In this audio Obama coldly claims two doctors helping a baby born alive after a botched abortion would be a burden for the aborting mother when he is arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Illinois state legislature April 2002...
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama's "New New Deal" -- and YOUR Money
Obama's "New New Deal" -- and YOUR Money
Ann Coulter
Dear Fellow Conservative,
You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)
They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!
Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.
Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?
Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.
That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.
But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.
But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?
Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.
His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.
Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.
Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."
Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:
* Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
* And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.
* And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.
* And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
* And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.
What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.
And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.
After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.
Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.
The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
P.S. My friend Dr. Mark Skousen has just identified 7 "Obama-Proof" investments to help you survive -- and thrive -- during the presidency of "The One We Have Been Waiting For." It's all part of a FREE Investor's Dossier Dr. Skousen has prepared called "Obamanomics and Your Money."
Click here to learn more
Desperate nutroots unite to drive Dems even further towards Socialism!
Bloggers and Unions Join Forces to Push Democrats to Left
By JIM RUTENBERG - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — A group of liberal bloggers said it was teaming up with organized labor and MoveOn.org to form a political action committee that would seek to push the Democratic Party further to the left.
Soliciting donations from their readers, the bloggers said they were planning to recruit liberal candidates to challenge more centrist Democrats currently in Congress.
The formation of the group is another step in the evolution of the blogosphere, which has proven effective at motivating party activists to give money and time to political campaigns, especially in local races.
But it also illuminates a deepening wrinkle for President Obama, whose attempt to build a broad governing coalition — often by tempering some of his more liberal positions — has already angered some of his supporters on the left.
The new organization is in many ways the liberal equivalent of the Club for Growth, a conservative group that has financed primary challenges against Republicans it deems insufficiently dedicated to tax cuts and small government.
Organizers of the new group, called Accountability Now, said their intention was to enable Mr. Obama to seek more liberal policies without fear of losing support from the more conservative members of his party serving in Congress. But they did not rule out occasional friction with Mr. Obama, as well.
“We’re going to be about targeting incumbents to make space for Obama to be more progressive,” said Glenn Greenwald, a blogger on the online magazine Salon who is part of the effort. “There may be other times when the Democratic Party, as led by Obama, is being unresponsive, so yeah, we have the potential to push back against that as well.”
Another founder of the group, Jane Hamsher, of the blog firedoglake.com, said Accountability Now might also involve itself in Republican primary contests, though the focus for now seemed to be primarily on the Democratic side.
Left-leaning bloggers have already proven themselves influential in Congressional races, most notably providing muscle for the movement that helped Ned Lamont defeat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006. (Mr. Lieberman retained his seat after winning the general election as an independent.)
But organizers said the new political action committee would be the start of a more organized and concentrated approach.
Ms. Hamsher said Accountability Now — which will also have support from the Service Employees International Union, one of the nation’s largest service sector unions, and the Web site DailyKos.com — would concentrate more fully on candidate recruitment on a statewide level.
“We’ve gone out to the state blogs asking them to put together research on people who they think are good candidates who should be on our radar,” she said. “We’re not just parachuting in.”
She added that the group had not yet settled on specific races.
The political action committee will formally start up on Friday. Organizers said they already had $500,000 in their bank account, money that was raised over a short period in September when several blogs solicited donations. Organizers said they expected to collect far more than that when they start fund-raising in earnest next month.
Source: here.
By JIM RUTENBERG - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — A group of liberal bloggers said it was teaming up with organized labor and MoveOn.org to form a political action committee that would seek to push the Democratic Party further to the left.
Soliciting donations from their readers, the bloggers said they were planning to recruit liberal candidates to challenge more centrist Democrats currently in Congress.
The formation of the group is another step in the evolution of the blogosphere, which has proven effective at motivating party activists to give money and time to political campaigns, especially in local races.
But it also illuminates a deepening wrinkle for President Obama, whose attempt to build a broad governing coalition — often by tempering some of his more liberal positions — has already angered some of his supporters on the left.
The new organization is in many ways the liberal equivalent of the Club for Growth, a conservative group that has financed primary challenges against Republicans it deems insufficiently dedicated to tax cuts and small government.
Organizers of the new group, called Accountability Now, said their intention was to enable Mr. Obama to seek more liberal policies without fear of losing support from the more conservative members of his party serving in Congress. But they did not rule out occasional friction with Mr. Obama, as well.
“We’re going to be about targeting incumbents to make space for Obama to be more progressive,” said Glenn Greenwald, a blogger on the online magazine Salon who is part of the effort. “There may be other times when the Democratic Party, as led by Obama, is being unresponsive, so yeah, we have the potential to push back against that as well.”
Another founder of the group, Jane Hamsher, of the blog firedoglake.com, said Accountability Now might also involve itself in Republican primary contests, though the focus for now seemed to be primarily on the Democratic side.
Left-leaning bloggers have already proven themselves influential in Congressional races, most notably providing muscle for the movement that helped Ned Lamont defeat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006. (Mr. Lieberman retained his seat after winning the general election as an independent.)
But organizers said the new political action committee would be the start of a more organized and concentrated approach.
Ms. Hamsher said Accountability Now — which will also have support from the Service Employees International Union, one of the nation’s largest service sector unions, and the Web site DailyKos.com — would concentrate more fully on candidate recruitment on a statewide level.
“We’ve gone out to the state blogs asking them to put together research on people who they think are good candidates who should be on our radar,” she said. “We’re not just parachuting in.”
She added that the group had not yet settled on specific races.
The political action committee will formally start up on Friday. Organizers said they already had $500,000 in their bank account, money that was raised over a short period in September when several blogs solicited donations. Organizers said they expected to collect far more than that when they start fund-raising in earnest next month.
Source: here.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First Time
February 24, 2009
Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First Time
Fifty-nine percent now approve as more express no opinion on his performance by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.
To date, Obama has averaged 64% approval, but, as the graph shows, there has been a slight but perceptible decline in his approval rating since he took office. This decline has largely occurred among Republicans.
The drop below 60% approval within the past week -- from 63% in Feb. 18-20 polling to 59% in Feb. 21-23 polling -- has mostly come among independents. Late last week, 62% of independents approved of Obama, compared with 54% in the last three days. His approval rating among Democrats has dipped slightly (but not to a statistically significant degree), while approval among Republicans has not changed.
While Obama's overall approval rating has fallen by four percentage points in recent days (from 63% in Feb. 18-20 polling to the current 59%), his disapproval rating has been steady (24% in Feb. 18-20 polling to the current 25%). Rather, the percentage of Americans without an opinion of his job performance has increased, from 13% to 16%. In essence, Americans in recent days are becoming increasingly unsure about how Obama is doing, rather than becoming more critical.
As the table suggests, most of the movement among independents in recent days has been from the approval to the no opinion category. And his disapproval rating has dropped among Republicans, with a concomitant increase in no opinion. Thus, Americans' assessments of Obama are in a period of flux.
Given that Obama is addressing the nation tonight, he has a tremendous opportunity to convert Americans who are now on the fence -- in addition to those who now disapprove of him -- into supporters. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows Americans are most interested in hearing about economic matters, particularly how Obama will address unemployment, the mortgage crisis, and how the economic stimulus package will be administered.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,553 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 21-23, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Source: Here.
Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First Time
Fifty-nine percent now approve as more express no opinion on his performance by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.
To date, Obama has averaged 64% approval, but, as the graph shows, there has been a slight but perceptible decline in his approval rating since he took office. This decline has largely occurred among Republicans.
The drop below 60% approval within the past week -- from 63% in Feb. 18-20 polling to 59% in Feb. 21-23 polling -- has mostly come among independents. Late last week, 62% of independents approved of Obama, compared with 54% in the last three days. His approval rating among Democrats has dipped slightly (but not to a statistically significant degree), while approval among Republicans has not changed.
While Obama's overall approval rating has fallen by four percentage points in recent days (from 63% in Feb. 18-20 polling to the current 59%), his disapproval rating has been steady (24% in Feb. 18-20 polling to the current 25%). Rather, the percentage of Americans without an opinion of his job performance has increased, from 13% to 16%. In essence, Americans in recent days are becoming increasingly unsure about how Obama is doing, rather than becoming more critical.
As the table suggests, most of the movement among independents in recent days has been from the approval to the no opinion category. And his disapproval rating has dropped among Republicans, with a concomitant increase in no opinion. Thus, Americans' assessments of Obama are in a period of flux.
Given that Obama is addressing the nation tonight, he has a tremendous opportunity to convert Americans who are now on the fence -- in addition to those who now disapprove of him -- into supporters. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows Americans are most interested in hearing about economic matters, particularly how Obama will address unemployment, the mortgage crisis, and how the economic stimulus package will be administered.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,553 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 21-23, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Source: Here.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Families launch ad against release of Gitmo terrorist
Military Families Group Launches Ad Against Release of Binyam Mohamed
February 23, 2009 5:28 PM
With a buy it says is in the mid six figure range, the group Military Families United says it will launch a new TV ad, as soon as tomorrow night, on national cable stations.
The add features no spoken words, but rather very spooky music and images of court documents as these words are typed on the screen: "Binyam Mohamed. Enemy Combatant #1458. Alias: Talba al Kini, Fouad Zouaoui, Binyam Ahmed Mohammad, John Samuels.
"Trained in Al-Qaeda camps to use weapons and create explosives. Given money by Al-Qaeda leaders to fly to the United States. Arrested trying to leave Pakistan.
"In February 2009: Enemy Combatant #1458, RELEASED."
The screen goes black.
Then: "Tell the White House: Don't release terrorists. Sign the petition today. www.DontFreeTerrorists.com. Paid for by Military Families United. "
The group has also launched this internet petition.
The White House had no comment, though earlier today, asked for comment on Mohamed's release, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "the President made a decision at the beginning of his administration to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay and to start a process of evaluating the detainees there in accordance with his solemn obligation to do all that he can to keep our country safe, to do it in a way that protects our men and women in uniform, and does so in accordance with our American values. That process, as you know, is ongoing. In terms of the specifics related to Mr. Mohamed's case, I would point you to the Department of Justice. But the President feels confident that the process that his administration has undertaken will yield results that keep us safer."
February 23, 2009 5:28 PM
With a buy it says is in the mid six figure range, the group Military Families United says it will launch a new TV ad, as soon as tomorrow night, on national cable stations.
The add features no spoken words, but rather very spooky music and images of court documents as these words are typed on the screen: "Binyam Mohamed. Enemy Combatant #1458. Alias: Talba al Kini, Fouad Zouaoui, Binyam Ahmed Mohammad, John Samuels.
"Trained in Al-Qaeda camps to use weapons and create explosives. Given money by Al-Qaeda leaders to fly to the United States. Arrested trying to leave Pakistan.
"In February 2009: Enemy Combatant #1458, RELEASED."
The screen goes black.
Then: "Tell the White House: Don't release terrorists. Sign the petition today. www.DontFreeTerrorists.com. Paid for by Military Families United. "
The group has also launched this internet petition.
The White House had no comment, though earlier today, asked for comment on Mohamed's release, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "the President made a decision at the beginning of his administration to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay and to start a process of evaluating the detainees there in accordance with his solemn obligation to do all that he can to keep our country safe, to do it in a way that protects our men and women in uniform, and does so in accordance with our American values. That process, as you know, is ongoing. In terms of the specifics related to Mr. Mohamed's case, I would point you to the Department of Justice. But the President feels confident that the process that his administration has undertaken will yield results that keep us safer."
Terrorist Ayers is just a little pissed off at his best friend Obama! Oops!
Alan Colmes recently taped an exclusive interview with Bill Ayers – and tonight, for the first time since Hannity & Colmes – Alan will appear on-set with Sean to discuss and air the interview (tonight on Hannity, 9:00pm ET on FNC).
Some highlights from the interview include:
Ayers on President Obama sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan:
“It's a mistake. It's a colossal mistake. And, you know, we've seen this happen before, Alan. We've seen a hopeful presidency, Lyndon Johnson's presidency, burn up in the furnace of war.”
“I fear that this brilliant young man, this hopeful new administration, could easily burn their prospect of a great presidency in the war in Afghanistan or elsewhere.”
On setting bombs as part of the Weather Underground:
“I don't regret anything I did it to oppose the war. It was -- I did it to oppose the war. I don't regret it.”
“I don't look back on those things and regret them, but I'm willing to rethink them. And there are many things which I'm going to rethink.”
http://tinyurl.com/c736s4
Related:
Subject: Obama OKs 17,000 more Afghanistan troops
WASHINGTON — CODEPINK Women for Peace is heartbroken and discouraged by President Obama’s decision to deploy an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, a screeching halt to his rhetoric for change and moving our country in a new direction.
CODEPINK women call on Obama and his administration to reject a proven-false military solution, and call for a surge in diplomacy and humanitarian aid and an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
“It makes no sense to appoint Richard Holbrooke to find a way out of the Afghan quagmire while sending 17,000 more troops,” said Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK co-founder. “You can’t do diplomacy while widening the war. We must freeze the number of troops, engage in immediate diplomatic efforts — with Afghan women at the table — and then replace our military mission with a humanitarian, reconstruction mission. That would reflect the change the American people voted for.
==
Wonder will Code Pinko picket the Whitehouse?
Wonder if they did, would the left wing media cover it as well as it has covered
the Afgan Surge so far? If so, then nobody will know about it...
Some highlights from the interview include:
Ayers on President Obama sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan:
“It's a mistake. It's a colossal mistake. And, you know, we've seen this happen before, Alan. We've seen a hopeful presidency, Lyndon Johnson's presidency, burn up in the furnace of war.”
“I fear that this brilliant young man, this hopeful new administration, could easily burn their prospect of a great presidency in the war in Afghanistan or elsewhere.”
On setting bombs as part of the Weather Underground:
“I don't regret anything I did it to oppose the war. It was -- I did it to oppose the war. I don't regret it.”
“I don't look back on those things and regret them, but I'm willing to rethink them. And there are many things which I'm going to rethink.”
http://tinyurl.com/c736s4
Related:
Subject: Obama OKs 17,000 more Afghanistan troops
WASHINGTON — CODEPINK Women for Peace is heartbroken and discouraged by President Obama’s decision to deploy an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, a screeching halt to his rhetoric for change and moving our country in a new direction.
CODEPINK women call on Obama and his administration to reject a proven-false military solution, and call for a surge in diplomacy and humanitarian aid and an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
“It makes no sense to appoint Richard Holbrooke to find a way out of the Afghan quagmire while sending 17,000 more troops,” said Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK co-founder. “You can’t do diplomacy while widening the war. We must freeze the number of troops, engage in immediate diplomatic efforts — with Afghan women at the table — and then replace our military mission with a humanitarian, reconstruction mission. That would reflect the change the American people voted for.
==
Wonder will Code Pinko picket the Whitehouse?
Wonder if they did, would the left wing media cover it as well as it has covered
the Afgan Surge so far? If so, then nobody will know about it...
Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy among other major issues!
The controversy over the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate is back on a burner with firebrand conservative Alan Keyes making serious new charges.
In a video (see below) released Friday, Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois that launched the new president's national political career, calls Obama a communist and usurper and says he refuses to acknowledge the validity of Obama's inauguration over lingering questions in the minds of many conspiracists about the 44th president's birthplace.
The U.S. Constitution requires any president be born an American citizen.
In June, the Obama campaign released to The Ticket a copy of the then-senator's Hawaiian birth certificate (see the jump below and also here). But stubbornly persistent critics demand to see the original, which the state has refused to provide, citing personal privacy reasons.
And the critics, including Keyes explaining here, cite Obama relatives in Kenya as saying he was actually born there in his father's native land when his American mother was too young to pass on her U.S. citizenship.
In December, as The Ticket reported here, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a New Jersey lawsuit seeking to bar Obama's inauguration due to questions over his actual citizenship. The Obama camp has proceeded normally as if there was no controversy.
Obviously, the inauguration proceeded, although on the advice of White House counsel as a precaution against a verbal muff during the noontime Jan. 20 public ceremony, Obama did take the presidential oath again that night in private with Chief Justice John Roberts. His White House lawyer feared igniting another simmering legal controversy if there was any doubt about the oath's validity, although the Constitution stipulates the new president takes office at noon no matter what.
However, the dispute over his birthplace continues. Listen here to Keyes' rather strong language.
Source: That bastion of Conservativism - The LA Times
Watch video, then comment... If you care to...
In a video (see below) released Friday, Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois that launched the new president's national political career, calls Obama a communist and usurper and says he refuses to acknowledge the validity of Obama's inauguration over lingering questions in the minds of many conspiracists about the 44th president's birthplace.
The U.S. Constitution requires any president be born an American citizen.
In June, the Obama campaign released to The Ticket a copy of the then-senator's Hawaiian birth certificate (see the jump below and also here). But stubbornly persistent critics demand to see the original, which the state has refused to provide, citing personal privacy reasons.
And the critics, including Keyes explaining here, cite Obama relatives in Kenya as saying he was actually born there in his father's native land when his American mother was too young to pass on her U.S. citizenship.
In December, as The Ticket reported here, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a New Jersey lawsuit seeking to bar Obama's inauguration due to questions over his actual citizenship. The Obama camp has proceeded normally as if there was no controversy.
Obviously, the inauguration proceeded, although on the advice of White House counsel as a precaution against a verbal muff during the noontime Jan. 20 public ceremony, Obama did take the presidential oath again that night in private with Chief Justice John Roberts. His White House lawyer feared igniting another simmering legal controversy if there was any doubt about the oath's validity, although the Constitution stipulates the new president takes office at noon no matter what.
However, the dispute over his birthplace continues. Listen here to Keyes' rather strong language.
Source: That bastion of Conservativism - The LA Times
Watch video, then comment... If you care to...
CNBC's Santelli Calls For New "Tea Party" On Trading Floor
CNBC's Rick Santelli lashed out at President Obama's stimulus plan on Chicago's trading floor this morning. He was lauded by applause by other traders.
An instant classic...rick captures the mood of the country!
Santelli asked traders on the floor: "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (no hands raised, lots of booing) President Obama, are you listening?"
President Obama are you listening????
Rant of the year!
Watch here:
(Fri, 20 Feb 2009)
An instant classic...rick captures the mood of the country!
Santelli asked traders on the floor: "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (no hands raised, lots of booing) President Obama, are you listening?"
President Obama are you listening????
Rant of the year!
Watch here:
(Fri, 20 Feb 2009)
New AG Holder: When it comes to race, America is a “nation of cowards”
So saith the first black Attorney General, appointed by the black president we cowardly Americans just elected — which, last time I checked, is one more than any European country’s ever elected — during a speech honoring America’s officially recognized Black History Month. The key bit comes about a minute in. There’s nothing shocking about this, unless it’s how pedestrian it is. It’s the same old nonsense about having an “honest” conversation on race, which typically means agreeing root and branch with the leftist position on any policy issue that touches that subject (e.g., illegal immigration) on penalty of being called a racist. The boss notes the irony of Holder uncorking this on a day when “civil rights leader” Al Sharpton is demagoging the hell out of the New York Post for an innocent cartoon, but there’s an irony even more sublime here: Obama himself did everything he could to avoid race during the campaign — aside from the occasional insinuation that McCain’s a bigot — until the Wright uproar forced his hand. He could have used his platform to push the issue front and center but he decided he’d rather get elected. Holder owes his job to that, ahem, cowardice.
You can watch the whole clip here:
You can watch the whole clip here:
1 million dollars every day for 2000 years STILL wouldn't cover it!
The amount of money wasted by Congress (Dems + the Porkulus 3) and Obama in the recent "stimulus bill"... And what do you get for it?
Watch and learn: A video by the American Issues Project:
If this stimulus fails, Obama is a one term President and so far, it's not looking good... The Dow is on a 7 year low... Change we can believe in?
Watch and learn: A video by the American Issues Project:
If this stimulus fails, Obama is a one term President and so far, it's not looking good... The Dow is on a 7 year low... Change we can believe in?
Glenn Beck takes on a real American Socialist - and owns him!
Glenn Beck of Fox News fame, debates Frank Llewellyn of the Democratic Socialists of America. The largest Socialist group in America. Beck owns this guy inside 40 seconds!
Pope Rebukes Pelosi for Abortion stance.
Pelosi Spin on Meeting With Pope Dramatically Different From Vatican Statement Pope Rebukes Pelosi, Tells Her Catholic Legislators Obligated to Protect Life: No Pelosi/Pope photos permitted
By John-Henry Westen
VATICAN CITY, February 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vatican Press Office released a note this morning detailing part of the conversation which Pope Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Pelosi also released a statement on the meeting, which ignored the one and only crucial issue mentioned in the Vatican note. WHile Pelosi presented the meeting as a fully positive encounter, the Vatican indicated the Pope reminded her of the requirement of Catholic politicians to defend life. Also, contrary to normal protocols for such meetings with dignitaries, no photos of Pelosi with the Pope have been released.
The Vatican note reads: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."
Vatican insiders stressed to LifeSiteNews.com that such releases are always phrased in diplomatic language and thus the correction of the Speaker who describes herself as a "faithful Catholic," despite her abortion advocacy, should be taken as a firm rebuke.
LifeSiteNews.com also learned that concerns about Pelosi were presented to Vatican officials a day prior to the meeting.
Such encounters with the Pope are treasured by politicians for the photo opportunity they provide. Pelosi, however, was not afforded that customary photo by the Vatican. The Associated Press reports that "the Vatican said it was not issuing a photo of the meeting -- as it usually does when the pope meets world leaders -- saying the encounter was private."
For her part, Pelosi issued a press release on the 15-minute meeting with the Pope. "It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today," she said. "In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel."
The release from the Vatican, however, made no mention of the comments that Pelosi stressed in her release.
Pelosi's positive spin on the meeting is not being swallowed even by left-leaning Papal watchers. Vatican correspondent John Allen, who writes for the National Catholic Reporter, noted that "routine Vatican declarations after diplomatic meetings also generally sum up the range of issues discussed rather than concentrating on a particular point. In that sense, the statement can only be read as a rejection of Pelosi's statements last summer, and, in general, of her argument that it's acceptable for Catholics in public life to take a pro-choice position."
Allen also noted that "by issuing an unusual public statement after the session with Pelosi -- which insisted that all Catholics, including legislators, are obliged to work for the defense of human life from conception to natural death -- the pope also made clear there will no let-up in the pressure on pro-choice Catholic politicians to change their ways."
Many pro-life organizations from the US and Canada expressed their serious concerns to the Holy See that Mrs. Pelosi was going to be received by the Holy Father. Some of these organizations sent to different Vatican authorities comprehensive memoranda in which they showed in a detailed and precise way the anti-life statements and the pro-death voting record of Mrs. Pelosi.
Catholic sources in Rome, who asked to remain anonymous, said they were "very much encouraged by this statement," saying that it shows that the "Holy Father is ready to stand up with courage to politicians that claim they are Catholics but their voting record denies those hypocritical assertions."
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021801.html
(Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009)
By John-Henry Westen
VATICAN CITY, February 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vatican Press Office released a note this morning detailing part of the conversation which Pope Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Pelosi also released a statement on the meeting, which ignored the one and only crucial issue mentioned in the Vatican note. WHile Pelosi presented the meeting as a fully positive encounter, the Vatican indicated the Pope reminded her of the requirement of Catholic politicians to defend life. Also, contrary to normal protocols for such meetings with dignitaries, no photos of Pelosi with the Pope have been released.
The Vatican note reads: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."
Vatican insiders stressed to LifeSiteNews.com that such releases are always phrased in diplomatic language and thus the correction of the Speaker who describes herself as a "faithful Catholic," despite her abortion advocacy, should be taken as a firm rebuke.
LifeSiteNews.com also learned that concerns about Pelosi were presented to Vatican officials a day prior to the meeting.
Such encounters with the Pope are treasured by politicians for the photo opportunity they provide. Pelosi, however, was not afforded that customary photo by the Vatican. The Associated Press reports that "the Vatican said it was not issuing a photo of the meeting -- as it usually does when the pope meets world leaders -- saying the encounter was private."
For her part, Pelosi issued a press release on the 15-minute meeting with the Pope. "It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today," she said. "In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel."
The release from the Vatican, however, made no mention of the comments that Pelosi stressed in her release.
Pelosi's positive spin on the meeting is not being swallowed even by left-leaning Papal watchers. Vatican correspondent John Allen, who writes for the National Catholic Reporter, noted that "routine Vatican declarations after diplomatic meetings also generally sum up the range of issues discussed rather than concentrating on a particular point. In that sense, the statement can only be read as a rejection of Pelosi's statements last summer, and, in general, of her argument that it's acceptable for Catholics in public life to take a pro-choice position."
Allen also noted that "by issuing an unusual public statement after the session with Pelosi -- which insisted that all Catholics, including legislators, are obliged to work for the defense of human life from conception to natural death -- the pope also made clear there will no let-up in the pressure on pro-choice Catholic politicians to change their ways."
Many pro-life organizations from the US and Canada expressed their serious concerns to the Holy See that Mrs. Pelosi was going to be received by the Holy Father. Some of these organizations sent to different Vatican authorities comprehensive memoranda in which they showed in a detailed and precise way the anti-life statements and the pro-death voting record of Mrs. Pelosi.
Catholic sources in Rome, who asked to remain anonymous, said they were "very much encouraged by this statement," saying that it shows that the "Holy Father is ready to stand up with courage to politicians that claim they are Catholics but their voting record denies those hypocritical assertions."
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021801.html
(Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009)
Top 10 Reasons Obama Returned Churchill
10 — We only play nice with dictators and thugs.
9 — It was returned by mistake. Joe Biden thought it was Michael Caine.
8 — "It kept staring at me saying 'Appeasement doesn't work! Appeasement doesn't work!"
7 — Thought it was made of chocolate and would melt in the 85 degree oval office.
6 — Had to make room for trillion dollar taxpayer ATM machine and a teleprompter.
5 — Obama said, "Sorry, I never heard of the guy! Guess they didn't teach that at my madrassa."
4 — Thought "special relationship" with England meant something completely different.
3 — Returned with the request to send bust of Neville Chamberlain.
2 — Found out Churchill said, "There is no such thing as a good tax."
1 — Was not aware it opened entrance to the Bat Cave.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/dgnqge
9 — It was returned by mistake. Joe Biden thought it was Michael Caine.
8 — "It kept staring at me saying 'Appeasement doesn't work! Appeasement doesn't work!"
7 — Thought it was made of chocolate and would melt in the 85 degree oval office.
6 — Had to make room for trillion dollar taxpayer ATM machine and a teleprompter.
5 — Obama said, "Sorry, I never heard of the guy! Guess they didn't teach that at my madrassa."
4 — Thought "special relationship" with England meant something completely different.
3 — Returned with the request to send bust of Neville Chamberlain.
2 — Found out Churchill said, "There is no such thing as a good tax."
1 — Was not aware it opened entrance to the Bat Cave.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/dgnqge
CBS: ‘Obstructionist’ Republicans Oppose ‘Large-Scale Government Intervention’
Subject: CBS: ‘Obstructionist’ Republicans Oppose ‘Large-Scale Government Intervention’ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009
Tell me again, what country am I living in? Because the MSM seem to think this is the new Socialist Republic of Obama (Formally knows as America)... Read on and go ahead and be as pissed off about this as I am (and 58 million other people who didn't vote for this administration)...
You are NOT ALONE!
==
CBS: ‘Obstructionist’ Republicans Oppose ‘Large-Scale Government Intervention’
Maggie Rodriguez and Eric Cantor, CBS On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked Republican Congressman Eric Cantor about President Obama’s proposed housing bill: "Unlike the stimulus, will you urge your fellow Republicans in the House to support this?" When Cantor criticized the proposed bill and the passage of the "stimulus" bill, Rodriguez declared: "But Congressman, it's clear that Americans are begging for help with foreclosures. Corporations are begging for bailouts. Can the Republican Party accept that there are situations when large-scale government intervention is necessary?"
Cantor began to explain that Republicans supported some aspects of the "stimulus," but Rodriguez quickly interrupted him: "But everyone opposed it. Why? Where's the bipartisanship?" Before Cantor could respond, she added: "Are you afraid of being seen as obstructionist?" An on-screen graphic read: "Economic Crisis, Party Politics & Recovery Roadblocks."
Cantor replied by describing the lack of "bipartisanship" of congressinonal Democrats: "And if you look at the bill that was put together, it was brought to the floor after a couple of hours having just been printed. No one -- not one member of the Senate, not one member of the House -- was able to read the bill. And I believe the public's got a right to know. So the fashion in which this plan was put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid was just unacceptable."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:08AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Richmond, Virginia, is the Republican House Whip, Congressman Eric Cantor. Good morning, Congressman.
ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, Maggie.
RODRIGUEZ: Let's begin with the -- the President's housing bill, since we were just talking about it. Unlike the stimulus, will you urge your fellow Republicans in the House to support this?
CANTOR: Well, Maggie, I think, first of all, when we're looking at the housing situation, we ought to all be aiming for the fact that Americans should have every opportunity to achieve the American dream and own a home. We should also do everything we can to make sure that those who are in their homes stay in their homes. But when you're looking at the policy here, you've got to start with the fact that 93% of America's families are current on their mortgages, and frankly are out there wondering, you know, who is going to pay for this continued succession of bailouts? Homeowners right now are suffering under skyrocketing property taxes. And if we put the bill for $50 billion plus on top of all the bills that families have right now, you may very well be set to encourage more foreclosures. So I'm hopeful that we can set up a plan, frankly, where lenders can modify mortgages according to some type of federal guarantee that allows buyers who qualify, that allow homeowners who qualify, to actually stay in their homes. We just cannot continue to pay for the kind of things that this administration thinks that we can. So I'm very concerned about the direction I see us going, but I know that this president has continued to say he wants to work with us, and I hope we can get it right. You know, we're on the heels right now of the almost $800 billion stimulus bill, not having any real knowledge of what's in that 1100-page bill and frankly working to make sure that the public's right to know is realized.
RODRIGUEZ: But Congressman, it's clear that Americans are begging for help with foreclosures. Corporations are begging for bailouts. Can the Republican Party accept that there are situations when large-scale government intervention is necessary?
CANTOR: You know, there's no question that the last stimulus bill that passed last week, the nearly $800 billion bill, had some programs in it that we support. I mean, listen, for infrastructure, projects that are ready to roll, that we can create jobs within the first 12 months-
RODRIGUEZ: But everyone opposed it. Why? Where's the bipartisanship?
CANTOR: Well-
RODRIGUEZ: Are you afraid of being seen as obstructionist?
CANTOR: No, listen. We -- we presented a plan that was smarter, that was simpler, where we applied the analysis of President Obama's economic folks themselves, which said -- this analysis said that our plan created twice as many jobs at half the cost. I mean, let's be realistic here. We've got trillions upon trillions of dollars adding to our deficit and our long-term debt now each and every month we proceed. At some point, I think the people of this country are beginning to understand who is going to pay for all of this? Money doesn't come out of anywhere -- of nowhere. And if you look at the bill that was put together, it was brought to the floor after a couple of hours having just been printed. No one -- not one member of the Senate, not one member of the House -- was able to read the bill. And I believe the public's got a right to know. So the fashion in which this plan was put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid was just unacceptable. You know, President Obama-
RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Congressman, we have to leave it there. Eric Cantor, I'm sorry, we're out of time. Thank you for taking the time this morning.
CANTOR: Thanks, Maggie.
Source URL:
here.
Tell me again, what country am I living in? Because the MSM seem to think this is the new Socialist Republic of Obama (Formally knows as America)... Read on and go ahead and be as pissed off about this as I am (and 58 million other people who didn't vote for this administration)...
You are NOT ALONE!
==
CBS: ‘Obstructionist’ Republicans Oppose ‘Large-Scale Government Intervention’
Maggie Rodriguez and Eric Cantor, CBS On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked Republican Congressman Eric Cantor about President Obama’s proposed housing bill: "Unlike the stimulus, will you urge your fellow Republicans in the House to support this?" When Cantor criticized the proposed bill and the passage of the "stimulus" bill, Rodriguez declared: "But Congressman, it's clear that Americans are begging for help with foreclosures. Corporations are begging for bailouts. Can the Republican Party accept that there are situations when large-scale government intervention is necessary?"
Cantor began to explain that Republicans supported some aspects of the "stimulus," but Rodriguez quickly interrupted him: "But everyone opposed it. Why? Where's the bipartisanship?" Before Cantor could respond, she added: "Are you afraid of being seen as obstructionist?" An on-screen graphic read: "Economic Crisis, Party Politics & Recovery Roadblocks."
Cantor replied by describing the lack of "bipartisanship" of congressinonal Democrats: "And if you look at the bill that was put together, it was brought to the floor after a couple of hours having just been printed. No one -- not one member of the Senate, not one member of the House -- was able to read the bill. And I believe the public's got a right to know. So the fashion in which this plan was put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid was just unacceptable."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:08AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Richmond, Virginia, is the Republican House Whip, Congressman Eric Cantor. Good morning, Congressman.
ERIC CANTOR: Good morning, Maggie.
RODRIGUEZ: Let's begin with the -- the President's housing bill, since we were just talking about it. Unlike the stimulus, will you urge your fellow Republicans in the House to support this?
CANTOR: Well, Maggie, I think, first of all, when we're looking at the housing situation, we ought to all be aiming for the fact that Americans should have every opportunity to achieve the American dream and own a home. We should also do everything we can to make sure that those who are in their homes stay in their homes. But when you're looking at the policy here, you've got to start with the fact that 93% of America's families are current on their mortgages, and frankly are out there wondering, you know, who is going to pay for this continued succession of bailouts? Homeowners right now are suffering under skyrocketing property taxes. And if we put the bill for $50 billion plus on top of all the bills that families have right now, you may very well be set to encourage more foreclosures. So I'm hopeful that we can set up a plan, frankly, where lenders can modify mortgages according to some type of federal guarantee that allows buyers who qualify, that allow homeowners who qualify, to actually stay in their homes. We just cannot continue to pay for the kind of things that this administration thinks that we can. So I'm very concerned about the direction I see us going, but I know that this president has continued to say he wants to work with us, and I hope we can get it right. You know, we're on the heels right now of the almost $800 billion stimulus bill, not having any real knowledge of what's in that 1100-page bill and frankly working to make sure that the public's right to know is realized.
RODRIGUEZ: But Congressman, it's clear that Americans are begging for help with foreclosures. Corporations are begging for bailouts. Can the Republican Party accept that there are situations when large-scale government intervention is necessary?
CANTOR: You know, there's no question that the last stimulus bill that passed last week, the nearly $800 billion bill, had some programs in it that we support. I mean, listen, for infrastructure, projects that are ready to roll, that we can create jobs within the first 12 months-
RODRIGUEZ: But everyone opposed it. Why? Where's the bipartisanship?
CANTOR: Well-
RODRIGUEZ: Are you afraid of being seen as obstructionist?
CANTOR: No, listen. We -- we presented a plan that was smarter, that was simpler, where we applied the analysis of President Obama's economic folks themselves, which said -- this analysis said that our plan created twice as many jobs at half the cost. I mean, let's be realistic here. We've got trillions upon trillions of dollars adding to our deficit and our long-term debt now each and every month we proceed. At some point, I think the people of this country are beginning to understand who is going to pay for all of this? Money doesn't come out of anywhere -- of nowhere. And if you look at the bill that was put together, it was brought to the floor after a couple of hours having just been printed. No one -- not one member of the Senate, not one member of the House -- was able to read the bill. And I believe the public's got a right to know. So the fashion in which this plan was put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid was just unacceptable. You know, President Obama-
RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Congressman, we have to leave it there. Eric Cantor, I'm sorry, we're out of time. Thank you for taking the time this morning.
CANTOR: Thanks, Maggie.
Source URL:
here.
The real betrayal of Specter, Collins, and Snowe
I have one last thought on the Porkulus events from last week. This weekend, Mitch and I took a lot of calls on the passage of Porkulus, with many demanding some retribution for Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. Usually, both Mitch and I advise against revenge on defector votes. We both agree that a big-tent party has to have room for some disagreement, and the only way to get to a majority again in Congress is to build a large enough coalition to take charge. Purity drives lower our numbers and our ability to influence policy.
This, however, is a different matter. First, the Republicans need to re-establish credibility as the party of fiscal responsibility, and supporting Porkulus is antithetical to that effort. No matter how big a tent the Republicans need to pitch, they still need to stand for core values — and among them should be fiscal responsibility and smaller government for greater individual liberty. Porkulus fails on both counts, which is why the House GOP maintained a solid wall of opposition to it. Specter, Snowe, and Collins apparently don’t share those values.
But in this case, the betrayal goes beyond core values. Despite Barack Obama’s demagoguery earlier in the week, many Republicans wanted a big stimulus package to come out of Congress as quickly as possible. Given the chance, Republican partnership would have produced a bill with less long-term spending, more short-term spending, better tax cuts, and a huge reduction in the health-care bureaucracy that comprised almost half of Porkulus. Such a bill would have easily received a hundred Republican votes or more in the House and may have passed on acclamation in the Senate, and it would have sent a message of unity in a time of economic crisis.
In order to get that, Republicans had to shut down Porkulus. It would have forced Democrats to negotiate with Republicans and get the better bill to Obama’s desk. All we needed was Republicans to stand firm in the service of their fellow Republicans and to defy Nancy Pelosi’s triumphalism. The House did its job, as did most of the Republicans in the Senate, even while saying that they would support a real stimulus package. Instead, Specter, Collins, and Snowe essentially stabbed their colleagues in the back — while Specter whined about the lack of debate on the bill, after he voted for cloture and an end to debate.
That was the real betrayal.
What can the Republicans do to the Porkulus 3? Not much, really. The GOP needs them to offer an illusory chance at filibustering legislation, although their failure to filibuster something as bad as Porkulus more or less exposes that as an empty threat. Republicans need to find credible primary opponents for these three, even if it means losing the seats, because after Porkulus it appears they’re already lost.
http://tinyurl.com/av8xtu
(Mon, 16 Feb 2009)
This, however, is a different matter. First, the Republicans need to re-establish credibility as the party of fiscal responsibility, and supporting Porkulus is antithetical to that effort. No matter how big a tent the Republicans need to pitch, they still need to stand for core values — and among them should be fiscal responsibility and smaller government for greater individual liberty. Porkulus fails on both counts, which is why the House GOP maintained a solid wall of opposition to it. Specter, Snowe, and Collins apparently don’t share those values.
But in this case, the betrayal goes beyond core values. Despite Barack Obama’s demagoguery earlier in the week, many Republicans wanted a big stimulus package to come out of Congress as quickly as possible. Given the chance, Republican partnership would have produced a bill with less long-term spending, more short-term spending, better tax cuts, and a huge reduction in the health-care bureaucracy that comprised almost half of Porkulus. Such a bill would have easily received a hundred Republican votes or more in the House and may have passed on acclamation in the Senate, and it would have sent a message of unity in a time of economic crisis.
In order to get that, Republicans had to shut down Porkulus. It would have forced Democrats to negotiate with Republicans and get the better bill to Obama’s desk. All we needed was Republicans to stand firm in the service of their fellow Republicans and to defy Nancy Pelosi’s triumphalism. The House did its job, as did most of the Republicans in the Senate, even while saying that they would support a real stimulus package. Instead, Specter, Collins, and Snowe essentially stabbed their colleagues in the back — while Specter whined about the lack of debate on the bill, after he voted for cloture and an end to debate.
That was the real betrayal.
What can the Republicans do to the Porkulus 3? Not much, really. The GOP needs them to offer an illusory chance at filibustering legislation, although their failure to filibuster something as bad as Porkulus more or less exposes that as an empty threat. Republicans need to find credible primary opponents for these three, even if it means losing the seats, because after Porkulus it appears they’re already lost.
http://tinyurl.com/av8xtu
(Mon, 16 Feb 2009)
Iraq's Quiet Transformation - Charles Krauthammer
Iraq's Quiet Transformation - Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 13, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Preoccupied as it was poring through Tom Daschle's tax returns, Washington hardly noticed a near-miracle abroad. Iraq held provincial elections. There was no Election Day violence. Security was handled by Iraqi forces with little U.S. involvement. A fabulous bazaar of 14,400 candidates representing 400 parties participated, yielding results highly favorable to both Iraq and the United States.
Iraq moved away from religious sectarianism toward more secular nationalism. "All the parties that had the words 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost," noted Middle East expert Amir Taheri. "By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went from leader of a small Islamic party to leader of the "State of the Law Party," campaigning on security and secular nationalism. He won a smashing victory. His chief rival, a more sectarian and pro-Iranian Shiite religious party, was devastated. Another major Islamic party, the pro-Iranian Sadr faction, went from 11 percent of the vote to 3 percent, losing badly in its stronghold of Baghdad. The Islamic Fadhila party that had dominated Basra was almost wiped out.
The once-dominant Sunni party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the erstwhile insurgency was badly set back. New grass-roots tribal ("Awakening") and secular Sunni leaders emerged.
All this barely pierced the consciousness of official Washington. After all, it fundamentally contradicts the general establishment/media narrative of Iraq as "fiasco."
One leading liberal thinker had concluded as early as 2004 that democracy in Iraq was "a childish fantasy." Another sneered that the 2005 election that brought Maliki to power was "not an election but a census" -- meaning people voted robotically according to their ethnicity and religious identity. The implication being that these primitives have no conception of democracy, and that trying to build one there is a fool's errand.
What was lacking in all this condescension is what the critics so pride themselves in having -- namely, context. What did they expect in the first elections after 30 years of totalitarian rule that destroyed civil society and systematically annihilated any independent or indigenous leadership? The only communal or social ties remaining after Saddam Hussein were those of ethnicity and sect.
But in the intervening years, while the critics washed their hands of Iraq, it began developing the sinews of civil society: a vibrant free press, a plethora of parties, the habits of negotiation and coalition-building. Reflecting these new realities, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani this time purposely and publicly backed no party, strongly signaling a return -- contra Iran -- to the Iraqi tradition of secular governance.
The big strategic winner here is the United States. The big loser is Iran. The parties Tehran backed are in retreat. The prime minister who staked his career on a strategic cooperation agreement with the United States emerged victorious. Moreover, this realignment from enemy state to emerging democratic ally, unlike Egypt's flip from Soviet to U.S. ally in the 1970s, is not the work of a single autocrat (like Anwar Sadat), but a reflection of national opinion expressed in a democratic election.
This is not to say that these astonishing gains are irreversible. There loom three possible threats: (a) a coup from a rising and relatively clean military disgusted with the corruption of civilian politicians -- the familiar post-colonial pattern of the past half-century; (b) a strongman emerging from a democratic system (Maliki?) and then subverting it, following the Russian and Venezuelan models; or (c) the collapse of the current system because of a premature U.S. withdrawal that leads to a collapse of security.
Averting the first two is the job of Iraqis. Averting the third is the job of the U.S. Which is why President Obama's reaction to these remarkable elections, a perfunctory statement noting that they "should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future," was shockingly detached and ungenerous.
When you become president of the United States you inherit its history, even the parts you would have done differently. Obama might argue that American sacrifices in Iraq were not worth what we achieved. But for the purposes of current and future policy, that is entirely moot. Despite Obama's opposition, America went on to create a small miracle in the heart of the Arab Middle East. President Obama is now the custodian of that miracle. It is his duty as leader of the nation that gave birth to this fledgling democracy to ensure that he does nothing to undermine it.
http://tinyurl.com/amspl2
Good news for America and Iraq is never reported by the Mainstream media... A bomb today killed 30 in Iraq... Probably be the lead story on tonight's "evening news"...
Friday, February 13, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Preoccupied as it was poring through Tom Daschle's tax returns, Washington hardly noticed a near-miracle abroad. Iraq held provincial elections. There was no Election Day violence. Security was handled by Iraqi forces with little U.S. involvement. A fabulous bazaar of 14,400 candidates representing 400 parties participated, yielding results highly favorable to both Iraq and the United States.
Iraq moved away from religious sectarianism toward more secular nationalism. "All the parties that had the words 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost," noted Middle East expert Amir Taheri. "By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went from leader of a small Islamic party to leader of the "State of the Law Party," campaigning on security and secular nationalism. He won a smashing victory. His chief rival, a more sectarian and pro-Iranian Shiite religious party, was devastated. Another major Islamic party, the pro-Iranian Sadr faction, went from 11 percent of the vote to 3 percent, losing badly in its stronghold of Baghdad. The Islamic Fadhila party that had dominated Basra was almost wiped out.
The once-dominant Sunni party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the erstwhile insurgency was badly set back. New grass-roots tribal ("Awakening") and secular Sunni leaders emerged.
All this barely pierced the consciousness of official Washington. After all, it fundamentally contradicts the general establishment/media narrative of Iraq as "fiasco."
One leading liberal thinker had concluded as early as 2004 that democracy in Iraq was "a childish fantasy." Another sneered that the 2005 election that brought Maliki to power was "not an election but a census" -- meaning people voted robotically according to their ethnicity and religious identity. The implication being that these primitives have no conception of democracy, and that trying to build one there is a fool's errand.
What was lacking in all this condescension is what the critics so pride themselves in having -- namely, context. What did they expect in the first elections after 30 years of totalitarian rule that destroyed civil society and systematically annihilated any independent or indigenous leadership? The only communal or social ties remaining after Saddam Hussein were those of ethnicity and sect.
But in the intervening years, while the critics washed their hands of Iraq, it began developing the sinews of civil society: a vibrant free press, a plethora of parties, the habits of negotiation and coalition-building. Reflecting these new realities, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani this time purposely and publicly backed no party, strongly signaling a return -- contra Iran -- to the Iraqi tradition of secular governance.
The big strategic winner here is the United States. The big loser is Iran. The parties Tehran backed are in retreat. The prime minister who staked his career on a strategic cooperation agreement with the United States emerged victorious. Moreover, this realignment from enemy state to emerging democratic ally, unlike Egypt's flip from Soviet to U.S. ally in the 1970s, is not the work of a single autocrat (like Anwar Sadat), but a reflection of national opinion expressed in a democratic election.
This is not to say that these astonishing gains are irreversible. There loom three possible threats: (a) a coup from a rising and relatively clean military disgusted with the corruption of civilian politicians -- the familiar post-colonial pattern of the past half-century; (b) a strongman emerging from a democratic system (Maliki?) and then subverting it, following the Russian and Venezuelan models; or (c) the collapse of the current system because of a premature U.S. withdrawal that leads to a collapse of security.
Averting the first two is the job of Iraqis. Averting the third is the job of the U.S. Which is why President Obama's reaction to these remarkable elections, a perfunctory statement noting that they "should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future," was shockingly detached and ungenerous.
When you become president of the United States you inherit its history, even the parts you would have done differently. Obama might argue that American sacrifices in Iraq were not worth what we achieved. But for the purposes of current and future policy, that is entirely moot. Despite Obama's opposition, America went on to create a small miracle in the heart of the Arab Middle East. President Obama is now the custodian of that miracle. It is his duty as leader of the nation that gave birth to this fledgling democracy to ensure that he does nothing to undermine it.
http://tinyurl.com/amspl2
Good news for America and Iraq is never reported by the Mainstream media... A bomb today killed 30 in Iraq... Probably be the lead story on tonight's "evening news"...
200 economists against "stimulus" plan
Someone said to me recently that only... Well let me quote him:
"every credible economist says its [Economic Stimulus Plan - ed] needed and
needed now"
Below you will find a list of 200 leading economists who would disagree...
===
"There is no disagreement that we
need action by your government,
a recovery plan that will help to
jump start the economy."
- PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009
With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.
Not withstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware
DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
LEE ADKINS, Oklahoma State University
WILLIAM ALBRECHT, Univ. of Iowa
RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J.ARIAS, Georgia College & State University
HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University
CHARLES BAIRD, California State University, East Bay
STACIE BECK, Univ. of Delaware
DON BELLANTE, Univ. of South Florida
JAMES BENNETT, George Mason University
BRUCE BENSON, Florida State University
SANJAI BHAGAT, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
MARK BILS, Univ. of Rochester
ALBERTO BISIN, New York University
WALTER BLOCK, Loyola University New Orleans
CECIL BOHANON, Ball State University
MICHELE BOLDRIN,Washington University in St. Louis
DONALD BOOTH, Chapman University
MICHAEL BORDO, Rutgers University
SAMUEL BOSTAPH, Univ. of Dallas
DONALD BOUDREAUX, George Mason University
SCOTT BRADFORD, Brigham Young University
GENEVIEVE BRIAND, Eastern Washington University
IVAN BRICK, Rutgers University
GEORGE BROWER, Moravian College
PHILLIP BRYSON, Brigham Young University
JAMES BUCHANAN, Nobel laureate
RICHARD BURDEKIN, Claremont McKenna College
RICHARD BURKHAUSER, Cornell University
EDWIN T. BURTON, Univ. of Virginia
JIM BUTKIEWICZ, Univ. of Delaware
HENRY BUTLER, Northwestern University
WILLIAM BUTOS, Trinity College
PETER CALCAGNO, College of Charleston
BRYAN CAPLAN, George Mason University
ART CARDEN, Rhodes College
JAMES CARDON, Brigham Young University
DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury University
EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College
V.V. CHARI, Univ. of Minnesota
BARRY CHISWICK, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University
J.R. CLARK, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
GIAN LUCA CLEMENTI, New York University
R.MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University
JOHN COCHRAN, Metropolitan State College at Denver
JOHN COCHRANE, Univ. of Chicago
JOHN COGAN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
LLOYD COHEN, George Mason University
JOHN COLEMAN, Duke University
BOYD COLLIER, Tarleton State University
ROBERT COLLINGE, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
PETER COLWELL, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL CONNOLLY, Univ. of Miami
LEE COPPOCK, Univ. of Virginia
MARIO CRUCINI, Vanderbilt University
CHRISTOPHER CULP, Univ. of Chicago
KIRBY CUNDIFF, Northeastern State University
ANTONY DAVIES, Duquesne University
JOHN DAWSON, Appalachian State University
A. EDWARD DAY, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
CLARENCE DEITSCH, Ball State University
ALLAN DESERPA, Arizona State University
WILLIAM DEWALD, Ohio State University
ARTHUR DIAMOND, JR., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
JOHN DOBRA, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
JAMES DORN, Towson University
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
FLOYD DUNCAN, Virginia Military Institute
FRANCIS EGAN, Trinity College
JOHN EGGER, Towson University
KENNETH ELZINGA, Univ. of Virginia
PAUL EVANS, Ohio State University
FRANK FALERO, California State University, Bakersfield
EUGENE FAMA, Univ. of Chicago
W. KEN FARR, Georgia College & State University
DANIEL FEENBERG, National Bureau
of Economic Research
HARTMUT FISCHER, Univ. of San Francisco
ERIC FISHER, California State Polytechnic University
FRED FOLDVARY, Santa Clara University
MURRAY FRANK, Univ. of Minnesota
PETER FRANK,Wingate University
TIMOTHY FUERST, Bowling Green State University
B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University
JOHN GAREN, Univ. of Kentucky
RICK GEDDES, Cornell University
AARON GELLMAN, Northwestern University
WILLIAM GERDES, Clarke College
JOSEPH GIACALONE, St. John’s University
MICHAEL GIBBS, Univ. of Chicago
OTIS GILLEY, Louisiana Tech University
STEPHAN GOHMANN, Univ. of Louisville
RODOLFO GONZALEZ, San Jose State University
RICHARD GORDON, Penn State University
PETER GORDON, Univ. of Southern California
ERNIE GOSS, Creighton University
PAUL GREGORY, Univ. of Houston
EARL GRINOLS, Baylor University
DANIEL GROPPER, Auburn University
R.W. HAFER, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
ARTHUR HALL, Univ. of Kansas
STEVE HANKE, Johns Hopkins University
STEPHEN HAPPEL, Arizona State University
RICHARD HART, Miami University
THOMAS HAZLETT, George Mason University
FRANK HEFNER, College of Charleston
SCOTT HEIN, Texas Tech University
RONALD HEINER, George Mason University
DAVID HENDERSON, Hoover Institution,
Stanford University
ROBERT HERREN, North Dakota State University
GAILEN HITE, Columbia University
STEVEN HORWITZ, St. Lawrence University
DANIEL HOUSER, George Mason University
JOHN HOWE, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
JEFFREY HUMMEL, San Jose State University
BRUCE HUTCHINSON, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BRIAN JACOBSEN,Wisconsin Lutheran College
SHERRY JARRELL,Wake Forest University
JASON JOHNSTON, Univ. of Pennsylvania
BOYAN JOVANOVIC, New York University
JONATHAN KARPOFF, Univ. of Washington
BARRY KEATING, Univ. of Notre Dame
NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State University
NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University
DANIEL KLEIN, George Mason University
PAUL KOCH, Univ. of Kansas
NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA, Univ. of Minnesota
MAREK KOLAR, Delta College
ROGER KOPPL, Fairleigh Dickinson University
KISHORE KULKARNI, Metropolitan
State College of Denver
DEEPAK LAL, UCLA
GEORGE LANGELETT, South Dakota State University
JAMES LARRIVIERE, Spring Hill College
ROBERT LAWSON, Auburn University
JOHN LEVENDIS, Loyola University New Orleans
DAVID LEVINE,Washington University in St. Louis
PETER LEWIN, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
W. CRIS LEWIS, Utah State University
DEAN LILLARD, Cornell University
ZHENG LIU, Emory University
ALAN LOCKARD, Binghampton University
EDWARD LOPEZ, San Jose State University
JOHN R. LOTT, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
JOHN LUNN, Hope College
GLENN MACDONALD,Washington
University in St. Louis
HENRY MANNE, George Mason University
MICHAEL MARLOW, California
Polytechnic State University
DERYL MARTIN, Tennessee Tech University
DALE MATCHECK, Northwood University
JOHN MATSUSAKA, Univ. of Southern California
THOMAS MAYOR, Univ. of Houston
DEIRDRE MCCLOSKEY, University of Illinois at Chicago
JOHN MCDERMOTT, Univ. of South Carolina
JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ. of Central Arkansas
ROGER MEINERS, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University
JOHN MERRIFIELD, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
JAMES MILLER III, George Mason University
JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University
THOMAS MOELLER, Texas Christian University
JOHN MOORHOUSE,Wake Forest University
ANDREA MORO, Vanderbilt University
ANDREW MORRISS, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University
KEVIN MURPHY, Univ. of Southern California
DAVID MUSTARD, Univ. of Georgia
RICHARD MUTH, Emory University
CHARLES NELSON, Univ. of Washington
WILLIAM NISKANEN, Cato Institute
SETH NORTON, Wheaton College
LEE OHANIAN, UCLA
LYDIA ORTEGA, San Jose State University
EVAN OSBORNE, Wright State University
RANDALL PARKER, East Carolina University
ALLEN PARKMAN, Univ. of New Mexico
DONALD PARSONS, George Washington University
SAM PELTZMAN, Univ. of Chicago
TIMOTHY PERRI, Appalachian State University
MARK PERRY, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
CHRISTOPHER PHELAN, Univ. of Minnesota
GORDON PHILLIPS, Univ. of Maryland
MICHAEL PIPPENGER, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
TOMASZ PISKORSKI, Columbia University
BRENNAN PLATT, Brigham Young University
JOSEPH POMYKALA, Towson University
WILLIAM POOLE, Univ. of Delaware
BARRY POULSON, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
BENJAMIN POWELL, Suffolk University
EDWARD PRESCOTT, Nobel laureate
GARY QUINLIVAN, Saint Vincent College
REZA RAMAZANI, Saint Michael’s College
ADRIANO RAMPINI, Duke University
ERIC RASMUSEN, Indiana University
MARIO RIZZO, New York University
NANCY ROBERTS, Arizona State University
RICHARD ROLL, UCLA
ROBERT ROSSANA,Wayne State University
JAMES ROUMASSET, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
JOHN ROWE, Univ. of South Florida
CHARLES ROWLEY, George Mason University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ, Duke University
ROY RUFFIN, Univ. of Houston
KEVIN SALYER, Univ. of California, Davis
THOMAS SAVING, Texas A&M University
PAVEL SAVOR, Univ. of Pennsylvania
RONALD SCHMIDT, Univ. of Rochester
CARLOS SEIGLIE, Rutgers University
ALAN SHAPIRO, Univ. of Southern California
WILLIAM SHUGHART II, Univ. of Mississippi
CHARLES SKIPTON, Univ. of Tampa
JAMES SMITH,Western Carolina University
VERNON SMITH, Nobel laureate
LAWRENCE SOUTHWICK, JR., Univ. at Buffalo
DEAN STANSEL, Florida Gulf Coast University
HOUSTON STOKES, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
BRIAN STROW,Western Kentucky University
SHIRLEY SVORNY, California State
University, Northridge
JOHN TATOM, Indiana State University
WADE THOMAS, State University
of New York at Oneonta
HENRY THOMPSON, Auburn University
ALEX TOKAREV, The King’s College
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University
LEO TROY, Rutgers University
WILLIAM TRUMBULL,West Virginia University
DAVID TUERCK, Suffolk University
CHARLOTTE TWIGHT, Boise State University
KAMAL UPADHYAYA, Univ. of New Haven
CHARLES UPTON, Kent State University
T. NORMANVAN COTT, Ball State University
RICHARDVEDDER, Ohio University
RICHARDWAGNER, George Mason University
DOUGLAS M.WALKER, College of Charleston
DOUGLAS O.WALKER, Regent University
MARCWEIDENMIER, Claremont McKenna College
CHRISTOPHERWESTLEY, Jacksonville
State University
ROBERTWHAPLES,Wake Forest University
LAWRENCEWHITE, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
WALTERWILLIAMS, George Mason University
DOUGWILLS, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
DENNISWILSON,Western Kentucky University
GARYWOLFRAM, Hillsdale College
HUIZHONG ZHOU,Western Michigan University
"every credible economist says its [Economic Stimulus Plan - ed] needed and
needed now"
Below you will find a list of 200 leading economists who would disagree...
===
"There is no disagreement that we
need action by your government,
a recovery plan that will help to
jump start the economy."
- PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009
With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.
Not withstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware
DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
LEE ADKINS, Oklahoma State University
WILLIAM ALBRECHT, Univ. of Iowa
RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J.ARIAS, Georgia College & State University
HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University
CHARLES BAIRD, California State University, East Bay
STACIE BECK, Univ. of Delaware
DON BELLANTE, Univ. of South Florida
JAMES BENNETT, George Mason University
BRUCE BENSON, Florida State University
SANJAI BHAGAT, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
MARK BILS, Univ. of Rochester
ALBERTO BISIN, New York University
WALTER BLOCK, Loyola University New Orleans
CECIL BOHANON, Ball State University
MICHELE BOLDRIN,Washington University in St. Louis
DONALD BOOTH, Chapman University
MICHAEL BORDO, Rutgers University
SAMUEL BOSTAPH, Univ. of Dallas
DONALD BOUDREAUX, George Mason University
SCOTT BRADFORD, Brigham Young University
GENEVIEVE BRIAND, Eastern Washington University
IVAN BRICK, Rutgers University
GEORGE BROWER, Moravian College
PHILLIP BRYSON, Brigham Young University
JAMES BUCHANAN, Nobel laureate
RICHARD BURDEKIN, Claremont McKenna College
RICHARD BURKHAUSER, Cornell University
EDWIN T. BURTON, Univ. of Virginia
JIM BUTKIEWICZ, Univ. of Delaware
HENRY BUTLER, Northwestern University
WILLIAM BUTOS, Trinity College
PETER CALCAGNO, College of Charleston
BRYAN CAPLAN, George Mason University
ART CARDEN, Rhodes College
JAMES CARDON, Brigham Young University
DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury University
EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College
V.V. CHARI, Univ. of Minnesota
BARRY CHISWICK, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University
J.R. CLARK, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
GIAN LUCA CLEMENTI, New York University
R.MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University
JOHN COCHRAN, Metropolitan State College at Denver
JOHN COCHRANE, Univ. of Chicago
JOHN COGAN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
LLOYD COHEN, George Mason University
JOHN COLEMAN, Duke University
BOYD COLLIER, Tarleton State University
ROBERT COLLINGE, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
PETER COLWELL, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL CONNOLLY, Univ. of Miami
LEE COPPOCK, Univ. of Virginia
MARIO CRUCINI, Vanderbilt University
CHRISTOPHER CULP, Univ. of Chicago
KIRBY CUNDIFF, Northeastern State University
ANTONY DAVIES, Duquesne University
JOHN DAWSON, Appalachian State University
A. EDWARD DAY, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
CLARENCE DEITSCH, Ball State University
ALLAN DESERPA, Arizona State University
WILLIAM DEWALD, Ohio State University
ARTHUR DIAMOND, JR., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
JOHN DOBRA, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
JAMES DORN, Towson University
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
FLOYD DUNCAN, Virginia Military Institute
FRANCIS EGAN, Trinity College
JOHN EGGER, Towson University
KENNETH ELZINGA, Univ. of Virginia
PAUL EVANS, Ohio State University
FRANK FALERO, California State University, Bakersfield
EUGENE FAMA, Univ. of Chicago
W. KEN FARR, Georgia College & State University
DANIEL FEENBERG, National Bureau
of Economic Research
HARTMUT FISCHER, Univ. of San Francisco
ERIC FISHER, California State Polytechnic University
FRED FOLDVARY, Santa Clara University
MURRAY FRANK, Univ. of Minnesota
PETER FRANK,Wingate University
TIMOTHY FUERST, Bowling Green State University
B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University
JOHN GAREN, Univ. of Kentucky
RICK GEDDES, Cornell University
AARON GELLMAN, Northwestern University
WILLIAM GERDES, Clarke College
JOSEPH GIACALONE, St. John’s University
MICHAEL GIBBS, Univ. of Chicago
OTIS GILLEY, Louisiana Tech University
STEPHAN GOHMANN, Univ. of Louisville
RODOLFO GONZALEZ, San Jose State University
RICHARD GORDON, Penn State University
PETER GORDON, Univ. of Southern California
ERNIE GOSS, Creighton University
PAUL GREGORY, Univ. of Houston
EARL GRINOLS, Baylor University
DANIEL GROPPER, Auburn University
R.W. HAFER, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
ARTHUR HALL, Univ. of Kansas
STEVE HANKE, Johns Hopkins University
STEPHEN HAPPEL, Arizona State University
RICHARD HART, Miami University
THOMAS HAZLETT, George Mason University
FRANK HEFNER, College of Charleston
SCOTT HEIN, Texas Tech University
RONALD HEINER, George Mason University
DAVID HENDERSON, Hoover Institution,
Stanford University
ROBERT HERREN, North Dakota State University
GAILEN HITE, Columbia University
STEVEN HORWITZ, St. Lawrence University
DANIEL HOUSER, George Mason University
JOHN HOWE, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
JEFFREY HUMMEL, San Jose State University
BRUCE HUTCHINSON, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BRIAN JACOBSEN,Wisconsin Lutheran College
SHERRY JARRELL,Wake Forest University
JASON JOHNSTON, Univ. of Pennsylvania
BOYAN JOVANOVIC, New York University
JONATHAN KARPOFF, Univ. of Washington
BARRY KEATING, Univ. of Notre Dame
NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State University
NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University
DANIEL KLEIN, George Mason University
PAUL KOCH, Univ. of Kansas
NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA, Univ. of Minnesota
MAREK KOLAR, Delta College
ROGER KOPPL, Fairleigh Dickinson University
KISHORE KULKARNI, Metropolitan
State College of Denver
DEEPAK LAL, UCLA
GEORGE LANGELETT, South Dakota State University
JAMES LARRIVIERE, Spring Hill College
ROBERT LAWSON, Auburn University
JOHN LEVENDIS, Loyola University New Orleans
DAVID LEVINE,Washington University in St. Louis
PETER LEWIN, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
W. CRIS LEWIS, Utah State University
DEAN LILLARD, Cornell University
ZHENG LIU, Emory University
ALAN LOCKARD, Binghampton University
EDWARD LOPEZ, San Jose State University
JOHN R. LOTT, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
JOHN LUNN, Hope College
GLENN MACDONALD,Washington
University in St. Louis
HENRY MANNE, George Mason University
MICHAEL MARLOW, California
Polytechnic State University
DERYL MARTIN, Tennessee Tech University
DALE MATCHECK, Northwood University
JOHN MATSUSAKA, Univ. of Southern California
THOMAS MAYOR, Univ. of Houston
DEIRDRE MCCLOSKEY, University of Illinois at Chicago
JOHN MCDERMOTT, Univ. of South Carolina
JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ. of Central Arkansas
ROGER MEINERS, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University
JOHN MERRIFIELD, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
JAMES MILLER III, George Mason University
JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University
THOMAS MOELLER, Texas Christian University
JOHN MOORHOUSE,Wake Forest University
ANDREA MORO, Vanderbilt University
ANDREW MORRISS, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University
KEVIN MURPHY, Univ. of Southern California
DAVID MUSTARD, Univ. of Georgia
RICHARD MUTH, Emory University
CHARLES NELSON, Univ. of Washington
WILLIAM NISKANEN, Cato Institute
SETH NORTON, Wheaton College
LEE OHANIAN, UCLA
LYDIA ORTEGA, San Jose State University
EVAN OSBORNE, Wright State University
RANDALL PARKER, East Carolina University
ALLEN PARKMAN, Univ. of New Mexico
DONALD PARSONS, George Washington University
SAM PELTZMAN, Univ. of Chicago
TIMOTHY PERRI, Appalachian State University
MARK PERRY, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
CHRISTOPHER PHELAN, Univ. of Minnesota
GORDON PHILLIPS, Univ. of Maryland
MICHAEL PIPPENGER, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
TOMASZ PISKORSKI, Columbia University
BRENNAN PLATT, Brigham Young University
JOSEPH POMYKALA, Towson University
WILLIAM POOLE, Univ. of Delaware
BARRY POULSON, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
BENJAMIN POWELL, Suffolk University
EDWARD PRESCOTT, Nobel laureate
GARY QUINLIVAN, Saint Vincent College
REZA RAMAZANI, Saint Michael’s College
ADRIANO RAMPINI, Duke University
ERIC RASMUSEN, Indiana University
MARIO RIZZO, New York University
NANCY ROBERTS, Arizona State University
RICHARD ROLL, UCLA
ROBERT ROSSANA,Wayne State University
JAMES ROUMASSET, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
JOHN ROWE, Univ. of South Florida
CHARLES ROWLEY, George Mason University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ, Duke University
ROY RUFFIN, Univ. of Houston
KEVIN SALYER, Univ. of California, Davis
THOMAS SAVING, Texas A&M University
PAVEL SAVOR, Univ. of Pennsylvania
RONALD SCHMIDT, Univ. of Rochester
CARLOS SEIGLIE, Rutgers University
ALAN SHAPIRO, Univ. of Southern California
WILLIAM SHUGHART II, Univ. of Mississippi
CHARLES SKIPTON, Univ. of Tampa
JAMES SMITH,Western Carolina University
VERNON SMITH, Nobel laureate
LAWRENCE SOUTHWICK, JR., Univ. at Buffalo
DEAN STANSEL, Florida Gulf Coast University
HOUSTON STOKES, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
BRIAN STROW,Western Kentucky University
SHIRLEY SVORNY, California State
University, Northridge
JOHN TATOM, Indiana State University
WADE THOMAS, State University
of New York at Oneonta
HENRY THOMPSON, Auburn University
ALEX TOKAREV, The King’s College
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University
LEO TROY, Rutgers University
WILLIAM TRUMBULL,West Virginia University
DAVID TUERCK, Suffolk University
CHARLOTTE TWIGHT, Boise State University
KAMAL UPADHYAYA, Univ. of New Haven
CHARLES UPTON, Kent State University
T. NORMANVAN COTT, Ball State University
RICHARDVEDDER, Ohio University
RICHARDWAGNER, George Mason University
DOUGLAS M.WALKER, College of Charleston
DOUGLAS O.WALKER, Regent University
MARCWEIDENMIER, Claremont McKenna College
CHRISTOPHERWESTLEY, Jacksonville
State University
ROBERTWHAPLES,Wake Forest University
LAWRENCEWHITE, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
WALTERWILLIAMS, George Mason University
DOUGWILLS, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
DENNISWILSON,Western Kentucky University
GARYWOLFRAM, Hillsdale College
HUIZHONG ZHOU,Western Michigan University
BENEDICT ARNOLDS OF THE GOP
By Dick Morris
02.10.2009
Published on TheHill.com on February 10, 2009
Because of the concentrated efforts of millions of Republicans all over America, Susan Collins (Maine) was reelected to the Senate, surviving a challenge once thought to be serious. She won, in large part, because she was able to drown her Democratic adversary in a sea of campaign spending made possible by donations from Republicans throughout the nation. As a result of their efforts, the GOP preserved its 40th vote in the Senate.
And when Saxby Chambliss was forced into a runoff in the Georgia Senate race, Republicans from all over the United States poured out their hearts and their funds to get him reelected, all to save the 41st vote and be able to filibuster Democrats’ big spending proposals.
Now the actions of three people who told their voters that they were Republicans have eliminated any hope that the GOP has for influence during the next two years. By making their own deals with the Obama administration and settling for cosmetic improvements in the so-called stimulus package, Sens. Collins, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have sold out their party, their state and their supporters.
Don’t buy their excuse that they shaved more than one hundred billion dollars in spending from the Senate version. By the time the Senate/House conference reconciles the differences between the versions of the legislation passed by the two houses, most of that spending will be back in the law anyway.
Collins, Snowe and Specter had a chance to send a message to Obama that he had to deal with the Republican Party to avert a filibuster. They could have made it clear that genuine bipartisan cooperation was necessary to pass legislation. These three senators, pledged to cut taxes and oppose massive growth in federal spending, could have demanded a 2-to-1 ratio for tax cuts over spending, rather than the reverse, as Obama is succeeding in getting.
Instead, the three wimped out and caved in for peanuts from Obama. In doing so, they completely stripped their party of any leverage. There was no point in having gotten 41 votes if the three weakest links could sell the party out.
This stimulus package will:
• Hurt economic recovery by elbowing aside private borrowers and consumers as the government goes to the front of the line to borrow adequate funds to cover its deficit.
• Invite massive inflation in the future as consumers and businesspeople sit on most of the money until times improve. Then, when confidence begins to return — no thanks to the stimulus package — they will deluge the economy with money, triggering massive inflation.
• Expand government and spend borrowed money on projects that may have some long-term merit but are scarcely our top priority right now.
Republicans in Maine and Pennsylvania need to learn their lesson and assure that these three senators face a primary. Real conservatives, who oppose larger government, must stand up to these three phony Republicans.
They’ll get their chance. Specter is up for reelection in 2010. He should have been defeated in 2006 when a real conservative, Pat Toomey, opposed him in a primary and only narrowly lost. Better luck next time.
The very concept of checks and balances evaporated last week on Capitol Hill when these three senators sold out their colleagues and stripped their conference of its power. Now Obama can buy off the GOP senator by senator without having to make genuine compromises with the other party to pass his agenda.
In 1993, Clinton was not able to buy Republicans retail. Only Vermont’s Jim Jeffords, who soon became a Democrat, gave way and dealt independently with the president. Now, with their backs to the wall, facing a spending package that will consign America to rampant inflation, massive debt and continued recession, these three senators have gone back on their most fundamental pledge to their constituents — to act in the public good.
====
The only think worse than an enemy, is a traitor!
02.10.2009
Published on TheHill.com on February 10, 2009
Because of the concentrated efforts of millions of Republicans all over America, Susan Collins (Maine) was reelected to the Senate, surviving a challenge once thought to be serious. She won, in large part, because she was able to drown her Democratic adversary in a sea of campaign spending made possible by donations from Republicans throughout the nation. As a result of their efforts, the GOP preserved its 40th vote in the Senate.
And when Saxby Chambliss was forced into a runoff in the Georgia Senate race, Republicans from all over the United States poured out their hearts and their funds to get him reelected, all to save the 41st vote and be able to filibuster Democrats’ big spending proposals.
Now the actions of three people who told their voters that they were Republicans have eliminated any hope that the GOP has for influence during the next two years. By making their own deals with the Obama administration and settling for cosmetic improvements in the so-called stimulus package, Sens. Collins, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have sold out their party, their state and their supporters.
Don’t buy their excuse that they shaved more than one hundred billion dollars in spending from the Senate version. By the time the Senate/House conference reconciles the differences between the versions of the legislation passed by the two houses, most of that spending will be back in the law anyway.
Collins, Snowe and Specter had a chance to send a message to Obama that he had to deal with the Republican Party to avert a filibuster. They could have made it clear that genuine bipartisan cooperation was necessary to pass legislation. These three senators, pledged to cut taxes and oppose massive growth in federal spending, could have demanded a 2-to-1 ratio for tax cuts over spending, rather than the reverse, as Obama is succeeding in getting.
Instead, the three wimped out and caved in for peanuts from Obama. In doing so, they completely stripped their party of any leverage. There was no point in having gotten 41 votes if the three weakest links could sell the party out.
This stimulus package will:
• Hurt economic recovery by elbowing aside private borrowers and consumers as the government goes to the front of the line to borrow adequate funds to cover its deficit.
• Invite massive inflation in the future as consumers and businesspeople sit on most of the money until times improve. Then, when confidence begins to return — no thanks to the stimulus package — they will deluge the economy with money, triggering massive inflation.
• Expand government and spend borrowed money on projects that may have some long-term merit but are scarcely our top priority right now.
Republicans in Maine and Pennsylvania need to learn their lesson and assure that these three senators face a primary. Real conservatives, who oppose larger government, must stand up to these three phony Republicans.
They’ll get their chance. Specter is up for reelection in 2010. He should have been defeated in 2006 when a real conservative, Pat Toomey, opposed him in a primary and only narrowly lost. Better luck next time.
The very concept of checks and balances evaporated last week on Capitol Hill when these three senators sold out their colleagues and stripped their conference of its power. Now Obama can buy off the GOP senator by senator without having to make genuine compromises with the other party to pass his agenda.
In 1993, Clinton was not able to buy Republicans retail. Only Vermont’s Jim Jeffords, who soon became a Democrat, gave way and dealt independently with the president. Now, with their backs to the wall, facing a spending package that will consign America to rampant inflation, massive debt and continued recession, these three senators have gone back on their most fundamental pledge to their constituents — to act in the public good.
====
The only think worse than an enemy, is a traitor!
Cheney warns Obama: Stick with our policies or risk a WMD attack
“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.
Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”…
But he said he worried that “instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.
The choice, he alleged, reflects a naive mindset among the new team in Washington: “The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.”…
“If you release the hard-core Al Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks,” he said. “If you turn ’em loose and they go kill more Americans, who’s responsible for that?”
Thu, 05 Feb 2009
===
It's on the record now.... Obama was/is warned... If/when the attack comes he
better not try and say he was not warned!
Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”…
But he said he worried that “instead of sitting down and carefully evaluating the policies,” Obama officials are unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” and preparing to release terrorism suspects or afford them legal protections granted to more conventional defendants in crime cases.
The choice, he alleged, reflects a naive mindset among the new team in Washington: “The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.”…
“If you release the hard-core Al Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks,” he said. “If you turn ’em loose and they go kill more Americans, who’s responsible for that?”
Thu, 05 Feb 2009
===
It's on the record now.... Obama was/is warned... If/when the attack comes he
better not try and say he was not warned!
Obama favours killing the unborn...
First watch!
Obama is all for killing the unborn!!! I mean after all, they have no voice and more importantly to him! NO VOTE! While millions of radical women who use abortion as a contraceptive and make nice adverts about why it's "cool" do! You can figure it out!
But he's far from alone in his quest to murder the unborn, both at home and
abroad!
People.. Look up the news about Nancy Pelosi. According to her it's in the Country's best interest to kill the unborn. It's economical to kill them... They won't be a burden on society then! I guess! According to her.... Speaker of the House... Murdering the Unborn will "Reduce Cost to the State" In her own words!
Right here:
... How far away are we from China!
Change we DO NOT WANT NOR NEED!!!
Obama is all for killing the unborn!!! I mean after all, they have no voice and more importantly to him! NO VOTE! While millions of radical women who use abortion as a contraceptive and make nice adverts about why it's "cool" do! You can figure it out!
But he's far from alone in his quest to murder the unborn, both at home and
abroad!
People.. Look up the news about Nancy Pelosi. According to her it's in the Country's best interest to kill the unborn. It's economical to kill them... They won't be a burden on society then! I guess! According to her.... Speaker of the House... Murdering the Unborn will "Reduce Cost to the State" In her own words!
Right here:
... How far away are we from China!
Change we DO NOT WANT NOR NEED!!!
Obama is acting WHITE?!
Obama is acting white...
I'm sure you'll agree is an unbelievable RACIST statement!
Obama... Acting white? Who could have said such a thing?
It certainly wasn't the LA Times... Nooo! They called him the "Magic Negro"... and referred to him as a "White Interlopers dream"... They even said he made "Guilty whites feel good"
Therefore....
It must have been some hate-mongering FASCIST Neo NAZI scum of the earth bastard!!! A right knuckle dragger that makes other people question darwinism and evolution!!!
A bastard so bad... that he would be unworthy to say the name Obama nevermind denigrate him in such a vicious and racist manner!
Beneath contempt right?
Right?
A person you'd want to wipe off the bottom of your shoe and wouldn't even talk about the fact that he was ever there... You have your standards!
Well...
Not really...
As the great Paul Harvey would say "... And now for the rest of the story"
It was our pal...
Jessie Jackson!
Ta DA!!
Read it all here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297332,00.html
Now, I want to be fair... Poor Jessie may have had a bad day or something...
He would never wish to cut off the nuts of Obama and allow a live TV mike to capture his comment? He's not THAT stupid is he?
Hmmm...
Yet here he is... saying just that...
Not a white racist to be found! Plenty of racists! Unless of course you a Liberal and think that the Racist River only flows one way... But you also think that Global Warming is all man made... So...
In the end... It's the people that SCREAM that we must see Obama as not just BLACK but a unifier... Are in fact the most racist!
I'm sure you'll agree is an unbelievable RACIST statement!
Obama... Acting white? Who could have said such a thing?
It certainly wasn't the LA Times... Nooo! They called him the "Magic Negro"... and referred to him as a "White Interlopers dream"... They even said he made "Guilty whites feel good"
Therefore....
It must have been some hate-mongering FASCIST Neo NAZI scum of the earth bastard!!! A right knuckle dragger that makes other people question darwinism and evolution!!!
A bastard so bad... that he would be unworthy to say the name Obama nevermind denigrate him in such a vicious and racist manner!
Beneath contempt right?
Right?
A person you'd want to wipe off the bottom of your shoe and wouldn't even talk about the fact that he was ever there... You have your standards!
Well...
Not really...
As the great Paul Harvey would say "... And now for the rest of the story"
It was our pal...
Jessie Jackson!
Ta DA!!
Read it all here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297332,00.html
Now, I want to be fair... Poor Jessie may have had a bad day or something...
He would never wish to cut off the nuts of Obama and allow a live TV mike to capture his comment? He's not THAT stupid is he?
Hmmm...
Yet here he is... saying just that...
Not a white racist to be found! Plenty of racists! Unless of course you a Liberal and think that the Racist River only flows one way... But you also think that Global Warming is all man made... So...
In the end... It's the people that SCREAM that we must see Obama as not just BLACK but a unifier... Are in fact the most racist!
Life - Imagine the potential!?
This 30 second tv slot is beautiful in it's simplicity, and profound in it's revelation! The first release of a national media campaign launched by CatholicVote.com titled "Life: Imagine the Potential" Tiller the baby killer (1) may not like it, but can anyone not insane argue it?
(1)Tiller the Baby Killer: George Tiller - Murdering for Moola! Bill O'Reilly segment of a 14 year old girl that had a late term abortion at George Tiller the baby Killer's Abortion Mill in Wichita Kansas.
(1)Tiller the Baby Killer: George Tiller - Murdering for Moola! Bill O'Reilly segment of a 14 year old girl that had a late term abortion at George Tiller the baby Killer's Abortion Mill in Wichita Kansas.
"We're gonna change the world" Obama tribute - Hitler Youth anyone?
The fight has just begun, yes we can!
God bless President George W. Bush for doing what is right even in the face of disloyal liberals across this country.
I want every single person who voted for Obama to remember that vote proudly over the coming years. Afterall, you are one of the many who brought upon the nightmare that will hurt all of us regardless of color, religion or politics.
Barack Hussein Obama, not my president.
God bless President George W. Bush for doing what is right even in the face of disloyal liberals across this country.
I want every single person who voted for Obama to remember that vote proudly over the coming years. Afterall, you are one of the many who brought upon the nightmare that will hurt all of us regardless of color, religion or politics.
Barack Hussein Obama, not my president.
Heil Hitler! Hail Obama!
The Honorable James David Manning compares Obama to Hitler. This message was preached on 7 June 2008.
New US National Anthem (unofficial)
Below my friends are the words of the New National Anthem of America
(Unofficial)...
It's sang to the tune of the Communist National Anthem.
All Hail the Messiah! Obama! Obama!
The path to the news Socialist Motherland!!!
Our Saviour! Our Saviour! Obama! Obama!
The Leader more famous then Lindsay Lohan!
Bow down and praise The One!
Give him your money and your guns!
Give us a country that makes your wife proud!!!
Lord Barry heal the bitter ones!
WHITE and clinging to FAITH and to GUNS!!
Hope for the change of the hope...
Of the CHANGE!!
For those of you not familar with the Communist National Anthem, but still desperate to jump on the Obama Bandwagon so you can impress your shallow friends with how "hip" you are... I kindly provided a video below for you to watch and learn, thanks to my friend Glenn Beck. Now you too can pretend to give a damn... Listen and learn... And when next in Starbucks... Don't forget to sing it out loud for a free drink... They're Socialists like you and will appreciate your moronic kool-aid drinking drivel!
(Unofficial)...
It's sang to the tune of the Communist National Anthem.
All Hail the Messiah! Obama! Obama!
The path to the news Socialist Motherland!!!
Our Saviour! Our Saviour! Obama! Obama!
The Leader more famous then Lindsay Lohan!
Bow down and praise The One!
Give him your money and your guns!
Give us a country that makes your wife proud!!!
Lord Barry heal the bitter ones!
WHITE and clinging to FAITH and to GUNS!!
Hope for the change of the hope...
Of the CHANGE!!
For those of you not familar with the Communist National Anthem, but still desperate to jump on the Obama Bandwagon so you can impress your shallow friends with how "hip" you are... I kindly provided a video below for you to watch and learn, thanks to my friend Glenn Beck. Now you too can pretend to give a damn... Listen and learn... And when next in Starbucks... Don't forget to sing it out loud for a free drink... They're Socialists like you and will appreciate your moronic kool-aid drinking drivel!
Thank you President Bush - by Bill O'Reilly
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jan 15, 2009
Partisan blather aside, let's take a no spin look at President Bush's two biggest legacy items: The terror war and the economy.
Mr. Bush leaves office with a 34% approval rating, according to a recent Gallup poll. That ties him with Jimmy Carter's approval rating when he left office in 1981—not exactly a place you want to be. However, the war on terror issue is still being defined and will likely help Bush when history is written, down the line.
Immediately after the attack on 9/11, the Muslim jihadists had a big wind at their backs. We saw TV pictures of Muslims dancing in the streets as the great Satan America was humbled by al-Qaeda. Almost instantly, the invincibility of the United States was challenged and the physical safety of Americans was at risk. It was very possible that further attacks were close.
Moving quickly, the Bush administration reorganized the FBI into a terror-fighting organization and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, disrupting al-Qaeda's command and control. Those successful tactics blunted a number of active terror plots and resulted in the capture of a number of al-Qaeda big shots, all of whom broke under coerced interrogation. The information they gave
up allowed the Bush administration to further damage the terrorist infrastructure.
Then came Iraq, an operation designed to cleanse the Muslim world of the huge terrorist enabler Saddam Hussein. The price of that war is still being debated, but what is not disputed by honest people is that the al-Qaeda foot soldiers that invaded Iraq hoping to defeat the U.S. military were eventually decimated. The price for America in Iraq has been enormous, but al-Qaeda has also paid big.
Today, the terror threat still exists, but it is no longer centralized and has lost most of its momentum. In short, the United States is winning the shooting war and President Bush should get credit for that.
On the economic front, however, the picture is different. The dramatic rise in oil prices last spring was artificially driven by greedy speculators, some of whom worked out of some brokerage houses like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The oil company chieftains quickly realized they could make billions raising their prices to reflect the upward price speculation and did so with gusto. Thus, millions of consumer dollars were diverted to gas bills instead of other
obligations. That lit the fuse of the recession.
At the same time, banks were making risky home loans to unqualified consumers. The banks then sold many of those loans to quick-buck artists at places like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. When consumers began to default because money became tight, panic ensued and the recession roared in.
So, where was President Bush while all this was happening? He continued to put forth that the economy was fundamentally strong when it was not. That is on the President. If he was misled by his economic advisors, he should have said so. But Mr. Bush is leaving office with no credible explanation for the collapse.
The Democrat-controlled congress also stood by and did nothing to protect the folks. Last July, Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House finance committee, told the world that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were "in good shape going forward."
A few weeks later, those mortgage entities collapsed. Frank is now blaming the Republicans, but he is being flat-out dishonest in not taking any responsibility.
Like a sports team that loses big, the head coach is the main guy. After Iraq and the wobbling economy, the folks lost confidence in President Bush, and Barack Obama capitalized on that.
But the truth is that the Bush administration did very well protecting us against the terror killers—not so well protecting us against Wall Street greed-heads.
Thursday, Jan 15, 2009
Partisan blather aside, let's take a no spin look at President Bush's two biggest legacy items: The terror war and the economy.
Mr. Bush leaves office with a 34% approval rating, according to a recent Gallup poll. That ties him with Jimmy Carter's approval rating when he left office in 1981—not exactly a place you want to be. However, the war on terror issue is still being defined and will likely help Bush when history is written, down the line.
Immediately after the attack on 9/11, the Muslim jihadists had a big wind at their backs. We saw TV pictures of Muslims dancing in the streets as the great Satan America was humbled by al-Qaeda. Almost instantly, the invincibility of the United States was challenged and the physical safety of Americans was at risk. It was very possible that further attacks were close.
Moving quickly, the Bush administration reorganized the FBI into a terror-fighting organization and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, disrupting al-Qaeda's command and control. Those successful tactics blunted a number of active terror plots and resulted in the capture of a number of al-Qaeda big shots, all of whom broke under coerced interrogation. The information they gave
up allowed the Bush administration to further damage the terrorist infrastructure.
Then came Iraq, an operation designed to cleanse the Muslim world of the huge terrorist enabler Saddam Hussein. The price of that war is still being debated, but what is not disputed by honest people is that the al-Qaeda foot soldiers that invaded Iraq hoping to defeat the U.S. military were eventually decimated. The price for America in Iraq has been enormous, but al-Qaeda has also paid big.
Today, the terror threat still exists, but it is no longer centralized and has lost most of its momentum. In short, the United States is winning the shooting war and President Bush should get credit for that.
On the economic front, however, the picture is different. The dramatic rise in oil prices last spring was artificially driven by greedy speculators, some of whom worked out of some brokerage houses like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The oil company chieftains quickly realized they could make billions raising their prices to reflect the upward price speculation and did so with gusto. Thus, millions of consumer dollars were diverted to gas bills instead of other
obligations. That lit the fuse of the recession.
At the same time, banks were making risky home loans to unqualified consumers. The banks then sold many of those loans to quick-buck artists at places like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. When consumers began to default because money became tight, panic ensued and the recession roared in.
So, where was President Bush while all this was happening? He continued to put forth that the economy was fundamentally strong when it was not. That is on the President. If he was misled by his economic advisors, he should have said so. But Mr. Bush is leaving office with no credible explanation for the collapse.
The Democrat-controlled congress also stood by and did nothing to protect the folks. Last July, Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House finance committee, told the world that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were "in good shape going forward."
A few weeks later, those mortgage entities collapsed. Frank is now blaming the Republicans, but he is being flat-out dishonest in not taking any responsibility.
Like a sports team that loses big, the head coach is the main guy. After Iraq and the wobbling economy, the folks lost confidence in President Bush, and Barack Obama capitalized on that.
But the truth is that the Bush administration did very well protecting us against the terror killers—not so well protecting us against Wall Street greed-heads.
The Manning Report on Obama! - The Day of the Joker!
Hon. James David Manning, PhD officially declares Tuesday, 20 January 2009 as the Day of the Joker. This message was given on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 on The Manning Report.
Just how educated is the Obama voter?
Prepare to be shocked - unless your a Conservative, in which case prepare to see
evidence of what you knew all along:
evidence of what you knew all along:
Barack Obama's Racist Communist Ideations
We have to get a sense of Barack not from his short two year national record, So we look to his 20 year association with his church that embraces Black liberation theology born from communist ideas, and separatist militant, violent, KKK like racism.
This is who Barack is.
(Opens in a new browser window/tab)
This is who Barack is.
(Opens in a new browser window/tab)
Conservatives happier than liberals!
WASHINGTON — The good news for Republicans: You are happier than Democrats. You always have been, and you probably always will be.
Never mind that your presidential candidate is sinking in the polls while your president plumbs historic depths of popular scorn and your free market squeals for intervention while your Wall Street investments evaporate. You are not just happier than the other guys, but more of you are very happy, according to new survey results published Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
The pollsters were in the field asking about happiness this month, when economic news was gloomy for everybody and presidential campaign news seemed especially baleful for Republicans. Yet they found 37 percent of Republicans are "very happy," compared with 25 percent of Democrats; 51 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats are "pretty happy"; and 9 percent of Republicans are "not too happy," compared with 20 percent of Democrats.
The partisan happiness gap — unbroken for nearly 40 years — is impervious to electoral ups and downs. It has something to do with worldview.
"I'm very happy," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and a Republican. "When I was 12, I realized the world was not organized around my desires and wishes. The problem with guys on the left is they never figured that out at age 12. And they're just irritated the world is not organized around their vision. This makes them grumpy."
Chris Lehane doesn't sound grumpy. The Democratic consultant is on the phone from San Francisco: "My guess is if [Pew] checked the cross tabs out in California, we're all pretty happy out here. The wine is still good, the food is fresh, the people are beautiful."
But seriously, Lehane said, if Republicans are more happy, it's because they care less.
"The typical Republican is happy coming home to a 62-inch television, pulling out a fine bottle of cognac or scotch, putting his feet on the table and enjoying the fruits of his labor, but not caring what's going on in the world outside their living room ... and their gated community."
Government-funded researchers identified the happiness gap in 1972. Democrats since have been comparatively more bummed out not just during the tenures of GOP presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush. They were noticeably less joyful than Republicans even during the GOP fiasco of Watergate and during the Democratic Carter and Clinton administrations.
This year, when things seem so rosy for Democrats, the joy gulch yawns wider than ever. The fraction of very happy Republicans never has been so much larger than the very happy Democrats.
The Republicans' secret?
"They have more money," Paul Taylor, director of the Pew Social & Demographic Trends project, writes in the new report. "They have more friends. They are more religious. They are healthier. They are more likely to be married. They like their communities better. They like their jobs more. They are more satisfied with their family life. They like the weather better."
Do Democrats need to get a life?
None of this proves being Republican causes happiness, Taylor cautioned. Do happy people get married, attend weekly religious services and vote for John McCain? Or does devotion to marriage, God and McCain cause them to be happy?
The study does identify a series of characteristics found in many people who call themselves happy. Good health is a key factor. Marriage and religion are big, too, and so is wealth. (If money doesn't buy happiness, it appears to help with the down payment.)
When controlled for all other variables, Taylor said, a Republican is 13 percent or 7 percent more likely to be very happy than a Democrat, depending on which regression analysis model is used.
It turns out the happiness gap is not only a U.S. phenomenon. In country after country, happiness studies find that "conservatives" are happier than "liberals."
They seem to be two species, with differently encoded DNA. The unequal balance-of-joy conjures hoary stereotypes: the jolly conservative, self-satisfied in his success, a doer not a doubter; and the angst-ridden liberal, guilty in his success, a searcher not a finder.
"The question is not whether Republicans are happier than Democrats, or conservatives are happier than liberals," said Arthur Brooks, incoming president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America — and How We Can Get More of It."
"That's unambiguously true. The question is, why?"
Brooks said a lot hinges on the answer to this question: Do you believe hard work and perseverance can overcome disadvantages? Conservatives are more likely to say yes.
Pew found that Democrats are more likely to say success in life is mostly determined by outside forces. Republicans lean toward thinking success is determined by one's efforts.
The hypothesis: Those who think they can control their destinies are happier.
Also: Extremists are happier than moderates, Brooks has concluded. Hard-core liberals are the happiest liberals, and hard-core conservatives are the happiest people on Earth. Self-certainty is like a happy pill. The bumper sticker may declare, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention," but the guy behind the wheel is overjoyed.
The thing about happiness is how subjective it is. Happiness researchers such as Taylor and Brooks don't claim to say whose worldview is more empiricall correct, Norquist's or Lehane's.
Being correct doesn't make you happy, but being right may help.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008309258_camphappy250.html
(Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008)
Never mind that your presidential candidate is sinking in the polls while your president plumbs historic depths of popular scorn and your free market squeals for intervention while your Wall Street investments evaporate. You are not just happier than the other guys, but more of you are very happy, according to new survey results published Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
The pollsters were in the field asking about happiness this month, when economic news was gloomy for everybody and presidential campaign news seemed especially baleful for Republicans. Yet they found 37 percent of Republicans are "very happy," compared with 25 percent of Democrats; 51 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats are "pretty happy"; and 9 percent of Republicans are "not too happy," compared with 20 percent of Democrats.
The partisan happiness gap — unbroken for nearly 40 years — is impervious to electoral ups and downs. It has something to do with worldview.
"I'm very happy," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and a Republican. "When I was 12, I realized the world was not organized around my desires and wishes. The problem with guys on the left is they never figured that out at age 12. And they're just irritated the world is not organized around their vision. This makes them grumpy."
Chris Lehane doesn't sound grumpy. The Democratic consultant is on the phone from San Francisco: "My guess is if [Pew] checked the cross tabs out in California, we're all pretty happy out here. The wine is still good, the food is fresh, the people are beautiful."
But seriously, Lehane said, if Republicans are more happy, it's because they care less.
"The typical Republican is happy coming home to a 62-inch television, pulling out a fine bottle of cognac or scotch, putting his feet on the table and enjoying the fruits of his labor, but not caring what's going on in the world outside their living room ... and their gated community."
Government-funded researchers identified the happiness gap in 1972. Democrats since have been comparatively more bummed out not just during the tenures of GOP presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush. They were noticeably less joyful than Republicans even during the GOP fiasco of Watergate and during the Democratic Carter and Clinton administrations.
This year, when things seem so rosy for Democrats, the joy gulch yawns wider than ever. The fraction of very happy Republicans never has been so much larger than the very happy Democrats.
The Republicans' secret?
"They have more money," Paul Taylor, director of the Pew Social & Demographic Trends project, writes in the new report. "They have more friends. They are more religious. They are healthier. They are more likely to be married. They like their communities better. They like their jobs more. They are more satisfied with their family life. They like the weather better."
Do Democrats need to get a life?
None of this proves being Republican causes happiness, Taylor cautioned. Do happy people get married, attend weekly religious services and vote for John McCain? Or does devotion to marriage, God and McCain cause them to be happy?
The study does identify a series of characteristics found in many people who call themselves happy. Good health is a key factor. Marriage and religion are big, too, and so is wealth. (If money doesn't buy happiness, it appears to help with the down payment.)
When controlled for all other variables, Taylor said, a Republican is 13 percent or 7 percent more likely to be very happy than a Democrat, depending on which regression analysis model is used.
It turns out the happiness gap is not only a U.S. phenomenon. In country after country, happiness studies find that "conservatives" are happier than "liberals."
They seem to be two species, with differently encoded DNA. The unequal balance-of-joy conjures hoary stereotypes: the jolly conservative, self-satisfied in his success, a doer not a doubter; and the angst-ridden liberal, guilty in his success, a searcher not a finder.
"The question is not whether Republicans are happier than Democrats, or conservatives are happier than liberals," said Arthur Brooks, incoming president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America — and How We Can Get More of It."
"That's unambiguously true. The question is, why?"
Brooks said a lot hinges on the answer to this question: Do you believe hard work and perseverance can overcome disadvantages? Conservatives are more likely to say yes.
Pew found that Democrats are more likely to say success in life is mostly determined by outside forces. Republicans lean toward thinking success is determined by one's efforts.
The hypothesis: Those who think they can control their destinies are happier.
Also: Extremists are happier than moderates, Brooks has concluded. Hard-core liberals are the happiest liberals, and hard-core conservatives are the happiest people on Earth. Self-certainty is like a happy pill. The bumper sticker may declare, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention," but the guy behind the wheel is overjoyed.
The thing about happiness is how subjective it is. Happiness researchers such as Taylor and Brooks don't claim to say whose worldview is more empiricall correct, Norquist's or Lehane's.
Being correct doesn't make you happy, but being right may help.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008309258_camphappy250.html
(Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)