decades after the war, in a letter regretting that he would be unable to attend a dinner. And in a curious way I found that even more impressive. In extreme circumstances, many people can rouse themselves to rediscover the primal impulses: The brave men on Flight 93 did. They took off on what they thought was a routine business trip, and, when they realized it wasn't, they went into General Stark mode and cried "Let's roll!" But it's harder to maintain the "Live free or die!" spirit when you're facing not an immediate crisis but just a slow, remorseless, incremental, unceasing ratchet effect. "Live free or die!" sounds like a battle cry: We'll win this thing or die trying, die an honorable death. But in fact it's something far less dramatic: It's a bald statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but, if you choose not to, your society will die.

My book America Alone is often assumed to be about radical Islam, firebreathing imams, the excitable young men jumping up and down in the street doing the old "Death to the Great Satan" dance. It's not. It's about us. It's about a possibly terminal manifestation of an old civilizational temptation: Indolence, as Machiavelli understood, is the greatest enemy of a republic. When I ran into trouble with the so-called "human rights" commissions up in Canada, it seemed bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of the alliance profess to be pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists; the other half are homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Even as the cheap bus 'n' truck road-tour version of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, it made no sense. But in fact what they have in common overrides their superficially more obvious incompatibilities: Both the secular Big Government progressives and political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential.

In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood—health care, child care, care of the elderly—to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. Hillary Rodham Clinton said it takes a village to raise a child. It's supposedly an African proverb—there is no record of anyone in Africa ever using this proverb, but let that pass. P.J. O'Rourke summed up that book superbly: It takes a village to raise a child. The government is the village, and you're the child. Oh, and by the way, even if it did take a village to raise a child, I wouldn't want it to be an African village. If you fly over West Africa at night, the lights form one giant coastal megalopolis: Not even Africans regard the African village as a useful societal model. But nor is the European village. Europe's addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a dependence on mass immigration needed to sustain it has become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the world.

And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway. The 44th president's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%—ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.
But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month.

They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage where Europe is.

America is just beginning this process. I looked at the rankings in Freedom in the 50 States published by George Mason University last month. New Hampshire came in Number One, the Freest State in the Nation, which all but certainly makes it the freest jurisdiction in the Western world. Which kind of depressed me. Because the Granite State feels less free to me than it did when I moved there, and you always hope there's somewhere else out there just in case things go belly up and you have to hit the road. And way down at the bottom in the last five places were Maryland, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the least free state in the Union by some distance, New York.

New York! How does the song go? "If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere!" If you can make it there, you're some kind of genius. "This is the worst fiscal downturn since the Great Depression," announced Governor Paterson a few weeks ago. So what's he doing? He's bringing in the biggest tax hike in New York history. If you can make it there, he can take it there—via state tax, sales tax, municipal tax, a doubled beer tax, a tax on clothing, a tax on cab rides, an "iTunes tax," a tax on haircuts, 137 new tax hikes in all. Call 1-800-I-HEART-NEW-YORK today and order your new package of state tax forms, for just $199.99, plus the 12% tax on tax forms and the 4% tax form application fee partially refundable upon payment of the 7.5% tax filing tax. If you can make it there, you'll certainly have no difficulty making it in Tajikistan.
New York, California... These are the great iconic American states, the ones we foreigners have heard of. To a penniless immigrant called Arnold Schwarzenegger, California was a land of plenty. Now Arnold is an immigrant of plenty in a penniless land: That's not an improvement. One of his predecessors as governor of California, Ronald Reagan, famously said, "We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around." In California, it's now the other way around: California is increasingly a government that has a state. And it is still in the early stages of the process. California has thirtysomething million people. The Province of Quebec has seven million people. Yet California and Quebec have roughly the same number of government workers. "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation," said Adam Smith, and America still has a long way to go. But it's better to jump off the train as you're leaving the station and it's still picking up speed than when it's roaring down the track and you realize you've got a one-way ticket on the Oblivion Express.

"Indolence," in Machiavelli's word: There are stages to the enervation of free peoples. America, which held out against the trend, is now at Stage One: The benign paternalist state promises to make all those worries about mortgages, debt, and health care disappear. Every night of the week, you can switch on the TV and see one of these ersatz "town meetings" in which freeborn citizens of the republic (I use the term loosely) petition the Sovereign to make all the bad stuff go away. "I have an urgent need," a lady in Fort Myers beseeched the President. "We need a home, our own kitchen, our own bathroom." He took her name and ordered his staff to meet with her.

Hopefully, he didn't insult her by dispatching some no-name deputy assistant associate secretary of whatever instead of flying in one of the bigtime tax-avoiding cabinet honchos to nationalize a Florida bank and convert one of its branches into a desirable family residence, with a swing set hanging where the drive-thru ATM used to be.

As all of you know, Hillsdale College takes no federal or state monies. That used to make it an anomaly in American education. It's in danger of becoming an anomaly in America, period. Maybe it's time for Hillsdale College to launch the Hillsdale Insurance Agency, the Hillsdale Motor Company and the First National Bank of Hillsdale. The executive supremo at Bank of America is now saying, oh, if only he'd known what he knows now, he wouldn't have taken the government money. Apparently it comes with strings attached. Who knew? Sure, Hillsdale College did, but nobody else.

If you're a business, when government gives you 2% of your income, it has a veto on 100% of what you do. If you're an individual, the impact is even starker. Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place. That's the argument behind, for example, mandatory motorcycle helmets, or the creepy teams of government nutritionists currently going door to door in Britain and conducting a "health audit" of the contents of your refrigerator. They're not yet confiscating your Twinkies; they just want to take a census of how many you have. So you do all this for the "free" health care—and in the end you may not get the "free" health care anyway. Under Britain's National Health Service, for example, smokers in Manchester have been denied treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk are refused hip and knee replacements. Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, says that it's appropriate to decline treatment on the basis of "lifestyle choices." Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and wonder why his "lifestyle choices" get a pass while theirs don't. But that's the point: Tyranny is always whimsical.

And if they can't get you on grounds of your personal health, they'll do it on grounds of planetary health. Not so long ago in Britain it was proposed that each citizen should have a government-approved travel allowance. If you take one flight a year, you'll pay just the standard amount of tax on the journey. But, if you travel more frequently, if you take a second or third flight, you'll be subject to additional levies—in the interest of saving the planet for Al Gore's polar bear documentaries and that carbon-offset palace he lives in in Tennessee.

Isn't this the very definition of totalitarianism-lite? The Soviets restricted the movement of people through the bureaucratic apparatus of "exit visas." The British are proposing to do it through the bureaucratic apparatus of exit taxes—indeed, the bluntest form of regressive taxation. As with the Communists, the nomenklatura—the Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Madonna—will still be able to jet about hither and yon. What's a 20% surcharge to them? Especially as those for whom vast amounts of air travel are deemed essential—government officials, heads of NGOs, environmental activists—will no doubt be exempted from having to pay the extra amount. But the ghastly masses will have to stay home.

"Freedom of movement" used to be regarded as a bedrock freedom. The movement is still free, but there's now a government processing fee of $389.95. And the interesting thing about this proposal was that it came not from the Labour Party but the Conservative Party.

That's Stage Two of societal enervation—when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life. When President Bush talked about promoting democracy in the Middle East, there was a phrase he liked to use: "Freedom is the desire of every human heart." Really? It's unclear whether that's really the case in Gaza and the Pakistani tribal lands. But it's absolutely certain that it's not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, New Orleans and Buffalo. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government "security," large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and a ton of other stuff. It's ridiculous for grown men and women to say: I want to be able to choose from hundreds of cereals at the supermarket, thousands of movies from Netflix, millions of songs to play on my iPod—but I want the government to choose for me when it comes to my health care. A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world's wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.

And don't be too sure you'll get to choose your record collection in the end. That's Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it's a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts. When my anglophone friends in the Province of Quebec used to complain about the lack of English signs in Quebec hospitals, my response was that, if you allow the government to be the sole provider of health care, why be surprised that they're allowed to decide the language they'll give it in? But, as I've learned during my year in the hellhole of Canadian "human rights" law, that's true in a broader sense. In the interests of "cultural protection," the Canadian state keeps foreign newspaper owners, foreign TV operators, and foreign bookstore owners out of Canada. Why shouldn't it, in return, assume the right to police the ideas disseminated through those newspapers, bookstores and TV networks it graciously agrees to permit?

When Maclean's magazine and I were hauled up in 2007 for the crime of "flagrant Islamophobia," it quickly became very clear that, for members of a profession that brags about its "courage" incessantly (far more than, say, firemen do), an awful lot of journalists are quite content to be the eunuchs in the politically correct harem. A distressing number of Western journalists see no conflict between attending lunches for World Press Freedom Day every month and agreeing to be micro-regulated by the state. The big problem for those of us arguing for classical liberalism is that in modern Canada there's hardly anything left that isn't on the state dripfeed to one degree or another: Too many of the institutions healthy societies traditionally look to as outposts of independent thought—churches, private schools, literature, the arts, the media—either have an ambiguous relationship with government or are downright dependent on it. Up north, "intellectual freedom" means the relevant film-funding agency—Cinedole Canada or whatever it's called—gives you a check to enable you to continue making so-called "bold, brave, transgressive" films that discombobulate state power not a whit.

And then comes Stage Four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as "hatred." In effect, the language itself becomes a means of control. Despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked: In Britain, a land with rampant property crime, undercover constables nevertheless find time to dine at curry restaurants on Friday nights to monitor adjoining tables lest someone in private conversation should make a racist remark. An author interviewed on BBC Radio expressed, very mildly and politely, some concerns about gay adoption and was investigated by Scotland Yard's Community Safety Unit for Homophobic, Racist and Domestic Incidents. A Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested and detained in a jail cell over a joke in a speech. A Dutch legislator is invited to speak at the Palace of Westminster by a member of the House of Lords, but is banned by the government, arrested on arrival at Heathrow and deported.

America, Britain, and even Canada are not peripheral nations: They're the three anglophone members of the G7. They're three of a handful of countries that were on the right side of all the great conflicts of the last century. But individual liberty flickers dimmer in each of them. The massive expansion of government under the laughable euphemism of "stimulus" (Stage One) comes with a quid pro quo down the line (Stage Two): Once you accept you're a child in the government nursery, why shouldn't Nanny tell you what to do? And then—Stage Three—what to think? And—Stage Four—what you're forbidden to think . . . .

Which brings us to the final stage: As I said at the beginning, Big Government isn't about the money. It's more profound than that. A couple of years back Paul Krugman wrote a column in The New York Times asserting that, while parochial American conservatives drone on about "family values," the Europeans live it, enacting policies that are more "family friendly." On the Continent, claims the professor, "government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff-to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family."

As befits a distinguished economist, Professor Krugman failed to notice that for a continent of "family friendly" policies, Europe is remarkably short of families. While America's fertility rate is more or less at replacement level—2.1—seventeen European nations are at what demographers call "lowest-low" fertility—1.3 or less—a rate from which no society in human history has ever recovered. Germans, Spaniards, Italians and Greeks have upside-down family trees: four grandparents have two children and one grandchild. How can an economist analyze "family friendly" policies without noticing that the upshot of these policies is that nobody has any families?

As for all that extra time, what happened? Europeans work fewer hours than Americans, they don't have to pay for their own health care, they're post-Christian so they don't go to church, they don't marry and they don't have kids to take to school and basketball and the 4-H stand at the county fair. So what do they do with all the time?

Forget for the moment Europe's lack of world-beating companies: They regard capitalism as an Anglo-American fetish, and they mostly despise it. But what about the things Europeans supposedly value? With so much free time, where is the great European art? Where are Europe's men of science? At American universities. Meanwhile, Continental governments pour fortunes into prestigious white elephants of Euro-identity, like the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 500, 800, a thousand passengers at a time, if only somebody somewhere would order the darn thing, which they might consider doing once all the airports have built new runways to handle it.

"Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor," wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. "When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome."

The key word here is "give." When the state "gives" you plenty—when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood—it's not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence—literally so for those Germans who've mastered the knack of staying in education till they're 34 and taking early retirement at 42. Hilaire Belloc, incidentally, foresaw this very clearly in his book The Servile State in 1912. He understood that the long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population.

Genteel decline can be very agreeable—initially: You still have terrific restaurants, beautiful buildings, a great opera house. And once the pressure's off it's nice to linger at the sidewalk table, have a second café au lait and a pain au chocolat, and watch the world go by. At the Munich Security Conference in February, President Sarkozy demanded of his fellow Continentals, "Does Europe want peace, or do we want to be left in peace?" To pose the question is to answer it. Alas, it only works for a generation or two. And it's hard to come up with a wake-up call for a society as dedicated as latterday Europe to the belief that life is about sleeping in.

As Gerald Ford liked to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." And that's true. But there's an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back. That's the position European governments find themselves in. Their citizens have become hooked on unaffordable levels of social programs which in the end will put those countries out of business. Just to get the Social Security debate in perspective, projected public pension liabilities are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8% of GDP in the U.S. In Greece, the figure is 25%—i.e., total societal collapse. So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I want my benefits. The crisis isn't the lack of money, but the lack of citizens—in the meaningful sense of that word.

Every Democrat running for election tells you they want to do this or that "for the children." If America really wanted to do something "for the children," it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a leviathan of bloated bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. That's the real "war on children" (to use another Democrat catchphrase)—and every time you bulk up the budget you make it less and less likely they'll win it.

Conservatives often talk about "small government," which, in a sense, is framing the issue in leftist terms: they're for big government. But small government gives you big freedoms—and big government leaves you with very little freedom. The bailout and the stimulus and the budget and the trillion-dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic and productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher—and you make it very difficult ever to change back. Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult. The inertia, the ennui, the fatalism is more pathetic than the demographic decline and fiscal profligacy of the social democratic state, because it's subtler and less tangible. But once in a while it swims into very sharp focus. Here is the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from an interview with the Belgian paper De Standaard. Mr. van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay "humanist" (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), was reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." In the famous Kubler-Ross five stages of grief, Mr. van den Boogard is past denial, anger, bargaining and depression, and has arrived at a kind of acceptance.

"I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." Sorry, doesn't work—not for long. Back in New Hampshire, General Stark knew that. Mr. van den Boogard's words are an epitaph for Europe. Whereas New Hampshire's motto—"Live free or die!"—is still the greatest rallying cry for this state or any other. About a year ago, there was a picture in the papers of Iranian students demonstrating in Tehran and waving placards. And what they'd written on those placards was: "Live free or die!" They understand the power of those words; so should we.

The Truth About ACORN

2009-06-03T06:10:00.000-07:00

ACORN is one of the great political corruption scandals in American history, and Barack Obama is smack in the middle of it...

Rep. King: Probe ACORN's Financial 'Spiderweb'

By David A. Patten
June 2, 2009

Iowa GOP Congressman Steve King is calling for simultaneous FBI and congressional investigations into what he calls a "spiderweb" of shadowy financial and business relationships linked to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

"With ACORN, it's pervasive," King tells Newsmax, referring to criminal allegations and malfeasance leveled at ACORN's low-income, voter-registration operation. "It's everywhere. It's 12 or 14 states where there are investigations going on for voter registration fraud."

"ACORN has admitted to … around 400,000 fraudulent voter-registration forms being introduced. They claim they don't hire people on commission, but they do hire people on commission," King tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview.

King says ACORN has over 270 corporate affiliates and business units that have received more than $53 million in federal tax dollars. Recent stimulus legislation, he tells Newsmax, could give the organization access to up to $8.5 billion.

According to a recent Fox News report, over 250 nonprofit groups list ACORN's New Orleans headquarters as their address. One of those groups is Citizens Services Inc., which received $800,000 from the Obama administration in return for a get-out-the-vote program during last year's campaign.

Although King charges that ACORN is "in the business of electing Democrats," he says its impact transcends politics. He tells Newsmax the organization has intimidated bank executives into making risky mortgage loans to people who shouldn't have received them, adding that is "a contributing factor, I believe, to this financial meltdown that we have."

King, who has represented Iowa's fifth congressional district since 2002, describes ACORN as "an organization that erodes the integrity of the election process," adding: "I believe it has completely the face of a criminal enterprise, and it should be thoroughly investigated by Congress and the Department of Justice. And it should happen simultaneously."

Although King says ACORN is responsible for "hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms," the type of investigation he wants would go far beyond current state and FBI investigations for alleged voter fraud. Rather, it would look into the interlocking financial connections between ACORN and its affiliate organizations.

To date, there have been four post-election prosecutions by state authorities involving ACORN. All focus on voter fraud rather than finances.

"We need to do a lot more. We cannot let them bring down our election process," King tells Newsmax.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The Greenhouse Conspiracy

2009-06-02T13:54:00.000-07:00

Click below to venture back nearly 20 years and watch this 1990 documentary film "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" to learn what drives the global warming/climate change manufactured "crisis".

In short, here are the powerful forces behind the movement:

For Scientists, it is FUNDING
For the Media, it is A GOOD STORY
For Politicians, it is A WORTHY CAUSE
For Environmentalists it is GOOD (Environmentalism) vs EVIL (Capitalism)

In short, it's a philosophical war and the stakes are incredibly high since the environmentalists and their co-conspirators are demanding a fundamental economic restructuring of the world economy.

Even if they are right, the costs will be enormous. But if they are wrong, the costs will be enormous AND totally unnecessary!

The truth be told, they know they are wrong. That is why they recently changed the name of the crisis from "global warming" to "climate change". But to them, it matters not about the "crisis" since their war is with "Evil Capitalism". That is the real crisis in their minds.

Here's the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010 (It is 50 minutes in length and very much worth viewing)

The First Amendment

2009-06-02T06:00:00.001-07:00

"The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak and believe freely; it does not guarantee the right to silence those who disagree with you." - Eric Rassbach, National Litigation Director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Obama's Communist Connection

2009-06-01T14:50:00.000-07:00

You may not like it, but the fact remains that it is true that just as Obama has ties to radicals William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, he also has ties to communist Frank Marshall Davis...

Obama’s Communist Mentor

By Cliff Kincaid February 18, 2008

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

Click here to read the entire column: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

An Update From Oklahoma

2009-06-01T14:25:00.000-07:00

The state law passed today, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! Guess what..........We did it anyway.

We recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from, unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. Hope we didn't send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake. Guess what..........we did it anyway.

Yesterday we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. Guess what........We did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. That, for your information, makes Oklahoma and Texas the only states to do so. Guess what.........More states are likely to follow.

Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, both Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, just to name a few. Should Mississippi act, so will Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again.

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a set back for the Kennedys and Ms Pelosi. Guess what..........We did it anyway.

By the way, Obama does not like any of this. Guess what....who cares...were doing it anyway.

The Truth Hurts

2009-06-01T14:18:00.000-07:00

The Big Lie Continues...

2009-06-01T14:12:00.000-07:00

Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matters

May 24, 2009

By Jack Cashill

While waiting for America's publishers to find their nerve, I had put my research into the authorship of Barack Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father on the back shelf. But then I heard Chris Matthews. The Hardball host was weighing in on the subject of Sarah Palin's new book deal. "Sarah Palin - now don't laugh - is writing a book," sneered Matthews. "Not just reading a book, writing a book."

"Actually in the word of the publisher she's "collaborating" on a book," Matthews continued. "What an embarrassment! It's one of these ‘I told you,' books that jocks do. You know she's already declared, I mean, why they do it like this? ‘She can't write, we got a collaborator for her.'"

I dedicate what follows to Matthews and those willfully blind souls like him. It is a work in progress, a collective one at that, aided and abetted by nearly a score of volunteer co-conspirators from Hawaii to Ohio to Israel to Australia. The thesis is simple enough: Barack Obama needed substantial help to write his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father. Moreover, unlike Sarah Palin, Obama chose to conceal the identity of his collaborator and not without good reason. To admit that he needed a collaborator would have undercut his campaign for president and to reveal the name of that collaborator would have ended it.

My involvement in this occasionally harrowing literary adventure began in July 2008, entirely innocently. A friend sent me some short excerpts from Dreams and asked if they were as radical as they sounded. I bought the book, located the excerpts, and reported back that, in context, the excerpts were not particularly troubling.

But I did notice something else. The book was much too well written. I had seen enough of Obama's interviews to know that he did not speak with anywhere near the verbal sophistication on display in Dreams.

About six weeks later, for entirely unrelated reasons, I picked up a copy of Bill Ayers 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. Ayers, I discovered, writes very well and very much like "Obama."

In mid-September, after considerable digging, I wrote a few speculative articles for American Thinker and other online journals and discovered that I was not alone in my suspicions.

Looking for some scientific verification, I consulted Patrick Juola of Duquesne, a leading authority in the field of literary forensics. Juola, however, advised me against relying on computer analysis on a subject this sensitive. "The accuracy just isn't there," he told me. He encouraged me instead "to do what you're already doing . . . good old-fashioned literary detective work." I took his advice.

The first question I had to resolve was whether the 33 year-old Barack Obama was capable of writing what Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." The answer is almost assuredly "no."

In his bestselling study of success, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell painstakingly lays out what he calls the "ten-thousand-hour rule." Gladwell quotes neurologist Daniel Levitin to the effect that "ten thousand hours of practice [in any subject] is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert" and cites example after example to make his case.

Obama appears to have lopped about 9900 hours off that standard. In Dreams, he speaks of writing only the occasional journal entry and some "very bad poetry." He does not sell himself short on the poetry. From his undergraduate poem, "Underground":

Under water grottos, caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance . . .

If possible, Obama's early prose showed less promise than his poetry. Although the Obama camp has been notoriously shy about releasing proof of Obama's assumed genius-SAT scores, LSAT scores, transcripts, theses-I was able to unearth three essays in print that predate Dreams.

In March 1983, Obama wrote an 1800-word article, "Breaking the War Mentality," for Columbia University's weekly news magazine, Sundial. Five years later, he wrote an essay titled "Why Organize," which was reprinted in a 1990 book called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.

In the Sundial article there are an appalling five sentences in which the subject noun does not agree with the verb. In some sentences, like the following, the punctuation and word selection are as random as the grammar: "The belief that moribund institutions, rather than individuals are at the root of the problem, keep SAM's energies alive."

Although "Why Organize" seems to be better edited, in neither of these two clunky essays does Obama turn a single phrase that is clever, concise, or even vaguely memorable. In 1990, he wrote an unsigned student case comment for the Harvard Law Review. The prose here, although reasonably well edited, is even more dull and leaden.

It was not Obama's style but his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990-more of a popularity than a literary contest-that netted him a roughly $125,000 advance for a proposed book. According to a 2006 article by liberal publisher Peter Osnos, Simon & Schuster canceled the contract when Obama could not deliver, despite a sojourn to Bali to help him write.

It was about this time that Bill Ayers entered the picture. "I met [Obama] sometime in the mid-1990s." he would later tell Salon. "And everyone who knew him thought that he was politically ambitious. For the first two years, I thought, his ambition is so huge that he wants to be mayor of Chicago."

Obama needed help, and Ayers had the means, the motive, and the ability to provide it. Unlike Obama, he has a well-established paper trail. He co-authored the 1974 tract, "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism, in which book, by the way, he misspells Frantz Fanon's first name as "Franz" just as Obama does in Dreams, and nearly twenty books thereafter as writer and editor.

Ayers, we know, provided an informal editing service for like-minded friends in the neighborhood. Aspiring radical Rashid Khalidi attests to this in the acknowledgements in his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire. "Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family's dining room table to do some writing for the project." Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed the help. Having no political ambitions, Khalidi was willing to acknowledge it.

Dreams was published in June 1995. That same year, Ayers was busy fueling the ambitions of his young protégé, first with an appointment to the chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant and later with a fundraiser in his Chicago home. Ayers admits that his "imagination ran out of steam." He thought he was launching a mayor that he could exploit, even control, not a president, who would move quickly beyond his grasp.

After Dreams was published in 1995, Obama's typewriter fell silent once again. He contributed not one signed word to any law journal or other publication of note until his unexceptional and conspicuously ghosted 2006 book, Audacity of Hope. Obama was not a writer. As his lame inaugural address proved, he still isn't.

It is possible that Obama actually met Ayers in New York in the early 1980s. In his brief New York sojourn, he often seems to be channeling the thoughts and experiences of the world weary Ayers who lived in New York the same years as Obama. "Like a tourist, I watched the range of human possibility on display," writes Obama in Dreams, "trying to trace out my future in the lives of the people I saw, looking for some opening through which I could re-enter."

Re-enter? This seems more the reflection of a soon to be ex-fugitive than that of a Columbia undergrad. It is in New York too that Obama feels himself living "behind enemy lines," the exact phrase that Ayers uses to describe his life in the underground.

The opening scene of Dreams takes place in the early 1980s in and around Obama's New York City apartment with its "slanting" floors. As the scene unfolds, Obama is making breakfast "with coffee on the stove and two eggs in the skillet." In Fugitive Days, Ayers inhabits an apartment with "sloping floors." He too cooks a lot -- his books are rich with often sensual food imagery -- and uses a "skillet," a southern regionalism.

Obama tells the reader that the buzzer downstairs did not work and that visitors had to call from a pay phone at the corner gas station. There, "A black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle."

Fugitive Days opens at a pay phone. (Unless specified otherwise, all Ayers' references will be to Fugitive Days and Obama's to Dreams). Ayers spent much of his underground years waiting at pay phones. He writes about pay phones with the loving detail art critics reserve for Picassos. The vivid image of the Doberman almost assuredly comes from his experience. Obama had no reason to use that pay phone, if it even existed.

Obama shared his apartment with a roommate, who would scream "with impressive rage" at "white people" whose dogs pooped on their sidewalks. Adds Obama, ""We'd laugh at the faces of both master and beast, grim and unapologetic as they hunkered down to do the deed."

Both Ayers and Obama speak of "rage" the way that Eskimos do of snow -- in so many varieties, so often, that they feel the need to qualify it, here as "impressive rage," elsewhere in Dreams as "suppressed rage" or "coil of rage," and in Fugitive Days as "justifiable rage," "uncontrollable rage," "blind rage," "and, of course, "Days of Rage."

Another note of interest is that all of the distinctive words in the sentence above -- "master," "beast," "grim," "unapologetic," and "deed," as well as the phrase "hunkered down" -- appear in Fugitive Days.

In the opening pages, Obama makes an exception to his unlikely New York "solitude" for an elderly neighbor, a "stooped" gentleman who wore a "fedora." In Fugitive Days, it was Ayers' grandfather who is "stooped" and a helpful stranger who wears a "fedora."

One day, Obama's roommate finds his neighbor dead, "crumpled up on the third-floor landing, his eyes wide open, his limbs stiff and curled up like a baby's." Ayers tells of watching his mother die, "eyes half open, curled up and panting." In both cases, the eyes are "open" and the body is "curled up."

On the neighbor's mantelpiece, Obama reports seeing "the faded portrait of a woman with heavy eyebrows and a gentle smile." There are seven references to "eyebrows" in Dreams -- heavy ones, bushy ones, wispy ones, and six in Fugitive Days -- bushy ones, flaring ones, arched ones, black ones.

Who writes about eyebrows? In the lengthy excerpts that I have gathered from a half dozen other contemporary political memoirs -- 150,000 words in all -- there is no mention of "eyebrows" at all. Nor is there anyone or anything "stooped," "curled," "crumpled," "hunkered down," or wearing a "fedora."

At the climax of the opening sequence, Obama receives a phone call. It comes from an African aunt. "Listen, Barry, your father is dead," she tells him. Obama has a hard time understanding. "Can you hear me?" she repeats. "I say, your father is dead." The line is cut, and the conversation ends abruptly.

The opening sequence of Fugitive Days climaxes in nearly identical fashion. This phone call comes from Ayers' future wife, Bernadine Dohrn. "Diana is dead," says Dohrn of Ayers' lover Diana Oughton, killed in a bomb blast. Ayers has a hard time understanding. "Diana is dead," she "repeats slowly." Ayers drops the line, and the conversation ends abruptly.

At the conclusion of Dreams' opening scene, a stunned Obama "sat down on the couch, smelling eggs burn in the kitchen, staring at cracks in the plaster, trying to measure my loss." This passage features Obama's signature rhetorical flourish, the triple parallel without a joining conjunction. There are scores of such examples throughout Dreams, perhaps hundreds:

"...the mixed blood, the divided soul, the ghostly image of the tragic mulatto trapped between two worlds."

"Her face powdered, her hips girdled, her thinning hair bolstered, she would board the six-thirty bus to arrive at her downtown office before anyone else."

"...his eyes were closed, his head leaning against the back of his chair, his big wrinkled face like a carving stone."

As it happens, Ayers' signature rhetorical flourish, likely cribbed from Joseph Conrad, is the triple parallel without a joining conjunction. There are scores of such examples throughout Fugitive Days, perhaps hundreds:

"He inhabited an anarchic solitude-disconnected, smart,obsessive."

"We swarmed over and around that car, smashing windows, slashing tires, trashing lights and fenders-it seemed the only conceivable thing to do."

"...trees are shattered, doors ripped from their hinges, shorelines rearranged."

More intriguing still, Obama seems to borrow the one girlfriend in the oddly sexless Dreams from Ayers' experience. "There was a woman in New York that I loved," he tells his half-sister years after the fact. "She was white. She had dark hair, and specks of green in her eyes."

The woman of Obama's memory evokes images of Diana Oughton. As her FBI files attest, Oughton had brown hair and green eyes. The two women shared similar family backgrounds as well. In fact, they seemed to have grown up on the very same estate.

"The house was very old, her grandfather's house," Obama writes of his girlfriend's country home. "He had inherited it from his grandfather." According to a Time Magazine article written soon after her death, Oughton "brought Bill Ayers and other radicals" to the family homestead in Dwight, Illinois. The main house on the Oughton estate, a 20-room Victorian mansion, was built by Oughton's father's grandfather.

The carriage house, in which Oughton lived as a child, now serves as a public library. It may have already seemed like one when Ayers visited, an impression that finds its way into Obama's memory of a library "filled with old books and pictures of the famous people [the grandfather] had known-presidents, diplomats, industrialists."

"It was autumn, beautiful, with woods all around us," Obama writes of his visit to his girlfriend's country home, "and we paddled a canoe across this round, icy lake full of small gold leaves that collected along the shore." As can be seen from aerial photos even today, the Oughton estate also has a small lake and is surrounded by woods.

Curiously, Obama tells the story of this past love while cutting "two green peppers." In his 1997 book, A Kind And Just Parent, Ayers specifically links "green peppers" with "saltpeter" and other substances that scare young men with the threat of impotence. Go figure.

Ayers lived a considerably more adventurous life than Obama, beginning with his youthful days as a merchant seaman in the North Atlantic. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes. Yet much of the nautical language that flows through Fugitive Days flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.

Although there are only the briefest of literal sea experiences in Dreams, the following words appear in both Dreams and in Ayers' work: fog, mist, ships, seas, boats, oceans, calms, captains, charts, first mates, storms, streams, wind, waves, anchors, barges, horizons, ports, panoramas, moorings, tides, currents, and things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, and murky.

My own memoir on race, Sucker Punch, offers a useful control. It makes no reference at all, metaphorical or otherwise, to any of the above words save "current" and "tides." Yet I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean and many a day on a boat.

Ayers equates the flow of water with that of language. "The debates swam above and around and through us," he writes. "The confrontation in the [Student Union] flowed like a swollen river in to the teach-in, carrying me along the cascading waters from room to room, hall to hall, bouncing off boulders."

In Dreams, Obama makes the very same equation. "I heard all our voices begin to run together, the sound of three generations tumbling over each other like the currents of a slow-moving stream," he writes, "my questions like rocks roiling the water, the breaks in memory separating the currents, but always the voices returning to that single course, a single story."

For the one and only time in his career, Obama writes in the language of postmodernism, a language the academic Ayers has mastered. Ayers describes Fugitive Days as "a memory book," one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history. In Dreams, Obama admits, some characters are composites. Some appear out of precise chronology. Names have been changed.

Ayers seems consumed with lies, lying and what he calls "our constructed reality." The Obama of Dreams says much the same and in much the same language. "But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie," he writes, "something I'd constructed from the scraps of information I'd picked up from my mother."

That they both speak of "narratives," "traps," "contradictions," "intimacies," and "journeys" is not exceptional. That is standard postmodern patois. What is exceptional is their shared use of advanced postmodern slang -- the "fictions" into which they and others force their lives, the "grooves" into which they have fallen, the "poses" they assume, and even the "stitched together" nature of the lives they or their relatives lead.

More convincing still are those complex tropes in Dreams that appear, only slightly altered, in Ayers' books. In his 1993 book, To Teach, Ayers writes, "Education is for self-activating explorers of life, for those who would challenge fate, for doers and activists, for citizens." "Training," on the other hand, "is for slaves, for loyal subjects, for tractable employees, for willing consumers, for obedient soldiers."

In Dreams, these thoughts find colloquial expression in the person of "Frank," the real life poet, pornographer and Stalinist, Frank Marshall Davis. "Understand something, boy," Frank tells the college-bound Obama. "You're not going to college to get educated. You're going there to get trained." Both authors make the point that "training" strips the individual of his racial identity.

In To Teach, Ayers recounts the story of an ambitious teacher who takes her students out to the streets of New York to learn about its culture and history. These students ask to see the nearby Hudson River. When they get to the river's edge, one student says, " Look, the river is flowing up." A second student says, "No, it has to flow south-down." Upon further research, the teacher discovers "that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push."

In Dreams, written two years later, Obama takes an unlikely detour to the exact spot on the parallel East River where the north-flowing tide meets the south-flowing river. There, improbably, a young black boy approaches this strange man and asks, "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?" Obama tells the boy it "had to do with the tides."

For the literary left, the fact that Ayers helped Obama would be a less troubling revelation than that Obama needed help at all. They have built a foundational myth around his genius, a genius that can be located only in Dreams. The dark side of the Democrat genius mythology, of course, is the Republican dunce mythology of which Sarah Palin and George Bush are the most recent victims.

There is thus a logic to the left's willful blindness. Why the literary right has accepted this charade continues to baffle me.

A Modern-Day Noah

2009-06-01T14:10:00.001-07:00

Click below to see why a modern-day Noah would fail...

Click here: NOAHTODAY

Quote of the Week

2009-06-01T13:53:00.000-07:00

"If increased government spending with borrowed or newly created money is a "stimulus," then the Weimar Republic should have been stimulated to unprecedented prosperity, instead of runaway inflation and widespread economic desperation that ultimately brought Adolf Hitler to power." - Thomas Sowell May 26, 2009

Obama Enemy's List?

2009-06-01T13:50:00.000-07:00

Did An Obama Enemy's List Play A Role In Decision To Close Chrysler Dealerships?

Indiana Chrysler dealers who recently got word that the bankrupt auto dealer had decided to close their dealerships should be pondering whether their past political donations to Republicans played a role in their fate.

Blogger Doug Ross' analysis of the list of closed dealerships indicates that dealers who have contributed a lot of money to Republican candidates in the past didn't fare so well. Ross' initial post is supported by anecdotes published on other blogs.

Indianapolis' Kevin and Gene Beltz are listed as contributing $18,500 to Republican candidates according to Ross. Gene Beltz Shadeland Dodge, owned by the Beltz family, is on the closure list. Michael Leep's South Bend dealership is being closed. He has contributed $19,500 to Republican candidates, along with a few thousand dollars to Evan Bayh and other Democrats, according to Ross.

The reaction of some of the dealers on the closure list nationally suggests that there were factors other than the dealership's financial track record at play. Even very profitable dealers were axed. The administration of Barack Obama is exercising unprecedented power over the auto industry in the wake of Chrysler's and GM's financial meltdowns.

Obama is dictating the terms of Chrysler's bankruptcy to the disappointment of many creditors and other interested parties.

Obama: Comparisons to Reagan

2009-06-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

Here are a few comparisons between President B.O. and President Reagan...

- Under Reagan, the deficit peaked at $236 billion in 1983 (reduced to $141 billion by 1989).

- Obama is generating a $1.8 trillion deficit in his first year.

- Ronald Reagan increased the deficit by 35 percent in eight years, whereas Barack Obama has increased the deficit by 450 percent in eight weeks.

- Reagan created an extra $37 billion in annual deficit. Mr. Obama has already created an extra $1.4 trillion in annual deficit.

- Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t create the deficit. Tax revenues actually boomed from roughly $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989.

What did Reagan do about the October 1987 crash? Basically nothing — certainly nothing like a massive government “stimulus.” “Some people are talking of panic,” Reagan calmly confided to his diary. “Chrmn. of Stock Exchange is acting very upset.”

Those are Reagan’s only diary references to the financial crisis. With the economy freed, he was confident it would bounce back, and it did.

Source:Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.and Paul Kengor - professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. Wednesday, April 08, 2009 Copyright 2009 The Bulletin; All Rights Reserved

The Revolution is Going Well

2009-05-27T15:39:00.000-07:00

rev-o-lu-tion - an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

That's right: we are smack in the middle of a revolution. Barack Obama, the puppet, is the front man for a complete repudiation of the American political system. David Axelrod, Rahm Emanual, William Ayers and others, funded by George Soros, are the puppeteers.

To date, the Obama puppeteers have taken control of the U.S. banking system, have controlling interest in most of the domestic auto industry, and have set the country up for virtual insolvency, inflation, or both with their profligate spending.

Now, in Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's puppeteers have nominated a Socialist to the Supreme Court. Above is an image of her listing in her Princeton yearbook. The quote accompanying her listing reads, "I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won."

It is from Norman Thomas, an avowed Socialist and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, who is also famous for the following quote:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

Under the leadership of Barack Obama's handlers, America is on a fast track to Socialism, and Sonia Sotomayor is the latest evidence of that fact.

Is Anyone Paying Attention?

2009-05-20T07:33:00.001-07:00

So-called "climate change" is the straw man that the Obama administration is using to gut the auto industry and cripple the oil industry. And in the name of what: destruction of the entire U.S. economy? What a concept!

And what do they propose as the replacement for all of the lost jobs? So-called "green jobs"? Don't bet on it. There will be fewer of them, they will all be federally subsidized, and they will pay much less than current jobs. You can't dismantle two entire industries without massive job displacement.

This starry-eyed liberal president and his lilliputian utopian nut cases live in a theoretical world that doesn't work. It just looks good on paper.

A your next car will cost you $800-$1,300 more than your last one just to pay for this ridiculous and unnecessary legislation...

Obama takes aim at climate-warming car emissions

By John Whitesides
May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama took aim at climate-warming greenhouse gases on Tuesday and ordered the struggling auto industry to make more fuel-efficient cars under tough new national standards to cut emissions and increase gas mileage.

Obama said the standards, announced at a White House ceremony attended by auto industry and union leaders, would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and give five years of cost certainty to an industry battling to survive.

"The status quo is no longer acceptable," Obama said in an announcement that will pressure carmakers to transform and modernize the industry to produce more efficient vehicles.

"We have done little to increase fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks for decades," he said, calling the standards the start of a transition to a clean energy economy.

Obama has made fighting climate change a priority, and lawmakers in Congress have begun wrangling over a historic bill many hope will provide broader guidelines for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

Growing public support for efforts to battle climate change and the weakened state of the U.S. auto industry, which is staying afloat through federal bailouts and restructuring at the government's direction, gave Obama a window of opportunity to impose the rules.

Criticism of Obama's announcement was limited, and focused on the higher production costs, the safety concerns created by producing lighter cars and fears from some observers about increasing government involvement in the industry.

"The government is now designing our cars. It's out of the hands of vehicle manufacturers," said auto industry consultant Larry Rinek.

Under the new standards, U.S. passenger vehicles and light trucks must average 35.5 miles per gallon (6.62 litres/100km) by 2016. The current law, approved by the Bush administration, requires a similar gain by 2020.

Obama said the new standards would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the program -- the equivalent of taking 58 million cars off the road for a year.

The Environmental Protection Agency would regulate and reduce tailpipe emissions for the first time under the standards.

The U.S. Congress does not have to approve the standards, which will be implemented through rules developed by the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, which could take more than a year to complete.

HIGHER PRICE TAGS FOR CONSUMERS
The plan was praised by automakers, environmentalists and an array of politicians, but it will mean higher price tags for consumers. The new program will add about $1,300 to the price of producing a vehicle.

Obama said car buyers would recoup the money with the lower fuel costs realized under more efficient mileage standards.

"This is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car," he said. "Over the life of a vehicle, the typical driver would save about $2,800 by getting better gas mileage."

The plan could cut deeply into voracious U.S. gasoline demand, dealing another blow to a refining sector hard hit by recession and bracing for more climate legislation.

The White House announcement came as U.S. gasoline prices soared for the second week in a row, with the latest pump cost up 7 cents over the previous week to $2.31 a gallon amid signs of an easing of the recession.

Obama was flanked at the ceremony by executives from 10 automakers and labor leaders. Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, whose state includes the capital of the beleaguered auto industry, Detroit, also attended and embraced the plan for giving the industry cost certainty by setting a uniform national standard.

The plan resolves a long-running dispute between the government and California, which sought a waiver from federal law to impose its own tough standards on emissions. That could have led to a patchwork of different state regulations.

Obama said a series of lawsuits tied to California's efforts would be dropped. California would save money by avoiding the need for a special state compliance program.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who attended the announcement, told reporters the weekend negotiations on the plan were "very intense."

"Then all of a sudden it all clicked and it came together," he said. "It really was a huge battle and the president has brought everyone together and now we're marching forward in the same direction."

The proposal is aimed at cutting climate-warming carbon emissions, which would fall by 900 million metric tons or more than 30 percent over the life of the program.

What is Obama Hiding?

2009-05-18T13:40:00.000-07:00

Is America an unwitting victim of The Big Lie?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. Any articles he published as editor of the Harvard Law Review -- Not available
14. Any articles he published as a professor at the University of Chicago -- Not available

The Chicago political machine has been grooming Barack Obama for the presidency for many years. If you like Chicago politics - the most corrupt political system in America - he's your man!

The Inimitable Nancy Pelosi

2009-05-18T10:14:00.000-07:00

In response to the passing of Barack Obama's stupendous, red ink, budget, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "Today, for the first time in many, many years, we have a president's budget that is a statement of our national values."

David Axelrod: The Obama Doctrine Architect

2009-05-18T10:12:00.000-07:00

Shortly after the successful Tax Day Tea Parties gave a loud voice to thousand and thousand of upset taxpayers, David Axelrod went on TV and called those rallies "unhealthy."

That's right. When a government takes unprecedented ownership into private businesses, spends trillions of dollars on bailouts, and increasingly grows the size of government while the private market shrinks, the senior adviser to the President thinks it's "unhealthy" for taxpayers to express their displeasure with the overreaching government.

Watch this video for more details.

Teddy Roosevelt Got It Right

2009-05-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

They are among us....

2009-05-18T10:06:00.000-07:00

...and they vote!

The Real Cause of the Housing Crisis

2009-05-18T07:42:00.000-07:00

I've been a fan of Thomas Sowell since the early 90s when I read his brilliant book, "The Vision of the Anointed", a treatise on liberalism. Here he places the blame on the housing crisis right where it belongs...

Thomas Sowell: Regulators Started Housing Crisis

May 17, 2009

Respected economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, author of the new book "The Housing Boom and Bust," tells Newsmax that the current housing crisis can be blamed on pressure from government officials seeking to remedy a "problem that didn't exist."

Dr. Sowell also said politicians' stated concern about that so-called problem — a lack of affordable housing — is "a farce."

Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter asked Sowell what caused the "house of cards" in the housing market to collapse.

"The most fundamental thing is that the money that was normally paid for monthly housing payments stopped coming in, or stopped coming in in the volumes that it had in the past," said Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

"The question then is, why did that happen? And the reason that happened was that banks and other lending institutions began lending to people who did not meet the traditional standards for mortgage loans, but were given those loans under pressure from government regulators, and even in some cases under threats from the Department of Justice if their statistics didn't match what the Department of Justice thought they should be — for example, in terms of income levels, race, what communities they invested in, and so on."

Walter noted that Sowell asserts in his book that politicians in Washington were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist.

"The problem that didn't exist was a national problem of unaffordable housing," Sowell explained.

"The housing in particular areas, particularly coastal California and some other areas around the country, were just astronomically high. It was not uncommon for people to have to pay half of their family income just to put a roof over their head. So that was a very serious problem where it existed.

"But it existed in various coastal communities primarily and a couple of other places. Unfortunately, the elites whose strongholds are on the East and West Coasts don't seem to understand that there's a whole country in between, and in most of that country housing was quite affordable by all historical standards.

"So they set out to solve the problem by setting up a federal program to bring down the mortgage requirements, the 20 percent down payment and that sort of thing, and by forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up those mortgages from the people who no longer had to meet the same requirements.

"The banks had no choice but to go along because the regulators controlled their fate. So the banks would simply sign up people, and sell the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It now became Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's problem. And that meant it became the taxpayers' problem."

Walter asked: "Who is really responsible for all this?"

"There are a lot of people who were irresponsible," Sowell responded.

"But the fundamental problem, the problem of reduced lending standards, with people buying houses even with no money down in some cases, that all came precisely from the regulators that people are now talking about as the salvation of the housing market.

"There's no such thing as regulation in the abstract. There are certain kinds of regulation that can have beneficial effects. Canada does not have the same problem that we have even though they have regulations. But their regulators are trying to make sure that the banks and other lending institutions are obeying clear-cut rules. Ours were trying to produce higher statistics on home ownership in general, and in particular trying to reduce the gap between low-income people and high-income people, blacks and whites, et cetera."

Walter asked what Americans can do to ensure that the housing boom and bust will not happen again.

"First and foremost the voters have to learn to be skeptical and to find out what the facts are," Sowell said.

"There is not the slightest incentive for a politician to behave better in the future. If voters don't understand that, it's going to happen again.

"This is the worst housing crisis we've had but it is not the first. This very same drive to increase home ownership occurred under the Republicans in the '20s. It occurred under the Democrats in the '30s, and it occurred under both parties in the '40s and '50s.

"There is not the slightest incentive for politicians to learn from their mistakes because they pay no price for it. And they'll never pay a price for it as long as the voters don't make an effort to find out what is going on."

Sowell added: "I see absolutely no reason why politicians should take charge of which way prices go. That's precisely what led to the current disaster. . .

"When you realize how long politicians have been talking about a need for affordable housing, you realize what a farce it is."

Editor’s Note: To see the full Thomas Sowell interview, Go Here Now.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Pelosi's Lie

2009-05-17T10:12:00.000-07:00

Here's the truth about Pelosi's lie...

Click on the link to see the 10-page briefing memo from the CIA. At the top of that list is the lying Speaker of the House. Please note that the CIA briefers specifically discussed the enhanced interrogation techniques used.

http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/EIT%20Briefings.pdf

Something Doesn't Pass The Smell Test

2009-05-15T13:01:00.000-07:00

Is Obama Hiding His Birth Certificate?

Newsmax.com
April 6, 2009

By: Barry Farber

John Dean, a President Nixon staffer as Watergate was about to unfold, told his boss, "There is a cancer on your presidency."

Would any member of President Obama's staff dare tell him any such thing today?

Watergate was Nixon's 800-pound gorilla everybody talked about, who sat there until he broke the sofa. The location of Obama's birth is an 800-pound gorilla that gets fatter every day and nobody — at least nobody in major media — likes to admit its existence. There's never been a coming-together of factors resembling this one in America's entire political history.

At no point until now has the birthplace of a president been anything more than a local chamber-of-commerce item of pride (where I come, from they're still arguing whether President James Polk was born in Tennessee or North Carolina!). All of a sudden the question of President Obama's birth place threatens to undermine his very eligibility to serve, and to toss America into a constitutional crisis of unfathomable proportions.

In-depth journalism here would instinctively immerse itself in the growing blizzard of lawsuits launched by activists seeking "standing" (Do you have the right to question the president's eligibility to serve?) and writs of certiorari (Hey, Court! Will you please hear this case?). In-depth journalism would detail how many and who in which states are making the pile of challenges zoom.

In-depth journalism would distinguish between the challenges to President Obama's legitimacy on grounds of his alleged birth in Kenya versus his alleged status as a British subject by virtue of his father's citizenship. That's what in-depth journalism would do.

This may sound strange, but I believe this is a time for simple — even superficial — journalism. Let's keep the flight deck as uncluttered as possible and stick to what we all know for sure.

The Constitution insists that the president be a natural-born American. We have the president's paternal grandmother claiming she was present at his birth in Kenya, and we have a TV talk host named Keith Olbermann who tells those who say things like that to put the Reynolds Wrap back on their heads. We have no proof that Grandma was there or that Obama doubters like to wear Reynolds Wrap on their heads.

We know a few facts for certain. And our knowledge is disturbing. We know that President Obama is either covering up the truth of his birthplace or, and this is an Olympic stretch, refusing to offer proof because of some unstated "principle." I recall many college post-midnight bull-sessions debating whether taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination was really anything but an admission of guilt bathed in a hoped-for constitutional respectability. The "admission of guilt" side won every time.

The "grandmother-was-there" story really began before the election. The scenario goes as follows: His mother wanted to fly from Kenya to Hawaii so she could give birth in Hawaii, but she was too pregnant to fly. She therefore gave birth in Kenya and later had Barack registered in Hawaii.

We've not been allowed to see the president's birth certificate. Instead we've been offered something nobody ever heard of called a "certificate of live birth" from the state of Hawaii. If all this culminates in the revelation that Barack Obama is not, in fact, eligible to serve as president of the USA, this will go down as his team's biggest mistake.

The American people may not be all we used to be, but we're not yet ready to roll over and smile at the sight of a confection designed to masquerade as a birth certificate while we're being angrily denied a look at the real thing.

Do a little thought-experiment. Let's talk "probably."

If the president were unjustly accused of being ineligible to serve and the chorus became nationally audible, what would he probably do?

Probably what would happen would be the press secretary would talk to a subordinate five layers down and instruct him to talk to a subordinate another five layers down (the coffee-fetching level) and instruct him to have copies of the president's birth certificate — nothing else, please — printed and made available at the next White House news conference. That's a mosquito swat too small to make anybody's memoirs.

That’s quite far from what's happening.

We're getting nothing but angry cries of "garbage" from the administration whenever anybody dares hint at a problem or even a question. And the entire press corps seems to be in an intimidation hammerlock. Look how successfully the administration has handled this. Not only is the birth certificate issue taboo but also we’re not allowed to see Obama's applications to Columbia and Harvard.

Such forms may have inconvenient answers to questions like, "Citizenship?” "Place of birth?" etc. Yet none of the working reporters dares say anything about any of this. And if one ever did, he would be pounced upon and devoured, not by the administration piranhas, but by their own brother and sister journalists.

How can the White House press corps refrain from any such questioning and then look at their faces in a mirror while shaving or applying mascara?

Disclosure: I don't care where an American president was born. I do care about the Constitution. A businessman who keep two sets of books goes to jail. It's worse when a country lists which laws we must obey and which we're free to ignore.

In the fairy tale, a 6-year-old boy brought the regime down by saying, "The emperor has no clothes!"

Trouble is, they don't allow 6-year-olds in White House news conferences.

The Numbers Don't Lie

2009-05-15T12:44:00.000-07:00

Digging a Deeper Budgetary Hole

Mike Larson
Weiss Research

For the first time since 1983, the Treasury ran a DEFICIT in April. It racked up $20.9 billion in red ink. That was worse than economists were expecting ... worse than the Congressional Budget Office had forecast ... and a huge, huge shift from a year earlier when Treasury recorded a SURPLUS of $159.3 billion.

What happened? Simple. Uncle Sam spent money he didn't have!

Government spending surged 17.5 percent year-over-year, while revenue plunged 34.1 percent. You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to know that's a recipe for disaster.

The budget deficit for the current fiscal year is now running at $802.3 billion. That compares to $153.5 billion this time last year. In other words, we've ALREADY dug a budget hole that's more than five times as deep as the one in 2008!

The administration was just forced to raise its 2009 budget deficit estimate to $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the outlook it shared just two months earlier. And the 2010 deficit estimate jumped 7.4 percent to $1.26 trillion. This means we're running a deficit equal to a whopping 12.9 percent of the U.S. economy ... the highest in 64 years!

A Navy Pilot Dispenses The Truth About "Torture"

2009-05-15T07:12:00.000-07:00

The Master of Illusion

2009-05-15T06:53:00.000-07:00

Is this man certifiably insane or just another slick politician who is a master of the misdirection play? Earlier this week his administration announced an annual deficit that is FOUR TIMES as much as last year's deficit under Bush, and yesterday he says this...

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

This is precisely what ALL conservatives in America have been saying since his misguided Stimulus B.S. bill was proposed in January!

My bet? He's a well practiced liar who is very adept at saying one thing while doing quite the opposite. If he really believed what he just said, he wouldn't have MORTGAGED OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE!