Voice of Conservative America

Top Romney Aides Lobbied for Freddie Mac

2012-01-26T09:08:00.003-05:00

While Mitt Romney is attacking Newt Gingrich on his ties to mortgage giant Freddie Mac, it turns out he has Freddie ties close to home himself.

The Daily Caller reports that some of Romney’s closest advisers or the firms that employed them, were paid "hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of dollars on behalf of failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac."

The Romney campaign did not respond to the claims.

Former Rep. Susan Molinari was among them. She now is one of Romney's top aides but was paid to stop “any meaningful regulation in the years before the housing mortgage giant crashed,” according to the report.

One of Romney’s top economic policy advisers, Vin Weber, worked for a firm which was paid $360,297 by Freddie. And according to the AP, Weber made no bones about his close ties to the failed mortgage giant:

“I personally met with the CEO several times and with Hollis and his team regularly,” Weber said in the e-mail. “Clark and Weinstock worked effectively and intensely for Freddie Mac under Dick Syron [Freddie Mac's then-chairman and chief executive] and [Senior Vice President] Hollis McLoughlin.”

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond told the Daily Caller: “We’d like to know when Gov. Romney is going to ask his own advisers to return their money.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Top Romney Aides Lobbied for Freddie Mac
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Credit to: NewsMax.com

Herman Cain response to State of the Union

2012-01-25T09:07:00.000-05:00

Conservative Response to Obama's State of the Union Speech

2012-01-25T08:46:00.011-05:00

Newt Wins South Carolina!!!

2012-01-04T08:03:00.016-05:00

Compare Newt a real conservative VS. Mitt the RINO by playing both video's below and see who you wish to lead our great country:

Mitt says himself he was an independent during Ronald Reagan's time and said he was not trying to return us to the time and policies of Ronald Reagan. Enough said!!!

Don't Forget Who Got Us Into This Depression In The First Place

2009-05-18T09:48:00.001-04:00

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis.

Muslim Demographics

2009-05-11T08:44:00.002-04:00

Islamic Sharia Law In The USA... Obama's Appoints A Man Favorable To The Idea.

Tolerance Must Go Both Ways

2009-04-30T17:24:00.009-04:00

The below article is copied\pasted and well worth a read however I would like to point out this blog owner sides with Miss California and agrees 100% with her on this issue: Marriage should be between a man and a woman period. That's not taking anything from gays it's just promoting a societal norm if gays want to live together and visit in hospitals so be it, they can have a union for that, but not a marriage because that would be promoting gay as a norm. In real life some gays have learned to be gay not all are born gay (FACT). Also many gays are militant and intolerant in real life, at least the many I've encountered. Gays tried to push themselves on me many a time while I was a young man away from home... now older and wiser thank God.

Tolerance Must Go Both Ways

By Alex Lindquist

On Sunday, people were stunned upon watching as Carrie Prejean, AKA “Miss California,” made comments about her beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman. She revealed her opinion in a modest way about how it was the way she was raised, and that no offense is intended for anyone.

While I completely disagree with her opinion, I admire her courage for speaking the truth. Many women in contests such as these will compromise their personal beliefs in an attempt to butter up the judges with answers that they believe will earn them that top spot. Miss Prejean didn’t cave into that pressure, which makes her a rarity among the contestants.

I feel bad for her that the backlash was so great against her. I especially don’t approve of judge Perez Hilton saying she didn’t win “because she’s a dumb bitch.” That right there is an example of being just as intolerant on the other team. Within the gay communities I know, there are homosexuals who hate this woman. Just leave her alone and learn some tolerance of your own. How can anybody be expect others to tolerate them if they haven’t learned any tolerance of their own?

Too often, it seems the gay media focuses too much on opinions of who’s right, and anytime a public figure discusses an opinion that isn’t in favor of gay marriage, that person faces the wrath gays and gay supporters. Suddenly everything becomes about who is right rather than focusing on what the real dilemma is, which is equality. Homosexuals should have the right to marry, and it’s a crime that people from a religious background are fighting it. However, no matter what the outcome, people also have the right to not agree with gay marriage. Being against gay marriage is an opinion, but being part of a movement against equality of gays is a completely different story.

Perez Hilton, YOU are dumb bitch, and you should learn some tolerance of your own before calling names like a schoolyard bully. It’s reasons like this why I hate beauty contests.... a girl can never win just by being herself.

Credit: Original post

Arrogant Americans, Mr. President?

2009-04-23T07:05:00.002-04:00

As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger. No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he's been out of the U.S. Navy, that's still an intimidating sight. As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, "We saved that continent twice...how dare my president apologize for this country's arrogance." My grandpa is right. Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.

Barack Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle. But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it. Neither is excusable.

Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy, where the sand is still stained with 65-year-old blood of "arrogant Americans."

Indeed, columnist Mark Whittington observes, "One should remind Mr. Obama and the Europeans how America has 'shown arrogance' by saving Europe from itself innumerable times in the 20th Century. World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the wars in the Balkans were largely resolved by American blood, treasure, and leadership." But all that appears lost on the president's seemingly insatiable quest to mend fences he imagines have been tarnished by the bullish George W. Bush.

If Obama wishes to continue trampling the presidential tradition of showing class to former office holders and publicly trash Bush for his own personal gain, so be it. But all Americans should make clear that no man – even if he is the president – will tarnish the legacy of those Americans who have gone before us. Ours is not a history of arrogance. It is a history of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor.

When abusive monarchs repressed the masses, Americans resisted and overthrew them. When misguided policies led to the unjust oppression of fellow citizens, Americans rebelled and overturned them. When millions of impoverished and destitute wretches sought a new beginning, Americans threw open the door and welcomed them. When imperial dictators were on the march, Americans surrendered their lives to stop them. When communist thugs threatened world peace, Americans bled to defeat them. When an entire continent was overwhelmed with famine and hunger, Americans gave of themselves to sustain it. When terrorist madmen killed the innocent and subjugated millions, Americans led the fight to topple them.

This is the legacy that generations of Americans have left. If President Obama seeks stronger relations with the world community, perhaps he should begin by reminding them of these very truths, rather than condemning his own countrymen on foreign shores.

This "obsessive need to put down his own country," has caused blogger James Lewis to call President Obama a "stunningly ignorant man" who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao's purges.

Unfortunately, I can no longer bring myself to give Mr. Obama that benefit of the doubt. Not after looking at the pain in my grandpa's eyes...a man who still carries shrapnel in his body from his service to this country.

As a student and teacher of history, I recognize that America has made mistakes...plenty of them, in fact. But one of the great things about our people has been their courage and humility in admitting and correcting those mistakes. God willing, they will prove that willingness again in four years and correct the mistake that is the presidency of Barack Obama

Credit: Perspectives

The Greatest Play In Baseball

2009-04-18T14:49:00.001-04:00

I Wanna be an Illegal Immigrant...

2009-04-15T18:57:00.003-04:00

This drinking with Bob video is making more sense than our elected officials

Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his
senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202)20224 3254
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue
Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the
Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process
for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to
illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the
Senate and for which you voted.

If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started
before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay
taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two
years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine.

Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an
excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in
2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the
local emergency room as my primary health careprovider. Once I have
stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I
could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter
would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school
applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges
throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden
of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car
insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still
have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become
illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms,
I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent, (hoping to reach 'illegal alien' status rather
than just a bonafide citizen of the USA )

Donald Ruppert
Burlington , IA

Get your Forms (NOW)!!
Call your Internal Revenue Service at 1-800-289-1040.

The Year Is 1907, About A Hundred Years Ago

2009-04-02T08:58:00.010-04:00

READ PRINT UNDER PICTURE!

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag.. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Every American citizen needs to read this!
KEEP THIS MOVING

Credit: email submission

Related reading: Scary Obama departure from the immigration enforcement policy of the Bush administration

Tell Congress to Vote NO on Obama's Massive Tax and Spend Budget!

2009-04-01T18:32:00.005-04:00

Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity

Tell Congress to Vote NO on Obama's Massive Tax and Spend Budget!

Take Action!

Believe it or not, Obama and his Congressional allies are already trying to set another new record for reckless overspending.

Today Congress is beginning debate on President Obama's unprecedented $3.6 trillion budget that is literally taking our nation toward bankruptcy by borrowing too much, bailing out too many, taxing too much, spending too much and making government too big to sustain.

We need you to tell your member of Congress to vote NO on the Obama Budget.

You know things are bad when even the French say we're spending too much as their President, Nicholas Sarkozy, has said repeatedly.

The Obama budget:

Increases net taxes by $1.35 trillion over the next 10 years.
Enacts a $646 billion "Global Warming Tax" they call "cap-and-trade." But the White House has already admitted the real cost could be "two-to-three" times higher. These new costs will be passed along to all of us in the form of higher prices on home energy, gasoline and food.
Raises taxes on Americans when they give to a charity! At a time when American non-profits are really hurting President Obama wants to increase taxes on charitable giving. Washington elites want our dollars going to government not private charities and that's outrageous.
Increases the Death Tax back to the devastating 45 percent rate.
The budget lays the foundation for a government take over of health care, including hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes, a huge new bureaucracy, and possibly Canadian-style rationing of health care.
The budget sets aside hundreds of billions of dollars for more Wall Street bailouts!

Every program that has been on the big government wish list for the past decade is crammed into the Obama budget.

The Obama budget for 2010 creates a $1.3 trillion deficit, the largest in history. Think about this for a moment -- from 1940 to 1944 we ran a total budget deficit of $1.65 trillion dollars (in today's dollars) -- while preparing to fight and actually fighting the largest war in history. Yet, President Obama runs a deficit almost that big in one year.

And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama budget for the next decade will pile up approximately $10 trillion in debt.

You can see the threat to our economic freedom.

Take action NOW and tell Congress to vote NO on the Obama Bailout Budget!

Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

2009-04-01T16:43:00.008-04:00

By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen

A sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. It is a real threat that has been all but ignored.

On Feb. 3, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit also can drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than 45 minutes.

Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States, given our retaliatory power.

A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim: In fact, one small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.

An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a byproduct of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the Earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.

This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.

Even as the new administration plans to spend trillions on economic bailouts, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the United States’ reluctance to invest in a modern and credible traditional nuclear deterrent is a serious concern. What good will a bailout be if there is no longer a nation to bail out?

Fifty years ago, it was not Sputnik itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted Sputnik into orbit also could have served as an ICBM.

Yet for all its rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to the edge.

The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation . . . can now at last achieve that dream in a matter of minutes.

Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they will have only one or two nuclear weapons ignore the catastrophic level of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons.

Again: One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate at a high altitude — to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area of the United States — would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a continent-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation, and communications infrastructure.

Within weeks after such an attack, tens of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90 percent of all Americans might very well die in the year after such an attack as our transportation, food distribution, communications, public safety, law enforcement, and medical infrastructures collapse.

We most likely would never recover from the blow.

Two things need to be done now and without delay:

1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that, if either Iran or North Korea launches a rocket on a trajectory headed toward the territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back for 30 minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable, beyond rational on our part.

2. Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which at last is becoming viable after 25 years of research, would be an action of criminal negligence.

Surely, with such a threat confronting us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well depend on it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. William Forstchen is the author of "One Second After," an account of a town struggling to survive after an EMP weapon is used against the United States.

[Editor’s Note: Get William Forstchen’s book depicting a nuclear EMP attack, “One Second After” — Go here now.]

Credit: TexasFred's

You won't believe this: We seriously need better leaders in America

OBAMA'S MOST PERILOUS LEGAL PICK

2009-03-30T17:32:00.002-04:00

By MEGHAN CLYNE

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."

Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.

Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience."

He has also accused President George Bush of abusing international law to justify the invasion of Iraq, comparing his "advocacy of unfettered presidential power" to President Richard Nixon's. And that was the first Bush -- Koh was attacking the 1991 operation to liberate Kuwait, four days after fighting began in Operation Desert Storm.

Koh has also praised the Nicaraguan Sandinistas' use in the 1980s of the International Court of Justice to get Congress to stop funding the Contras. Imagine such international lawyering by rogue nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela today, and you can see the danger in Koh's theories.

Koh, a self-described "activist," would plainly promote his views aggressively once at State. He's not likely to feel limited by the letter of the law -- in 1994, he told The New Republic: "I'd rather have [former Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe [v. Wade] to get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning."

Worse, the State job might be a launching pad for a Supreme Court nomination. (He's on many liberals' short lists for the high court.) Since this job requires Senate confirmation, it's certainly a useful trial run.

What happens to Koh in the Senate will send an important signal. If he sails through to State, he's a far better bet to make it onto the Supreme Court. So Senate Republicans have a duty to expose and confront his radical views.

Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as you like.

Meghan Clyne is a DC-based writer.

Credit: New York Post

Our Forefathers Had Wisdom & Insight

2009-03-30T17:19:00.008-04:00

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." - George Washington

AMERICA'S Enemies Smell Blood And It's Type "O."

2009-03-29T11:03:00.008-04:00

Obama A Trojan Horse From Our
Enemies To Disarm America
This is a great article by Ralph Peters who is not afraid to call it as he sees it. This President may well go down as the worse President in the History of the United States.

AMERICA'S enemies smell blood and it's type "O."

All new administrations stumble a bit as they seek their footing. But President Obama's foreign-policy botches have set new records for instant incompetence.

Contrary to left-wing myths, I wasn't a fan of the Bush administration. (I called for Donald Rumsfeld to get the boot in mid-2001.) But fair's fair. Despite his many faults, Bush sought to do good. Obama just wants to look good. Vice President Dick Cheney was arrogant. Vice President Joe Biden is arrogant and stupid. Take your pick.

Don't worry about the new administration's ideology. Worry about its terrifying naivete. Consider a sampling of the goofs O and his crew have made in just two months: China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (you know that gal married to the Saudi hireling) crawled to Beijing to tell the party bosses that human rights don't matter. Our "relationship"is more important than freedom and human dignity.

Beijing's response? A staged military confrontation with an unarmed US Navy vessel; continued screw-America currency cheating; a renewed crackdown on dissidents and, yesterday, a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar. Thanks, Hill. You're a sweetheart.

Pakistan: With viral corruption throughout and Islamist fanatics sweeping half of its
territory, Pakistan's coming apart. Its Dem-adored prez tries to ban opposition parties and gut the judiciary. It has nukes and seethes with hatred of America. And Islamabad controls our primary supply route into Afghanistan, using it as an extortion tool. Obama's response? Billions in new aid for Pak pols to pocket. We'd be better off handing the money to AIG to pay out more bonuses.

Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam. Am I the only American who remembers that candidate Obama had a plan to capture Osama bin Laden and fix our previous "mistakes" in Afghanistan? President Obama doesn't have a clue.

Iran: Obama tried to reach out, to talk. After all, talking got him to the White House. But America-bashing is what keeps Iran's leaders in office, it's their political essence. After 30 years of fierce hostility, hasn't anyone figured out that the senior mullahs need us as an enemy? Without the Great Satan America to blame, they'd have some real explaining to do to their homies. So O got the left-hand finger.

He wanted to chat with the Taliban, too. They told him he could stick it where the sun don't shine.

North Korea: Obama wanted a fresh start. North Korea's response? Threats of war with South Korea and the kidnapping of two American journalists. And the renewed pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, along with rocket tests. Cuba: Obama would like to liberalize our relationship. The Castro boys told him to kiss off. They need an enemy, too. (Dear Mr. President: It's not always about us or how evil America is.)

Venezuela: Guess who else needs an enemy?

Mexico: The good news: Obama knows where it is on a map and recognizes that Mexico's government faces a narco-insurgency that threatens our country, too. His first action? Cave to the Teamsters, violate a lawful treaty on cross-border trucking, reignite fading anti-Americanism and undercut President Felipe Calderon.

Poland: Obama's stance on our bravest ally on the European continent? The Russians are more important than you are. He's sending the same message to Ukraine and Georgia.

Russia: Bolshie Biden, the commuting commissar, knows he's the man who can turn Russia into our best pal. After "Friend of Bill" Strobe Talbott tried and failed disastrously. And after poor W saw into Putin's soul, only to get his butt handed to him. "Uncle Joe" Biden has nothing to learn from past failures, though: He's got a re-set button.

Moscow's response to the Obama administration's bid for a new start? It threatens NATO members it once occupied and continues to back Iran's nuclear program. Plus, it bribes Kyrgystan to kick us off the critical-to-Afghanistan Manas airbase (then offers to help replace that supply lifeline, giving Russia a choke-hold on our troops).

Next, the Kremlin threatens massive re-armament and demands the abandonment of the dollar as the international reserve currency.

Obama's response? Push that re-set button again. And again.

At what point does naivete become cowardice?

As for our allies, Obama apparently needs them less than Bush did. O treated Britain's prime minister like the deputy Paraguayan veterinary inspector, and he blindsided the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Mexico and Canada on issues ranging from missile defense to trade. But he'd like them to take the Gitmo terrorists off our hands, please.

The one bright spot thus far has been Iraq, where Obama quickly tossed aside his campaign promises. The O-man doesn't want to be on the blame-line for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Baghdad. And his MoveOn.org supporters can throw all the tantrums they want. (Breaking news, folks: O's a professional pol, not the messiah . . . )

Apart from Iraq a success Sen. Obama did all he could to prevent his foreign policy's an instant wasteland. By comparison, the Carter administration is starting to look like model of manly strength, courage and patriotism.

Credit: (New York Post article) Col. Peters takes on the Obama Administration

Global Warming Or Wealth Redistribution Again?

2009-03-29T09:50:00.011-04:00

Fox News report indicated that the current administration will participate in the United Nations conference on Global Warming that will start shortly. The statements made in the news cast were sufficiently concerning that a friend of mine decided to follow up and read some of the references. The initial reference was to a Fox News blog article: "The UN Makes it Official: Global Warming Hysteria Is All About Redistributing Wealth".

This Fox News blog reference provides a one page commentary on the referenced document: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/27sheppard_global_warming_un/

When in the above document, click on the word "document" in the fourth line and you will retrieve the full 16 page United Nations document that will be the basis for the meeting next week. This is all about "Cap & Trade" and the various methods to control Carbon Dioxide emissions and at the same time to redistribute wealth. Here is an excerpt from the Conclusion section of this document:

Par. 69 from the Conclusions section: 69. As recognized in decision 5/CP.7, .responses to climate change should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner with a view to avoiding adverse impacts on the latter, taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustained economic growth and the eradication of poverty.. This note is aimed at facilitating discussions that could more effectively fulfill these provisions.

The Fox News blog also makes reference to NASA's James Hansen and his correspondence with President Obama. Click on the word "wrote" immediately after Hansen's name and you will find his recommendations to Obama, many of which are reflected in the UN document.

The referenced 16 page UN document can also be retrieved from the UN website: document # FCCC/KP/AWG/2009/INF.C

http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600005104&suchen=n

The approach taken in this UN document would have a significant impact on manufacturing and jobs in this country, if implemented.

Read it and draw your own conclusions.

Credit: Email submission

John Coleman, Founder Of The Weather Channel Discusses Global Warming

Gore hypocrisy on tape
Americans for Prosperity Crashes Al Gore's Speech

Can't afford to buy food, not when you have to pay for the new cell phone with camera.

2009-03-25T13:46:00.005-04:00

First Lady Michelle Obama showed up Thursday as a surprise and welcome volunteer at Miriam's Kitchen, a soup kitchen for homeless poor people not far from the White House. Can't afford to buy food, not when you have to pay for the new cell phone with camera.

Maybe we can start a charity which donates unused minutes to the homeless and poor.

Thank you for providing free cell use to the poor....such compassion.

“I spent most of my money on beer & women--the rest I just wasted.”

-Luke ''The Drifter''

OBAMA'S COMPULSORY "NATIONAL SERVICE" ?

2009-03-25T00:09:00.013-04:00

So much of the 'news' lately reported in the old media, and even in the blogosphere, seems to be so much distraction from some of the rather unsettling things that are happening quietly, unbeknownst to most Americans.

I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.

HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act

The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.

The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.

Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''

There's also a related bill here.

Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:

“Barack Obama will require you to work."

"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."

"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed – you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged.”

These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.

Credit: Vanishing American

Obama Says America Has Nothing To Fear From Today’s Immigrants

2009-03-24T21:38:00.007-04:00

They call parts of America Aztlan

A few Comparisons on immigration to Obama's view America we have a problem.

This blog owners view on immigration: My thoughts on Unchecked Immigration Plus

Related video: What the Local & National News Doesn't Show You

Washington Times article....kinda sad America can't be trusted by her allies

2009-03-24T07:22:00.004-04:00

Russian Bid To Halt Shield Power Play

By Kim Holmes

A Turkish general once said: "The problem with having the Americans as your allies is you never know when they'll turn around and stab themselves in the back."

On the issue of ballistic missile defense, the Obama administration may be on the verge of knifing not only ourselves, but two loyal European allies as well.
Ten months ago, the United States and NATO solemnly promised Poland and the Czech Republic to deploy missile defense systems on their territory. Warsaw and Prague agreed to the deployment as a means to protect themselves from the emerging nuclear threat posed by Iran.

Of course, the decision made by our Eastern European allies encompassed more than just the desire to defend their citizens against Iran. The Poles and Czechs saw it as a test case of the American and NATO commitment to their defense against a bullying Russia.

Moscow has threatened both countries with offensive nuclear missiles - a breathtakingly aggressive response to purely defensive weapons intended for protection from Iran - all for the purpose of asserting a false claim of influence over the affairs of two NATO allies.

The Obama administration appears not to understand what is at stake. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that the U.S. will now "reconsider" the decision to proceed with building the missile sites. The administration wants to link the fulfillment of a commitment already made to Poland and the Czech Republic to future Russian cooperation on Iran.

This would be a huge blunder. Not only would it signal to Warsaw and Prague that a done deal in NATO is being reopened, with the understandable conclusion that the U.S. is selling two allies down the river to Moscow. It also would commit a classic negotiating mistake.

Any decision to delay the deployment of the missile defense sites would inevitably slow preparations, even if the decision was made later to proceed. Russia can pocket the delay and then revert to its old strategy of obfuscation, cooperating only as much as is necessary to kill the missile sites in Eastern Europe, but not enough to actually stop the nuclear program in Iran.

The long-range damage, though, would be to the credibility of the NATO alliance itself. If Russia succeeds in vetoing the missile defense decision, then NATO will inevitably be seen as a two-tier alliance - one for members outside Russia's sphere of influence and another for those inside it. Moscow's geopolitical claim to special consideration in Poland, the Czech Republic and Baltic States will be confirmed. After all, what business is it of Russia if these countries want to protect themselves from Iran?

Russia has trumped up a phony security claim. The missile defense interceptors have no capability against Russian missiles, and the Russians know it. By even hinting that the missile defense sites are a bargaining chip, America would be conceding Russia's claim of special rights.

You can understand why the Russians feel so confident that intimidation works. They invaded Georgia last year with no more than perfunctory opposition from NATO and the U.S. They cut off energy supplies to Ukraine, and the Europeans put as much if not more pressure on Ukraine than on Russia to restart them. Moscow makes all kinds of specious claims in the Arctic, and the world yawns.

The purpose of this strategic game is to make Russia's neighbors feel so insecure that they come to believe only Moscow's beneficence can protect them. While financial considerations were at play in Kyrgyzstan's decision to shut down the U.S. air base in Manas that serves NATO's Afghanistan operations, so too were geopolitical ones.

Like another country that kicked out the Americans - Uzbekistan - Kyrgyzstan drew the conclusion that American influence is waning in the region and that the Russians are now back as top dog in Central Asia. No doubt the Russians want Warsaw and Prague to draw the same conclusion.

There is more at stake in this missile defense decision than the protection of Europe from Iran. Also at stake is the very credibility of the NATO security guarantee to its members.

Russia's bid to shut down these missile defense sites is a power play to split NATO and to frighten Eastern Europe into distancing itself from NATO and the West.

Credit: Goliath

Jay Leno Needs To Grow A Pair... It's O.K. To Make Fun of Obama

2009-03-22T17:12:00.010-04:00

Obama's funniest bloopers!

How easy it would be to mock the current President. Jay... have you seen the above "You Tube" video?

Link to the full story that every comedian should see: Especially you Jay Leno

More material for comedians that should be used if they were fair and impartial: Barack Obama/Joe Biden Gaffes

We The People Stimulus Package

2009-03-21T13:04:00.027-04:00

Just a blurb on AIG
Just for perspective baseballs Alex Rodriguez's 10 year, $275 million contract is more than the American International Group Inc (AIG) total bonus payout to all its key players. Is Obama just playing to the uninformed voter using a sound bite that resonates with them? You bet he is. The ones who ought to be paying American tax payers back is our government for failure to secure the borders and costing the U.S. taxpayer $300,000,000,000 annually in care for illegal immigrants. The AIG bonuses are not nearly as outrageous as Obama's passing of the biggest earmark/pork spending bill in U.S. history even after he campaigned against earmarks. False outrage by Obama meant for the ears of those he knows are ill informed. You know what's really outrageous? President Obama has instructed tax cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to get that money back from those contracted to be paid to help AIG? How about we the people demand Obama only appoint people who pay taxes to government positions of power? Talk about abuse of power from the Oval Office... Obama wants to target specific individuals for a 90% tax! Who's next to be targeted Mr. Obama conservative blog owners? Maybe Obama should target himself for that 90% tax increase because he signed off on the bill allowing the AIG executives to keep the bonuses.

Five-term Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is credited for last month's economic stimulus bill changes that exempted bonuses" previously agreed to by bailed-out companies from certain pay restrictions. Dodd initially denied he had any role in crafting the language, though he changed his tune a day later, saying that Obama's Treasury officials pressured him to make the change to protect the government from potential lawsuits.

Obama signed this spending bill not Bush, yet Obama still blames Bush and wants to claim he's bipartisan? How many times did Bush publically whine about Democrats? Bush was not a whiner like Obama even though Bush had to deal with a Democrat infested congress for all eight years of his Presidency and total control was held by the Democrats for the last two years of Bushes term. Though Obama may be on his first term as President the Democrats are in their 3rd year of control of our nations purse strings. It seems Democrats have not changed at all under Obama... they still seek to blame someone else for the actions of failure they forced on an unsuspecting populace.

Related reading: IBD Editorial "Mob Rule In D.C."

Feds Attack Local Communities for Enforcing Immigration Laws

2009-03-20T19:15:00.012-04:00

Folks, if this doesn’t get your attention, nothing will. What in the world did we elect to office??? The “Change” we are seeing is NOT to uphold the laws of this country. That, my friends, is a dangerous new direction for our elected officials to take. We may as well quit administering any “Oath of Office.”

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Feds Attack Local Communities for Enforcing Immigration Laws

And so it begins. At a time when many local law enforcement agencies are finding success putting a stop to illegal immigration crime, the Obama administration has decided to interfere. According to the Houston Chronicle:

"Several members of a key U.S. House committee called for greater oversight of a controversial federal program that allows local law enforcement to detain suspected illegal immigrants, citing a recent report that questioned its effectiveness.
"In a hearing Wednesday before the House Committee on Homeland Security, several members of Congress called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to institute improvements...
"'The record is incomplete, at best, as to whether or not this program is a success,' said House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., who also raised concerns about the potential for racial profiling."

This federal program, called 287g, specifically trains local law enforcement officers to help enforce federal immigration law. And thanks in part to a Judicial Watch public education campaign, the number of local law enforcement agencies participating in the program is growing (from 29 participants in 2006 to 67 today).
Why? Because it works!
To give just one example, the Davidson County (Nashville) Tennessee Sherriff's Department significantly reduced crime in the two years after taking advantage of the 287g program. More than 4,000 jailed illegal aliens were placed in removal proceedings. (You can check out some other success stories here.)
Still, the Obama crowd and their fellow leftists in Congress aren't convinced. And they're not stopping with GAO reports and congressional hearings. They're looking for a scapegoat. And they think they've found one in Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known as "America's Toughest Sherriff" for his no nonsense approach to illegal immigration and other crime. (As some of you may recall, Judicial Watch encouraged Sherriff Arpaio to crack down on illegal immigration crime in Phoenix, Arizona.)
As MSNBC reported recently, federal investigators, at the behest of top officials in the Obama administration, are turning up the heat on Sherriff Arpaio: "...with President Barack Obama's inauguration, and more specifically his nominating Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General, the federal government is heeding community activists' calls for extensive investigation of Arpaio's office."
So there is a drug-fueled civil war creeping across our border from Mexico and our government investigates one of the few effective lawmen on the front lines! At least we know which side the Obama administration is on when it comes to illegal immigration. And it's not our side.
And as if all this were not enough, on Wednesday, House speaker Nancy Pelosi called the effort to enforce federal immigration law "Un-American."
She couldn't be more wrong. We are a nation of laws. Respecting the law is what it means to be an American.
That's why Judicial Watch is leading a nationwide campaign to enforce our laws against illegal immigration. This campaign is more important now than ever since it appears the Obama administration and the Pelosi-led Congress has chosen to allow radical immigration activists to set the agenda on the illegal immigration crisis.

What Happens When Politicians Try to Run the Economy?

The Obama administration has been back on its heels all week long after AIG executives paid out $165 million in bonuses from the more than $170 billion they received in the federal government's bailout scheme. On Wednesday, Senator Chris Dodd retracted a lie and was forced to admit he slipped language in the bailout bill under pressure from the Obama Treasury Department that paved the way for the bonuses.
Here's the story according to Fox News:

"In a dramatic reversal Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd confessed to adding language to a spending cap in the stimulus bill last month that specifically excluded executive bonuses included in contracts signed before the bill's passage.
"Dodd, D-Conn., told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change.
"'As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications to it,' he said. 'They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous.'"

Now, let me just point out there may be nothing at all strange about companies being taken over by the government paying retention bonuses to keep needed employees. I can imagine certain employees had to be incentivized to stay in a failing business the government told us had to keep operating.
The problem here is that the government has decided to meddle in the private sector, dedicating literally trillions of dollars in public funds to irresponsible companies for the expressed purpose of propping them up. And what happens when politicians try to run the economy – from finance to the auto industry? Chaos.
Obama, Congress and others who allowed the bonuses express faux outrage. To add to the chaos/lawlessness, the House just passed a confiscatory tax measure that even some of its supporters suggest may be unconstitutional. These days, I'm getting the feeling more and more that our federal government is largely out of control.
And to make matters worse, all the while the government has been spending our money behind closed doors away from public scrutiny. That's why Judicial Watch has been so aggressive in filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the federal government related to the bailout scheme.
When the Fannie and Freddie scandal first ripped through the economy last year, we filed a FOIA. When Secretary Paulson met with bank executives and offered them a "deal they could not refuse," we filed a FOIA. And on Thursday, Judicial Watch filed a fresh batch of FOIAs related to the AIG mess that emerged this week. The whole bailout scheme is now approaching north of $12 trillion in potential costs to the taxpayer. I'm sure you agree we need to follow that money!
We will continue to fight for bailout documents so the American people can know the full truth. And this effort is already paying off. Click here to read some documents we uncovered a couple of weeks ago related to the government's interference in a corporate buyout.
There will be many more documents to come. I'll be sure to keep you posted.

Obama Administration Drops Phrase "Enemy Combatants," May Release Gitmo Prisoners into U.S.

Two recent decisions by the Obama administration significantly reduced the power of the President of the United States to prosecute the war on terror and, in my view, left the United States vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.
First off, the Obama administration ditched the term "enemy combatant," a descriptive category that has a long history and was used to describe captured terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. Here's the story according to Reuters:

"The Obama administration stopped calling Guantanamo inmates 'enemy combatants' on Friday and incorporated international law as its basis for holding the prisoners while it works to close the facility.
"The U.S. Justice Department filed court papers outlining a further legal and linguistic shift from the anti-terrorism policies of Republican President George W. Bush, which drew worldwide condemnation as violations of human rights and international law."

(It should be noted that the "worldwide condemnation" referenced by Reuters was expressed most enthusiastically by terrorist advocates and sympathizers.)
According to the Obama Justice Department "the legal structure for holding the Guantanamo prisoners will now be based on laws passed by Congress and, by extension, international law including the Geneva conventions..." You can read the Justice brief here.
So in other words, it is no longer the Commander in Chief calling the shots on defending the nation from terrorists. Now, it's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, guided by international law.
The Obama administration, meanwhile, continues to move forward with plans to shut the Guantanamo facility down. And where will the U.S. government release these enemy combatants – or should we call now them "homeless detainees?"
How about the United States? Check this out from Thursday's Wall Street Journal.

"Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners....For 'people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country,' Mr. Holder said."

So here we are -- Guantanamo Bay prisoners may no longer be labeled "enemy combatants." The Obama administration will now rely chiefly on the "authority" of Congress and international law (rather than the constitutional powers of the president) to detain terrorists. Plans to shutdown Guantanamo Bay due to pressure from terrorist advocates are moving forward. And some of these terrorist prisoners will be released into the United States, presumably taking their position in line for some "stimulus" money.
Feel any safer? I don't.

Follow Judicial Watch on Twitter

If our regular Weekly Updates aren't enough for you, you can follow us on the latest rage that is Twitter. You can follow Judicial Watch, @judicialwatch and me, @TomFitton. Hope to see you there!
Until next week...
Tom Fitton President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, Donate to Judicial Watch.

A "tepid response" is an understatement...

2009-03-19T14:58:00.005-04:00

A different response from the Marines~ Bush vs. Obama

See the smug look on Obama as he enters the area of the Marines?

Thanks for nothing Obama - Released in the US....unreal Some Guantanamo Inmates May End Up in U.S.

I guess Obama thinks these guys need more numbers? Muslim Terrorists In America

A Victory for Marine Lt Col Chessani

2009-03-19T14:20:00.002-04:00

ANN ARBOR, MI – Late this morning, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals sitting in Washington DC, released their unanimous decision upholding the dismissal of charges against Marine Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of apparent Unlawful Command Influence. But the case may not be over yet.

For the last four years, LtCol Chessani has been investigated and prosecuted for his involvement in the so called “Haditha Massacre” – a massacre that never happened. A 22-year veteran, Chessani has served three tours of duty in Iraq. He served in the First Persian Gulf War and in Panama. At the time of the November 19, 2005 Haditha incident, he was the Battalion Commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (“The Thundering Third”) – one of the most decorated units in the history of the Marine Corps.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, “LtCol Chessani, one of the most effective combat commanders we had in Iraq, was a made political scapegoat by the civilians in the Pentagon to appease the antiwar politicians and a liberal media. In fact, we now know that the story of the ‘massacre’ that prompted the Haditha prosecutions was a headline in a Time news article instigated by insurgent propaganda operatives.”

Continued Thompson, “This nation has come to the point where we can’t call terrorists captured on the battlefield ‘enemy combatants.’ We release the terrorists out of Guantanamo and prosecute the military our country placed in harms’ way to defend us.”

Robert Muise, an attorney with the Law Center, a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, argued the case on behalf of LtCol Chessani. The Law Center has been defending LtCol Chessani throughout his prosecution alongside his detailed Marine lawyers, LtCol John Shelburne and Captain Jeff King. Captain Kyle Kilian, a Marine appellate defense lawyer, also assisted in the appeal.

LtCol Chessani is the highest ranking officer facing criminal charges as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described “Haditha massacre.” The criminal charges against him stem from a legitimate combat action taken by four enlisted Marines in his command after they were ambushed by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq, on November 19, 2005. Their actions resulted in the deaths of several ambushing insurgents. Unfortunately and tragically, several civilians were also killed in the house-clearing operation.

Even though LtCol Chessani wasn’t present during the incident, he was criminally charged with failing to launch a full investigation into the incident. If convicted, he faces 2 ½ years imprisonment, dismissal from the Corps, and loss of all of his retirement pay.

The essential holding of the military appellate court was as follows: “We are convinced the Government failed to meet its burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the proceedings were untainted by the appearance of UCI (Unlawful Command Influence). We are similarly convinced that an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would harbor significant doubt about the fairness of this proceeding.”

Click here to read the appellate court’s entire decision.

This decision could be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and then even to the U.S. Supreme Court. The government has yet to announce whether it will pursue another appeal.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Credit: One Marines View

Obama gun control by secrecy. This is not a Joke

2009-03-18T17:25:00.004-04:00

This is REAL and Action must be taken to preserve your 2nd Amendment Rights.

This is Democratic/Obama gun control by secrecy.

Have you got this in your scope? Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program. Many gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar.

To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

It is registered
You are fingerprinted
You supply a current Driver's License
You supply your Social Security #
You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. (Did Obama promise transparency? It seems his motives are more and more transparent while his methods are hidden in backrooms.) This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in
the USA.

Credit: A friend who sent this via email.

Great Read From A True Marine

2009-03-18T11:33:00.022-04:00

This is a savvy man. He has nailed it down pretty good.

'AXIS OF IDIOTS.'

(Too bad we don't have folks on Capitol Hill willing to speak out like this. J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.

He is eloquent, and as taught by the Marines, he seldom beats around the bush!)

'THE Axis of Idiots'

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did?to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa , John ? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's butt. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John .

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot , who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genoc idal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.?

You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies:Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

Semper Fi,

J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired

What Is The Big Deal About AIG Bonuses?

2009-03-17T08:06:00.004-04:00

by Big Dog

Today the world is in turmoil because AIG is paying out 165 million dollars in bonuses that it is contractually obligated to pay. People are being whipped into a frenzy about this because AIG received about 170 BILLION dollars in taxpayer money as part of the bailout. The problem is, the government placed no restrictions on the money and now wants to dictate terms over existing contracts. If the government had provided proper oversight instead of handing out money like candy at Halloween then there would be room for this indignation but since it did not, oh well.

To be fair, the deal was signed by the Bush administration and Obama inherited it but it was crafted by a Democratically controlled Congress who pressured Bush to sign it. Many of the members of Congress (from both parties) who worked on this are still there and this is on them.

Barney Frank is claiming that the bonuses amount to rewarding incompetence. I think Frank’s pay is a reward for incompetence because he was instrumental in giving us this mess. In fact, nearly all of Congress gets rewarded for incompetence because people keep reelecting them.

The New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, wants the names of all people getting bonuses. Cuomo is going to investigate whether any of the recipients had anything to do with the decline of the company. What does it matter? They had contracts and contracts are legally binding.

Barack Obama said this can’t be justified. It can if you go by the rule of law and see that Congress and the Bush administration allowed Hank Paulson to write the rules and gave him blank checks to hand out. These are the same people that forced solvent banks to take the money so that the ones who needed it would not be singled out as failing thus causing more problems. Wells Fargo paid lower dividends and owes a fortune in interest because money they did not need was forced upon them.

Regardless of all this I want to know what the big deal really is. My understanding is that the companies have to pay back the bailout money. If that is the case what does it matter how they spend it especially if there were no rules?

Additionally, I have heard a number of members of Congress defend the earmarks they added (to the stimulus and the omnibus) by stating that they are a small percentage of the overall sum. Commenters at this site have made the same claim in justifying the spending. If that is the case, the money AIG spent on bonuses is only a small percentage of what it received in bailout money and it is even a smaller percentage of the overall amount spent to bailout all banks.

If the Congress can justify 9000 earmarks by claiming they are a small amount of the total package why can’t AIG do the same with regard to the bonuses?

The bottom line is, both expenditures involve taxpayer money. There is no reason AIG should not be able to live by the same rules that Congress sets for itself.

The other reality is that Congress did a poor job of overseeing this. For all their whining about oversight and checks and balances, they certainly dropped the ball on this one.

Of course, they dropped the ball in the first place and that allowed the collapse to happen. Thank the indignant banking queen Barney Frank and his partner in crime Chris Dodd for that. The subprime problem and Freddie and Fannie toppled the financial world. The other problems were collateral damage.

Suck it up Obama, Frank (maybe that is not the right phrase to use with Frank) and the rest of you whiners. I did not like the idea of the bailouts to begin with and your lack of oversight in the process makes it even worse.

But, those folks had contracts and since you did not address them then it is unlikely you will be able to address them now.

A contract is a contract and all the bluster from Obama, Frank, and Cuomo can’t change that. They can say it amounts to rewarding incompetence but who allowed it to happen? Not providing proper oversight is the definition if incompetence.

As an aside, the government has given AIG the bailout money in about four installments. Do they expect us to believe that they could not have set some kind of rules on any one of those occasions?

Credit: Big Dog's Weblog

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."

- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

Obama Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits

2009-03-16T09:04:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

Full article they try to justify it by saying McCain supported the idea

Can Democrats never take responsibility for the socialism they create?

The American Republic - VS - Socialist America

2009-03-15T09:11:00.005-04:00

By J.D. Longstreet

Look at the title of this piece again. Read it closely… and let it sink in.

The difference between Conservative Government and a Socialist Government (that of the American Left) when shaken down to its raw essentials will make, or break, the United States of America.

The American Democrat Party, which is, in truth, the socialist party, does not see it that way. Actually they do see it that way, but the problem they have is that they cannot exist under a Constitutional government in the US. Freedom and Socialism cannot exist in the same place, much like “Matter” and “Anti-Matter”. And therein lies the problem, which is rotting away at the foundation of the United States.

Let me see if I can break it down a bit more:

Under a Constitutional government, the power of the government is limited. Limited government allows the citizens to rule their country.

Under the Socialist brand of government, sometimes called an “Administrative state”, citizens do not rule their country, bureaucrats do, and with them the elite intellectuals. At least THEY think they are elite!

The United States was founded as a free country. Its citizens were autonomous. They were free. The US had a free economy. That was the way the designers of this land, the Founding Fathers, planned it. And it worked… right up to the dawn of “Socialism in American” during the reign of, and as the direct results of actions taken by, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It has been downhill for America ever since.

Socialism is a creeping disease. It is quiet and deadly. It offers much and deliver almost nothing.

Simply put, Socialism is a trade off. A people must give up freedom for security. It is just that simple. IF you would be a free people, then you cannot allow socialism, in any form, in your country’s government. If, on the other hand, you wish to be secure, from want and fear, then you absolutely MUST give up your freedom. That is the choice.

The American Left is the driving force behind socialism in America. Lets be clear: Socialism is anti-American.
The Founding Fathers did not give us a socialist state; they gave us a Representative Republic. America is NOT a Democracy as you may have been taught in school. America is a representative republic.

Look… Americans , indeed, human beings, are not equal. A stroll down any beach, on a hot summer day, will give the lie to that! And the Founding Fathers knew that. That was not what they meant when they noted in “The Declaration” that “all men are created equal”. They were referring to those inalienable rights, and natural rights, which are the endowment of all mankind as a gift from our Creator. So they set about designing a form of government, which would balance freedom and equality in a state, which would allow both. That was a near impossible task, if not entirely impossible. But they made a grand attempt at it and it worked right up ‘til the FDR Administration.

You see, under the original Constitution, the people of the United States were, indeed, a free people. We were autonomous. And… WE were sovereign. The Government was created, by the Founding Fathers, to be a servant of the people of the U.S. Roosevelt and the American Left didn’t see it that way and they began to change it. There had been, previously, a contract, a covenant, if you will, between the American people and the American government under which the American people would grant the American government certain powers… while at the same time granting themselves certain rights. The government had no power of it’s own, All government power was derived from the people and the government could grant themselves none.

But Roosevelt, and the American Left, changed that. The Left decided the agreement, the contract, if you will, between the people of the US and their government was backwards. They decided that instead of the people deciding the powers granted to the government, the government would grasp power and the government would decide the limits of the people’s freedom and the sovereignty of the people! No longer would the people dictate to the government. Now, the government dictates to the people. The government is no longer OF the people. It is run, and ruled over, by bureaucrats and intellectual elites who know better, what you need and want, than you do! What we have today is a government running this country, which has never stood for election… ever! The elected officials are simply shills of that shadow government of bureaucrats and intellectuals who actually pull the strings, and push the buttons.

It takes very little thought and consideration to see that this form of government is absolutely NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted, and planned, for this country.

In effect, what we have had in this country is a coup-de-tat, American Style!

To put it plainly, the US government has been hi-jacked!

Those Americans, my age, look around us and we do not recognize this socialist state, this welfare state, this “nanny state”. It certainly is NOT the America of our youth, where a man was free to be what he wanted and to suffer the consequences of bad decisions, and bad choices, as well as good decisions and good choices.

Equality was understood to mean Equality of Endowment by the Creator. Not equality of social status, of income, of education, of well, the modern day list goes on and on. Each time a rule, or law, was passed to make society more equal… somebody lost. Americans lost. What did we lose? Freedom is what we lost.

The American Left has decided they are the elite Americans who know, better than you, how you should live your life, worship your God, do your job, enjoy your vacation, build your house, drive your car, get an education, which doctor you visit, which hospital you select, even to the last detail of how you groom your lawn, or whether you can fly a US flag outside the home you THINK you own! The American Left is into every aspect of your daily life. Because they are convinced that you and I, the rabble, the “great unwashed”, are not capable of taking care of ourselves. No one is required to be responsible for his or her actions anymore. It is now understood that when someone commits a heinous act, it is not the perpetrator’s fault! That is a part of the bargain struck with the American Left.

The American Left simply seized the power as a “Beneficent Dictator”. And Americans allowed it; indeed some welcomed it with open arms! (The slow-witted among us, the least ambitious among us, those who sought to milk the system for every dime they could, and of course, those who sought power for themselves in the New American Socialism.)

What Americans forgot was… that dictators, beneficent or otherwise, take your freedom! A dictator cannot exist in a free environment. Today’s America has become content to allow “others” to govern us, to rule over us. We know longer believe ourselves capable of ruling ourselves.

The Great Ronald Reagan, in a speech he made in 1964, said the following:

“It doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable, rights are now considered to be dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp, as it is at this very moment!” And THAT, dear reader was in 1964!

The American left is slick. They have packaged themselves as loving, tolerant, do-gooders, who seek only to make your life easier and to make, and keep, you secure. You needn’t worry about a thing ‘cause they have it covered! Americans have bought it… hook, line, and sinker. At least those of the baby boom generation have.

Those of us born before World War Two experienced the actual loss of our country. We slipped though the Public School System ahead of the changes, which “dumbed down an entire generation of American kids” while stoking their self-esteem. We came out the other side of the American education system aware of the value of a free country. The baby boom generation did not. It is entirely the product of the American Left.

Today, the New American Socialism reigns supreme. The result? A nation in decline! A nation, having not yet reached its zenith, has sold its birthright to the devil. Now, America is reaping, what it has sown.

We are quickly becoming a second rate power. Our citizens are among the least educated in the world. We no longer have an economy based on research, development, and manufacturing, we have only a “service economy”. We service that which others build! Our society is quite likely the most amoral society on earth. It has been said that if God, Himself does not destroy us, then HE owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah! Yes, we, America, have/has become the kind of country to which we used to send missionaries!

Oh, yeah, that Baby Boom Generation, the American generation “dumbed down” but filled with carefully stoked self-esteem… well, they ran, head long, into reality. And… they folded like a cheap suit!

Like a virulent cancer the American Left’s brand of socialism is eating away the bedrock of America. It is relentlessly chewing away at the fabric of what was once the greatest nation on earth. Socialism, like the evil that it is, lies. All the promises of “paradise on earth” are all lies.

America has bought the Big Lie. The price was freedom. America is no longer free. America is, once again, only a dream in the restless night of those of us who knew her when she was “that bright shining city on a hill”. Like Camelot, it was only a passing, ethereal, grandiose, dream. A dream the American Left has turned into a nightmare.

Credit: Western Front America

Related: Obama Is Driving A Wedge Straight Through American Society

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

- Benjamin Franklin

Tea Bags ..... I'm Gonna Do It!!! The New American Tea Party!!!

2009-03-15T00:50:00.010-04:00

I HAVE MY ENVELOPE ADDRESSED, A TEA BAG INSIDE AND IT IS ALREADY MARKED AND READY TO MAIL ON 1 APRIL!!!!!

There's a storm abrewin'. What happens when good, responsible people keep quiet? Washington has forgotten they work for us. We don't work for them. Throwing good money after bad is NOT the answer. I am sick of the midnight, closed door sessions to come up with a plan. I am sick of Congress raking CEO's over the coals while they, themselves, have defaulted on their taxes. I am sick of the bailed out companies having lavish vacations and retreats on my dollar. I am sick of being told it is MY responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford. I am sick of being made to feel it is my patriotic duty to pay MORE taxes. I, like all of you, am a responsible citizen. I pay my taxes. I live on a budget and I don't ask someone else to carry the burden for poor decisions I may make. I have emailed my congressmen and senators asking them to NOT vote for the stimulus package as it was written without reading it first. No one listened. They voted for it, pork and all.

O.K. folks, here it is. You may think you are just one voice and what you think won't make a difference. Well, yes it will and YES, WE CAN!! If you are disgusted and angry with the way Washington is handling our taxes. If you are fearful of the fallout from the wreckless spending of BILLIONS to bailout and "stimulate" without accountability and responsibility then we need to become ONE, LOUD VOICE THAT CAN BE HEARD FROM EVERY CITY, TOWN, SUBURB AND HOME IN AMERICA. There is a growing protest to demand that Congress, the President and his cabinet LISTEN to us, the American Citizens. What is being done in Washington is NOT the way to handle the economic free fall.

So, here's the plan. On April 1, 2009, all Ameicans are asked to send a TEABAG to Washinton , D.C. You do not have to enclose a note or any other information unless you so desire. Just a TEABAG. Many cities are organizing protests. If you simply search, "New American Tea Party", several sites will come up. If you aren't the 'protester' type, simply make your one voice heard with a TEABAG. Your one voice will become a roar when joined with millions of others that feel the same way. Yes, something needs to be done but the lack of confidence as shown by the steady decline in the stock market speaks volumes.

**Charles E. Schumer 313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510** Feel free to mail it to this arrogant Democratic Senator from NY.

Other mailing addresses

Two Of Bob's Latest Rants

2009-03-13T22:33:00.003-04:00

Pelosi is a LIAR and a THIEF...

the Government Housing Scam...

Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

2009-03-13T08:03:00.004-04:00

By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN

It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.

There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.

Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seeded, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.

When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.

Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.

While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli's call to arms on CNBC.

And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama's goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.

There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.

While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.

Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.

Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.

Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress's approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation's economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.

Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

All of this is not just a subject for pollsters and analysts to debate. It shows fundamentally that public confidence in government remains low and is slipping. We face the possibility of substantial gridlock along with an absolute absence of public confidence that could come to mirror the lack of confidence in the American economy that the Dow and the S&P are currently showing.

Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company.

Credit: WSJ

Tim Geithner's Black Hole

2009-03-12T17:41:00.004-04:00

EXCELLENT WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE....

Tim Geithner's Black Hole

By David M. Smick

Pity Barack Obama's economic advisers. The blogs are now demanding their scalps, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his colleagues face a nasty dilemma: There are no solutions to the banking crisis without extraordinary political and financial risks. Thus, they have adopted a three-pronged approach, delay, delay, delay, in the hope that somebody comes up with a breakthrough.

Here's the problem: Today's true market value of the U.S. banks' toxic assets (that ugly stuff that needs to be removed from bank balance sheets before the economy can recover) amounts to between 5 and 30 cents on the dollar. To remain solvent, however, the banks say they need a valuation of 50 to 60 cents on the dollar. Translation: as much as another $2 trillion taxpayer bailout.

That kind of expensive solution could send the president's approval rating into a nose dive. Consider: $2 trillion is about two-thirds of the tax revenue the federal government collects each year.

The logical alternative -- talk show hosts' solution du jour -- is to temporarily restructure or nationalize the banks and leave taxpayers alone. Remove the toxic assets, replace management and cut the too-big-to-fail financial dinosaurs into smaller, nimbler entities. Then reprivatize these smaller banks and let the recovery begin.

Oh, if it were that simple. I suspect Obama's advisers would like nothing more than to dismantle an irresponsible firm such as Citigroup. They are afraid to do so, for one reason: All the big banks are connected to a potentially lethal web of paper insurance instruments called credit default swaps. These paper derivatives have become our financial system's new master.

The theory holds that dismantling a big bank could unravel this paper market, with catastrophic global financial consequences. Or not. Nobody knows, because the market for these unregulated financial derivatives, amounting potentially to over $40 trillion (by comparison, global gross domestic product is now not much more than $60 trillion), is the financial equivalent of uncharted waters.

Geithner has reason to be terrified. He was part of the Henry Paulson-led team that underestimated the devastating global-contagion effect of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Geithner won't make the mistake of underestimation again.

Geithner also knows that the mood in Congress has changed. Were a global financial brush fire to break out as a result of bank restructuring or nationalization, today's populist Congress might just let it burn. Congressional anger is likely to intensify when policymakers realize that credit default swaps demand a stream of premium payments like a life insurance policy, not just a payment due at termination. And recent signs indicate that firms such as Citigroup, in recycling their taxpayer bailout funding, may have helped other financial firms, including some in Europe, meet these payment obligations.

In addition, Geithner worries that because the troubled insurance giant American International Group (AIG) is a conduit for the banks' use of credit default swaps, a collapse of AIG (as an unintended consequence of dismantling the big banks) could be catastrophic. AIG's more than 300 million terrified holders of insurance-related investments and pension funds, who have investments totaling $20 trillion (U.S. GDP is $14 trillion), could suddenly rush for redemptions -- the equivalent of a run on a bank. Geithner would face a worldwide insurance collapse to accompany his global banking collapse.

Or again, maybe not. Nobody knows.

Here's another likely Geithner fear -- that Congress forces the banks' bondholders to take a hit. So far, only stockholders have lost out because of the banking crisis. One reason for the fragility in the credit default swap market of late is that markets fear that bank bondholders, who today are protected even before U.S. taxpayers, could soon see their status change. The worry is that if even bondholders are put at risk, U.S. and foreign investors alike would stop financing all corporate America. The administration says that won't happen, but market participants believe (probably correctly) that this White House can't control Congress.

So our Treasury secretary has no choice but to talk of bank stress-testing and other tactics to buy time before the big bank bailout. Notice that the president's budget already contains a contingency fund of up to $750 billion for a future bank bailout -- a politically shrewd number that roughly matches the size of the Paulson bailout. The true cost is likely to be two or three times as much, unless some last-minute intellectual breakthrough -- a tax holiday for derivatives? -- arises.

The Obama team needs to remember that we got into this mess because of a lack of financial transparency. It's time to tell the American people what the stock market already knows: that the path to recovery will probably be expensive and politically unpopular, perhaps explosively so. This dire situation could take us all down, which is why Obama should name a proven, world-class problem-solver who is not from Wall Street as his bank workout czar. James Baker, the former Republican secretary of state and Treasury secretary, comes to mind. Other possibilities: former Democratic senators Bill Bradley or George Mitchell. Perhaps the White House should name a team.

In the end, at least one thing is certain: Our present position is unsustainable. The longer we delay fixing the banks, the faster the economy deleverages, the more credit dries up, the further the stock market falls, the higher the ultimate bank bailout price tag for the American taxpayer, and the more we risk falling into a financial black hole from which escape could take decades.

David M. Smick is a global financial strategist and the author, most recently, of "The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy."

Credit: Washington Post

Professional Investors Are "Voting No" On President Obama's Economic Plan

2009-03-12T13:49:00.006-04:00

Chuck Bentley is CEO of Crown Financial Ministries and host of the radio program "MoneyLife." He says professional investors are "voting no" on President Obama's economic plan by taking their money out of the markets, because they know that wealth is not created through borrowing and spending.

Obama's plan, says Bentley, reminds him of someone who has "maxed out" the $5,000 spending limit on their credit card and is in danger of not being able to pay that bill.

"So you suddenly got a $50,000 increase in your spending limit and you felt really good about your policies, and you said 'Everybody's going to have more money, there's going to be more money to go around,'" Bentley suggests.

But there is a problem, says the financial expert. "The people looking long-term are saying, 'Well, one day you're going to come up to your $55,000 limit -- and if you didn't have the money at $5,000 to pay your credit card, how are you going to have it when you have a $55,000 debt?'"

Bentley says although he has never been a political activist, he believes there needs to be an "outspoken voice" against President Obama's plan to impose a greater tax burden on investors and small businesses in America.

How Truly Sad This Is....Get Wounded And Then Have To Pay For It...Low Lifes In Washington

2009-03-12T07:48:00.007-04:00

More handy work by the Obama administration. Hopefully it will never happen, but just the suggestion that it is being considered demonstrates how little this administration cares for the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect this country.

Senator warns White House on possible vet insurance plan

Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment.

From CNN Supervising Producer Adam Levine

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama
administration is considering a controversial a plan to make veterans pay for
treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday
that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make
veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance,
but was told by lawmakers that it would be "dead on arrival" if sent to
Congress.

CNBC's Kudlow Asks If Obama is Culpable for Market Dive

2009-03-12T00:18:00.007-04:00

The Democrats are on their third straight year of congressional control. Blaming Bush alone for the recession is ridicules. One must also blame the Democrats in congress who actually had majority control over the American economy for the last two years of the Bush administration. In fact the Democrats had the numbers to hamper the economy for all eight years of the Bush Administration isn't that right Barney Frank?

American-Somali Suicide Bomber....Could Easily Have Blown Himself Up In The US

2009-03-11T17:41:00.004-04:00

The below story is about an FBI investigation of some Somali-American immigrants in Minneapolis. Appears they were "radicalized" in Minnesota and left the US for unknown overseas locations. One of the 12 just committed the first suicide bombing by an American citizen....luckily, in Somalia. Of course, the question is who organized the missing group of men, who financed them and how were they recruited. The bigger question is if this young man decided to be a suicide bomber, could he serve the same purpose in the US. I think it is a matter of time before we start and see similar problems here...America is not ready snipers and suicide bombers in our own country. We need to fix the immigration problems soon....and don't forget, we just funded $20M to bring Hamas immigrants from Gaza into the US and I sure hope we have vetted them better than we vetted the President's cabinet!

Grand Jury Convenes in FBI Terror Case Against Somali-Americans in Minneapolis, Sources Say

Related: 'First' American suicide bomber killed 30 after being 'radicalized in his hometown'

Related: Somali-American Suicide Bomber Raises Questions about Terrorist Recruiting in the U.S.

Glenn Beck Interviews Chair of the Communist Party, USA

2009-03-10T23:50:00.007-04:00

While watching the interview with Sam Webb, Chairman of the Communist Party USA below keep in mind socialist countries have historically fallen well behind all countries with capitalist (free market systems), yet... Sam Webb and other smooth speakers like Obama have polished the rhetoric to make socialism sound progressive and forward. Sam Webb is a COMMUNIST so if you believe what he says is appealing please move to Russia or Cuba two countries who have long ago adopted not only socialism but, declared one party rule in favor of socialism.

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

2009-03-10T06:45:00.002-04:00

A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).

Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.

Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.

As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.

Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.

The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.

The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.

A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.

The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.

Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

Credit: WSJ

Rush Has The Left Rattled

2009-03-09T07:37:00.005-04:00

" Twenty-five million people listened to Rush Limbaugh last week. Many millions of them have listened to him for 20 years. According to Democrats, that makes them 'hard-right extremists'.

Whereas being one of only a few thousand people who listened to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons every week for 20 years makes President Obama a mainstream moderate."

- Mark Steyn, National Review Online.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The question is not if Rush Limbaugh wants the President to fail....all good capitalists and Republicans would like to see him fail.....the question is at what cost should one want to pay to have Obama fail. If it means Obama is seen as an abject failure ...NO PROBLEM...if it takes the failure of the US to make Obama a failure....even Rush wouldn't want that. People are taking that statement out of context.

Obama's 'Big Bang' Agenda

2009-03-08T13:22:00.004-04:00

Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Forget the pork. Forget the waste. Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "$2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.

Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle.

All presidents do that. But few undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.

The logic of Obama's address to Congress went like this:

"Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care, and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.

The "day of reckoning" has now arrived. And because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.

Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.

At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful homebuyers.

The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.

And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.

What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of s seen in our lifetime.

Credit: Townhall.com

“The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.”

-- Mark Twain

Let’s Get Real About Renewable Energy

2009-03-08T11:22:00.004-04:00

By Robert Bryce

During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.

By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.

Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.

Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.

If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.

Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.

Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.

And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.

That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.

The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.

Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.

Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.

During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal." He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions. He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.

Credit: Energy Tribune

A Tragedy of Errors, and an Accounting

2009-03-07T08:07:00.006-05:00

After a crash, the Marines set an example.

By PEGGY NOONAN

It is late in the morning one day last December.

A plane is in distress, it's lost one engine and now two and it's going down, and people on the ground hear the sound, look up, say, "That's going awful low," and whip out their cellphones. You could see the pictures they took later on the news.

It sounds like Chesley Sullenburger and US Airways Flight 1549, but that was five weeks later. This was the military jet that went down in San Diego; this was the story that ended badly.

Then this week it took a turn. And looked at a certain way, the San Diego story is every bit as big, and elements of it just as deserving of emulation, as Sully saving all souls when he put down in the Hudson.

It's Dec. 8, 2008, 11:11 a.m., and a young Marine pilot takes off from an aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, on a routine training flight. The carrier is maybe 90 miles southwest of San Diego. Lt. Dan Neubauer is flying an F/A-18 Hornet. Minutes into the flight, he notices low oil pressure in one of the two engines. He shuts it down. Then the light shows low fuel for the other engine. He's talking to air traffic control and given options and suggestions on where to make an emergency landing. He can go to the naval air station at North Island, the route to which takes him over San Diego Bay, or he can go to the Marine air station at Miramar, with which he is more familiar, but which takes him over heavily populated land. He goes for Miramar. The second engine flames out. About three miles from the runway, the electrical system dies. Lt. Neubauer tries to aim the jet toward a canyon, and ejects at what all seem to agree is the last possible moment.

Dong Yun Yoon arrives with his minister the Rev. Daniel Shin at the crash site where his wife, two daughters and mother-in-law were killed.

The jet crashed nose down in the University City neighborhood of San Diego, hitting two homes and damaging three. Four people, all members of a Korean immigrant family, were killed—36-year-old Youngmi Lee; her daughters, Grace, 15 months, and Rachel, 2 months, and her 60-year-old mother, Seokim Kim.

Lee's husband, a grocer named Dong Yun Yoon, was at work. The day after he'd lost his family, he humbled and awed San Diego by publicly forgiving the pilot—"I know he did everything he could"—and speaking of his faith—"I know God is taking care of my family."

His grace and generosity were staggering, but there was growing local anger at the military. Why was the disabled plane over land? The Marines launched an investigation—of themselves. This Wednesday the results were announced.

They could not have been tougher, or more damning. The crash, said Maj. Gen. Randolph Alles, the assistant wing commander for the Third Marine Aircraft Wing, was "clearly avoidable," the result of "a chain of wrong decisions." Mechanics had known since July of a glitch in the jet's fuel-transfer system; the Hornet should have been removed from service and fixed, and was not. The young pilot failed to read the safety checklist. He relied on guidance from Marines at Miramar who did not have complete knowledge or understanding of his situation. He should have been ordered to land at North Island. He took an unusual approach to Miramar, taking a long left loop instead of a shorter turn to the right, which ate up time and fuel.

Twelve Marines were disciplined; four senior officers, including the squadron commander, were removed from duty. Their military careers are, essentially, over. The pilot is grounded while a board reviews his future.

Residents told the San Diego Union-Tribune that they were taken aback by the report. Bob Johnson, who lived behind the Yoons and barely escaped the crash, said, "The Marines aren't trying to hide from it or duck it. They took it on the chin." A retired Navy pilot who lives less than a block from the crash and had formed, with neighbors, a group to push the Marines for an investigation, and for limiting flights over University City, said after the briefing, "I think we're out of business." In a later story the paper quoted a retired general, Bob Butcher, chairman of a society of former Marine aviators, calling the report "as open and frank a discussion of an accident as I've seen." "It was a lot more candid than many people expected."
More Peggy Noonan

Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns.

* And click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace.

This wasn't damage control, it was taking honest responsibility. And as such, in any modern American institution, it was stunning.

The day after the report I heard from a young Naval aviator in predeployment training north of San Diego. He flies a Super Hornet, sister ship to the plane that went down. He said the Marine investigation "kept me up last night" because of how it contrasted with "the buck-passing we see" in the government and on Wall Street. He and his squadron were in range of San Diego television stations when they carried the report's conclusions live. He'd never seen "our entire wardroom crowded around a television" before. They watched "with bated breath." At the end they were impressed with the public nature of the criticism, and its candor: "There are still elements within the government that take personal responsibility seriously." He found himself wondering if the Marines had been "too hard on themselves." "But they are, after all, Marines."

By contrast, he says, when the economy came crashing down, "nowhere did we see a board come out and say: 'This is what happened, these are the decisions these particular people made, and this was the result. They are no longer a part of our organization.' There was no timeline of events or laymen's explanation of how a credit derivative was actually derived. We did not see congressmen get on television with charts and eviscerate their organization and say, 'These were the men who in 2003 allowed Freddie and Fannie unlimited rein over mortgage securities.' Instead we saw . . . everybody against everybody else with no one stepping forth and saying, 'We screwed up.'" There is no one in national leadership who could convincingly "assign blame," and no one "who could or would accept it."

This of course is true, but somehow more stinging when said by a serviceman.

The White House this week was consumed by extreme interest in a celebrated radio critic, reportedly coordinating an attack line with antic Clinton-era political operatives who don't know what time it is. For them it's always the bouncy '90s and anything goes, it's all just a game. President Obama himself contributes to an atmosphere of fear grown to panic as he takes a historic crisis and turns it into what he imagines is a grand opportunity for sweeping change. What we need is stabilization—an undergirding, a restrengthening so things can settle and then rise. What we're given is multiple schemes, and the beginning of a reordering of financial realities between the individual and the state.

The Obama people think they are playing big ball, not small ball, and they no doubt like the feeling of it: "We're making history." But that, ironically, was precisely the preoccupation of the last administration—doing it big, being "consequential," showing history. Watch: Within six months, the Obama administration will be starting to breathe the word "legacy."

What they're up to will win and hold support, at least for a while, until the reaction.

But is it responsible? Or is it only vain?

Anyway, all honor this week to the Marines, who were very much the former, not the latter.

WSJ

Obama should debate Rush Limbaugh

2009-03-05T18:00:00.003-05:00

Obama started the whole circus by targeting Rush Limbaugh for destruction while Obama still has a high popularity rating. Obama knows when his popularity goes down, Rush and his ideas will win. Rush speaks the truth and that is why Obama won't debate Rush.

Here's Rush...

"But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies.... I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business. Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil."

Credit: stock_advisor2 Yahoo Message board

I'm Tired

2009-03-05T17:37:00.003-05:00

I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them—with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women’s rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won’t multiculturalism be beautiful?

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor;” of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers;” of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari’a law tells them to.

I believe “a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.” I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I’m tired of a news media that thinks Bush’s fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama’s, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush’s military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I’m tired of being told that out of “tolerance for other cultures” we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, and if you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.

I’m tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don’t think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I’m tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I’m tired of illegal aliens being called “undocumented workers,” especially the ones who aren’t working, but are living on welfare or crime. What’s next? Calling drug dealers, “Undocumented Pharmacists”? And, no, I’m not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it’s been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I’m willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn’t have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I’m tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years—and still are? Not even close. So here’s the deal. I’ll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we’ll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I’m tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers—bums are bi-partisan. And I’m tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the “Illinois Combine” of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama’s cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I’m tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I’m tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I’m tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn’t have that in 1970, but we didn’t know we were “poor.” The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I’m real tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I’m damn tired. But I’m also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I’m not going to get to see the world these people are making. I’m just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He blogs at: The Old Jarhead

Hispanic Enrollment in Schools, Colleges Rising

2009-03-05T07:51:00.004-05:00

Americans don't need immigration Reform??????

WASHINGTON — Roughly one-fourth of the nation's kindergartners are Hispanic, evidence of an accelerating trend that now will see minority children become the majority by 2023.

Census data released Thursday also showed that Hispanics make up about one-fifth of all K-12 students. Hispanics' growth and changes in the youth population are certain to influence political debate, from jobs and immigration to the No Child Left Behind education, for years.

The ethnic shifts in school enrollment are most evident in the West. States such as Arizona, California and Nevada are seeing an influx of Hispanics due to immigration and higher birth rates.

Minority students in that region exceed non-Hispanic whites at the pre-college grade levels, with about 37 percent of the students Hispanic. Hispanics make up 54 percent of the students in New Mexico, 47 percent in California, 44 percent in Texas and 40 percent in Arizona.

In 2007, more than 40 percent of all students in K-12 were minorities — Hispanics, blacks, Asian-Americans and others. That's double the percentage of three decades ago.

In colleges, Hispanics made up 12 percent of full-time undergraduate and graduate students, 2 percent more than in 2006. Still, that is short of Hispanics' 15 percent representation in the total U.S. population.

"The future of our education system depends on how we can advance Hispanics through the ranks," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "In many cases it's going to be a challenge, because they are the children of immigrants, and their English is not as strong. Many have parents without a high school or college education."

Minorities are projected to become the majority of the overall U.S. population by 2042. For minority kids, that shift is seen coming in 2023, seven years earlier than the previous estimate, from 2004. The accelerated timetable is due to immigration among Hispanics and Asians, and declining birth rates among non-Hispanic whites.

Hispanics account for more than 23 percent of kindergartners in private and public schools, according to 2007 data. That is more than triple Hispanics' percentage in the 1970s, the height of white baby boom enrollment in elementary and high school.

More Hispanic kindergartners in 2007 were U.S.-born than foreign-born, assuring them of citizenship that will make them eligible to vote by 2020.

The changing demographics offer opportunity and political risks for Barack Obama, the nation's first African-American president, and emerging Republicans such as 37-year-old Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, the first Indian-American elected to statewide office.

Obama, who took two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, is channeling billions of federal dollars to improve schools, reduce the dropout rate and make college more affordable by increasing the maximum Pell Grant for low-income students to $5,550.

Yet his administration has been sketchy when it comes to improving classroom performance and overhauling the No Child Left Behind Act. It sets goals for schools so every student can read and do math on grade level by 2014.

The education law has major implications for both black and Hispanic students, including those who speak English as a second language, because they tend to lag whites in reading and math scores.

Obama has been largely quiet on immigration reform, which could pave the way for citizenship for nearly 12 million illegal immigrants. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was not notified when federal agents conducted an immigration raid in Bellingham, Wash.

Richard Fry, a senior researcher at the Pew Hispanic Center, said Hispanic growth cannot be ignored in policy debates for too long. While in recent elections Hispanics have only cast 6 percent of the total ballots, "Latinos' electoral power and participation levels clearly are going to grow," he said.

Other findings from the data:

_About 58 percent of children enrolled in grades K-12 are non-Hispanic whites, a group that represents 66 percent of the U.S. population. After Hispanics, blacks were the second-largest minority group enrolled in K-12 (15 percent), followed by Asians (4 percent).

_Fifty-three percent of Hispanic 4-year-olds were enrolled in nursery school, compared with 43 percent in 1997 and 21 percent in 1987.

The census data was based on the Current Population Survey. Data on U.S. regions and states came from the 2007 American Community Survey, the government's annual survey of about 3 million households.

Credit: MSNBC

The WaPost gets the shakes at O-dacity

2009-03-04T13:53:00.006-05:00

David Broder, the "Dean" of liberal pundits presiding at the Washington Post itself, has finally caught on. Mr. Broder has the shakes over Obama's O-dacity. Good news! Here's one liberal who is in touch with reality, and he's scared out of his wits.

Writes Mr. Broder,

"The size of the gamble that President Obama is taking every day is simply staggering. What came through in his speech... Tuesday night was a dramatic reminder of the unbelievable stakes he has placed on the table in his first month in office, putting at risk the future well-being of the country and the Democratic Party's control of Washington." (italics added)

I've come to believe that the Obama crowd is naive to the point of stupidity. They are very intelligent, mind you. They have more academic degrees than the faculty of Harvard. But intelligent people are often deeply stuck in their fix-the-world fantasies, which makes them idiot savants. (There's a reason why that's a French term --- Moliere wrote a comedy about it four centuries ago.)

These people have never accomplished anything but suckering the voters --- and each other. Their policy genius, David Axelrod, is a PR agent. That helped with the campaign, but it means nothing for good government. They seem to have no concept of the economy. They want to impose a cap-and-trade system on "carbon emissions," like oil and coal. That comes down to making Monopoly money and forcing energy-using corporations to pay for it. They have no concept of productive investment compared to a wild spending spree on feel-good ideas, or on kickbacks to their buddies in Chicago. After all the "community organizer" hoo-hah they still learned nothing from the welfare fiasco that was inflicted on Black families by LBJ's War on Poverty, and which ended up hurting them more than anything Bull Connor could have done --- by way of family breakdown, helpless dependency, drugs, and gang warfare. They've just abolished Bill Clinton's (!) version of welfare reform, which was forced upon him by the Gingrich Congress, and which has ended up really helping people, not hurting them.

Conclusion: These folks are arrogant and ignorant. Intelligent, yes, articulate, yes, and utterly persuasive to millions of suckers, yes.

But reality has a harsh way with fools.

David Broder is now spotting the looming steam locomotive chugging his way, and he is seeing a grave danger to "the Democratic Party's control of Washington."

Too bad for the Democratic Party.

But what worries me very much is that Obama is "putting at risk the future well-being of the country," as Broder writes. That means you and me and all the things we care about. And Obama is much too arrogant to change his mind.

Credit: email submission

A PROPHETIC 1944 SPEECH

2009-03-04T13:36:00.013-05:00

Norman Thomas-American socialist

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968), and some of us are old enough to remember him running for President, was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

Credit: The Patriotic Resistance

Links worth reading

Obama’s Top Five Broken Promises

Geithner Touts Tackling Tax Evaders After Failing to Pay Own Taxes

Pitchfork Time

Russian Scholar Says US Will Collapse Next Year

2009-03-04T12:52:00.005-05:00

The End' is near: Russian Foreign Ministry scholar predicts end of United States next year

By MIKE ECKEL Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW March 4, 2009 (AP)

If you're inclined to believe Igor Panarin, and the Kremlin wouldn't mind if you did, then President Barack Obama will order martial law this year, the U.S. will split into six rump-states before 2011, and Russia and China will become the backbones of a new world order.

Panarin might be easy to ignore but for the fact that he is a dean at the Foreign Ministry's school for future diplomats and a regular on Russia's state-guided TV channels. And his predictions fit into the anti-American story line of the Kremlin leadership.

"There is a high probability that the collapse of the United States will occur by 2010," Panarin told dozens of students, professors and diplomats Tuesday at the Diplomatic Academy — a lecture the ministry pointedly invited The Associated Press and other foreign media to attend.

The prediction from Panarin, a former spokesman for Russia's Federal Space Agency and reportedly an ex-KGB analyst, meshes with the negative view of the U.S. that has been flowing from the Kremlin in recent years, in particular from Vladimir Putin.

Putin, the former president who is now prime minister, has likened the United States to Nazi Germany's Third Reich and blames Washington for the global financial crisis that has pounded the Russian economy.

Panarin didn't give many specifics on what underlies his analysis, mostly citing newspapers, magazines and other open sources.

He also noted he had been predicting the demise of the world's wealthiest country for more than a decade now.

But he said the recent economic turmoil in the U.S. and other "social and cultural phenomena" led him to nail down a specific timeframe for "The End" — when the United States will break up into six autonomous regions and Alaska will revert to Russian control.

Panarin argued that Americans are in moral decline, saying their great psychological stress is evident from school shootings, the size of the prison population and the number of gay men.

Turning to economic woes, he cited the slide in major stock indexes, the decline in U.S. gross domestic product and Washington's bailout of banking giant Citigroup as evidence that American dominance of global markets has collapsed.

"I was there recently and things are far from good," he said. "What's happened is the collapse of the American dream."

Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

Asked for comment on how the Foreign Ministry views Panarin's theories, a spokesman said all questions had to be submitted in writing and no answers were likely before Wednesday.

It wasn't clear how persuasive the 20-minute lecture was. One instructor asked Panarin whether his predictions more accurately describe Russia, which is undergoing its worst economic crisis in a decade as well as a demographic collapse that has led some scholars to predict the country's demise.

Panarin dismissed that idea: "The collapse of Russia will not occur."

But Alexei Malashenko, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center who did not attend the lecture, sided with the skeptical instructor, saying Russia is the country that is on the verge of disintegration.

"I can't imagine at all how the United States could ever fall apart," Malashenko told the AP.

Credit: After Downing Street.org

New and Outrageous Taxes

2009-03-03T18:31:00.003-05:00

Hold on to Your Wallet ...

In the midst of this economic meltdown, federal, state and local governments are all scrambling to find ways to generate more revenue and close their budget shortfalls -- and fast. Unfortunately, one way they tend to do this is by raising taxes and fees.

Personal finance experts Ken and Daria Dolan of Dolans.com tell you to get ready for an onslaught of new taxes coming your way soon. Click through our gallery to see what you may expect, if these pass.

First Up: "Sin" Taxes

So-called "sin" taxes are on the hit list for many state and local governments, raising taxes on everything from cigarettes to alcohol. New York is even toying with an 18% tax on non-diet soda, dubbed an "obesity tax," capable of raising $400 million a year. If the governor of Wisconsin has his way, cigarette taxes will go up 75 cents a pack! The increase will generate $300 million for the state over two years. In Massachusetts, the governor is considering a new 5 percent sales tax on beer. This and other "wellness" taxes could cost taxpayers as much as $150 million each year!

Next: Automobile Taxes

Americans have long had a love affair with their cars, but the cost of that romance is about to go up.

Although California scrapped plans to increase its fuel tax by 12 cents, Massachusetts is moving ahead with a 19-cent increase. If you fill up a 16-gallon tank three times a month, you’ll pay an additional $110 per year. Other states are also considering an increase.

Next: Entertainment Taxes

Even though some are calling it the "iPod tax," the new "digital download tax" actually covers all downloaded entertainment (music, movies, and games).
More than a dozen states have already embraced the tax, which generally uses the same rate as a state’s sales tax. The cost to Wisconsin residents alone? Over $11 million during the next two years. New York is also looking at a new 8 percent tax that would apply to ALL forms of entertainment--including ski lift tickets and lessons.

Next: Mobile Phones &
Cable/Satellite TV

Your cell phone and cable (or satellite) bills have probably already been going up without fail, but they’re about to go up even more.
States find it very easy to extract more money from these services for three simple reasons: First, people are addicted. It’s very hard for people to give up their cell phone or favorite cable shows. Second, someone other than the government handles the billing and collects the money. Third, most people don’t pay much attention to the tax line item on your bill.

Next: Personal Care & Services

The cost of "looking good" is about to go up, too... with some state governments thinking about making a number of services subject to their state's sales tax. Examples include beauty salon services, haircuts, and gym memberships. In some states, certain types of clothing are currently free of sales tax. As governments try to raise more money, though, look for these exemptions to disappear, too.

Next: Car Rental Taxes

If you thought the taxes on rental cars were already outrageous, you ain't seen nothin' yet. In Colorado, they're looking at implementing a $2-a-day tax on car rentals. And, in Wisconsin, there was talk of bumping up the tax from its current $2 level to--hold on to your hat--$15 per day!

Car rental taxes are an easy target for increased taxes because many cars are rented by business travelers or consumers being reimbursed by an insurance company. Needless to say, the car rental companies are opposed.

Next: License and User Fees

All of these new taxes are, unfortunately, just the tip of the iceberg. The real fun begins when you look at all of the other smaller license and user fees that many towns, cities, counties and states charge. Take, for example, Connecticut, which has considered doubling the cost of a fishing license — from $20 to $40. Or the state’s proposed $30 charge to fish in Long Island Sound (for which there is currently no charge whatsoever)! Or consider Huntingon, West Virginia, which is thinking about increasing its city user fee from $2 a week to $3, which would add up to an extra $1.6 million in revenue.

Next: Property Tax Increases

Thanks to revenue shortfalls, local governments across the U.S. are raising property-tax rates. And unfortunately, we’re probably going to see more and more of this. A typical case in point: In the Northampton area of Pennsylvania, property taxes are proposed to go up 4%, adding over $80 million in revenue for salaries, textbooks and other fixed items. This will also be the 10th year in a row that residents will have their property taxes increased. Read any and all notices from your tax assessor’s office closely!

Next: New "Punitive" Penalties

Though it's not a "tax," here’s another example of higher fees coming your way. Part of California's budget "solution" is a 20 percent penalty for under-estimating your state income taxes. We're not talking about tax evasion here, just about a simple tax error--and the penalty has a no-excuse policy to boot! But cha-CHING! That's an automatic $1.6 billion in new revenues for the state. Good for government, bad for businesses and hard-working taxpayers like us.

Next: How Much Will It All Cost?

If all of New York's new taxes and fees are approved, one group of Republican Senators calculates that the average cost to a New York household would be over $3,000 per year. That's certainly a lot of cash out of your pocket and into the government's. Thankfully, not all of these taxes will pass, but there is little doubt that you can expect more federal, state, and local taxes and fees that will separate you from your money, one dollar at a time.

Next: More on the Dolans

April 15th has turned into a game of "gotcha" -- and most taxpayers lose. Ken and Daria Dolan bring you proven, simple strategies that put you on a level playing field when it comes to your taxes and all things money.

At Dolans.com, they reveal common money mistakes that will cost you dearly, debt management strategies that work and the smartest money moves for 2009.

Credit: Wallet Pop

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo at CPAC Making Sense

2009-03-03T18:17:00.003-05:00

Tom Tancredo's blog

Top U.S. general spurns Obama pledge to reduce nuclear alert posture

2009-03-02T11:39:00.003-05:00

BY: Elaine M. Grossman , Global Security Newswire

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The nation's most senior nuclear combat commander yesterday took issue with U.S. President Barack Obama's characterization of U.S. atomic weapons as being on "hair-trigger alert" and warned against reducing the arsenal's launch readiness (see GSN, Feb. 17). "The alert postures that we are in today are appropriate, given our strategy and guidance and policy," Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, who heads U.S. Strategic Command, said at a press conference here.

The White House says Obama intends to make good on a campaign promise to "work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert."

There are growing international calls to do just that. Six nations, including China, New Zealand and Switzerland, recently pressed the U.N. General Assembly to pass a resolution demanding that the world's nuclear weapons be removed from a status that would allow them to be launched in minutes (see GSN, Oct. 24, 2008).

The United States keeps roughly 1,000 nuclear warheads on alert atop ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, according to Hans Kristensen, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project in Washington. The land-based missiles can be fired three to four minutes after a presidential order, while the submarine weapons require roughly 12 minutes' notice prior to launch, he said.

U.S. President George H.W. Bush unilaterally took the nation's bomber aircraft off of alert in 1991.

Russia, which has long opposed de-alerting measures for its own force, retains approximately 1,200 warheads at top readiness, nearly all of them on ICBMs, Kristensen said. The British and French together account for roughly 112 nuclear warheads on alert, though he said their weapons might require days' notice to launch.

Chilton said it is misleading to use the term "hair-trigger" when describing the U.S. arsenal, which he said remains safe from accidental or unauthorized launch.

"It conjures a drawn weapon in the hands of somebody," said the general, speaking at a two-day conference on air warfare. "And their finger's on the trigger. And you're worried they might sneeze, because it is so sensitive."

However, the "reality of our alert posture today," he said, is that "the weapon is in the holster."

Continuing the analogy, Chilton said the holster for nuclear weapons "has two combination locks on it," it "takes two people to open those locks," and "they can't do it without authenticated orders from the president of the United States."

At a separate press conference a few minutes earlier, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz also sought to "push back a little" on the notion that "these things are very close to launching."

"That's anything but the case," Schwartz said. "There is a rigorous discipline [and] process involved, should that ever be required, and it is anything but hair trigger."

The Air Force is responsible for managing the ICBM and strategic bomber legs of the U.S. nuclear triad, while the Navy handles submarine-based missiles.

Schwartz became his service's chief of staff last August after Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, citing dissatisfaction with their management of nuclear weapons.

The Air Force discovered last year that mislabeled ICBM fuses had been mistakenly shipped to Taiwan in 2006 (see GSN, March 25, 2008). In 2007, a bomber aircraft crew transported six cruise missiles across several U.S. states, unaware that the weapons were armed with nuclear warheads (see GSN, Sept. 5, 2007).

Schwartz yesterday appeared to suggest that the U.S. military has not yet been asked to review the issue or to determine how Obama's de-alerting pledge might be implemented. He said a description of the policy posted on the White House Web site falls short of "formal direction to study something or do something."

"This matter has been evaluated over the years on numerous occasions," said the Air Force chief. "I have no doubt that we've thought about it. We certainly can and will look at it again, if that's what the new defense team wishes. ... But we'll wait for an appropriate assignment from the White House or from the Office of the Secretary [of Defense] to do that."

For his part, Chilton described a process of "de-alerting" as a fairly radical step.

Returning to the analogy of a holstered weapon, Chilton said a lower level of readiness for the nuclear stockpile would be like "taking the gun apart and mailing pieces of it to various parts of the country. And then when you're in crisis, deciding to reassemble it.

"And we have to ask ourselves: Can we afford that time period for the delivery of the pieces to put it back together?" he continued. "Is that the posture we want to be in as we [review] policy, strategy, force structure and posturing of forces?"

That broad analysis is to take place during the Nuclear Posture Review, a congressionally mandated Defense Department study that is set to begin this year. It is expected to take a fresh look at the nation's deterrence posture and potentially recommend changes in the nuclear weapons approach, given current and anticipated threats.

Kristensen said Chilton appeared to depict only the most extreme scenario for de-alerting the nuclear force, while Obama might opt instead for more incremental measures.

"There is a wide range of measures you could take, from taking the entire force off of alert, to biting off the edges of the alert force in terms of gradually reducing the alert force or ... [adding] delays in the launch sequence," he told Global Security Newswire today.

One underlying objective of building more time into the nuclear-weapons launch process could be to offer a longer window for a president to weigh and potentially reverse a momentous strike order, Kristensen said. He added that Bush's decision to reduce bomber aircraft readiness has not weakened the U.S. deterrence posture.

"We have already taken the bombers off of alert .... and no one has attacked us in almost two decades," Kristensen said. "[Obama] is the one to make the decision ... because if you leave it to the warfighters and the strategists, then it's always going to be impossible to do anything that will change the status quo."

On a related issue, Schwartz raised the prospect that a new nuclear and conventional long-range bomber might not be fielded by 2018 to replace B-2 and B-52 aircraft, as his predecessor had assured (See GSN, Oct. 25, 2007).

"One of the things in a period of austerity is having acquisition programs that deliver on time and on cost," Schwartz told reporters. "And so whether it's 2018 or not, I think, is less important to me than having a viable, manageable program which will actually deliver at endgame."

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley -- a Bush administration appointee the White House announced yesterday it would retain -- said the bomber's prospects are under closed-door discussion as the Pentagon debates the 2010 defense spending plan and embarks on longer-term reviews.

"We don't have any determined outcomes yet on systems of that nature," said Donley, sitting alongside Schwartz at the afternoon press conference. Both noted their view that a new bomber continues to be needed in the coming years.

Credit: Global Security Newswire

This will run a chill up and down your spine!!!!

2009-03-01T23:58:00.008-05:00

Global systemic crisis – New tipping-point in March 2009: 'When the world becomes aware that this crisis is worse than the 1930s crisis'

LEAP/E2020 anticipates than the unfolding global systemic crisis will experience in March 2009 a new tipping point of similar magnitude to the September 2008 one. According to our team, at that period of the year, the general public will become aware of three major destabilizing processes at work in the global economy, i.e.:

• the length of the crisis
• the explosion of unemployment worldwide
• the risk of sudden collapse of all capital-based pension systems

A whole range of psychological factors will contribute to this tipping point: general awareness in Europe, America and Asia that the crisis has escaped from the control of every public authority, whether national or international; that it is severely affecting all regions of the world, even if some are more affected than others (see GEAB N°28); that it is directly hitting hundreds of millions of people in the “developed” world; and that it is only worsening as its consequences reveal throughout the real economy. National governments and international institutions only have three months left to prepare themselves to the next blow, one that could go along severe risks of social chaos. The countries which are not properly equipped to cope with a surge in unemployment and major risks on pensions will be seriously destabilized by this new public awareness.

In this 30th issue of the GEAB, the LEAP/E2020 team describes these three destabilizing processes (two of them are described in this public announcement) and gives recommendations to cope with the surge in risks. In addition, this issue also provides the opportunity to make an objective assessment of the reliability of LEAP/E2020's anticipations and specifies a number of methodological aspects of the analytical process used. In 2008, LEAP/E2020's success rate reaches 80%, and even 86% when it comes to strictly socio-econimic anticipations. In a year of major upheavals, our teal ise altogether quite proud of this result.

The crisis will last at least until the end of 2010
Evolution of the US money base and indications of related major US crisis periods (1910 – 2008) - Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis / Mish’s Global Economic Analysis
As we already explained in GEAB N°28, the crisis will affect in different ways the different regions of the world. However, and LEAP/E2020 wishes to be very clear on that aspect, contrary to the dominant stance today (coming from those experts who denied the fact that a crisis was coming up three years ago, who denied that it was global two years ago, and who denied the fact that it was systemic six months ago), we anticipate that the minimum duration of the decanting phase of the crisis is 3 years (1). It shall be finished neither in spring 2009, nor in summer 2009, nor at the beginning of 2010. It is only towards the end of 2010 that the situation will start stabilizing again and improving a little in some regions of the world, i.e. Asia and the Eurozone, as well as in countries producing energy, mineral and food commodities (2). Elsewhere, it will continue; in particular in the US and UK, and in all the countries depending on their economy, were the duration could approximate a decade. In fact these countries should not expect any real return to growth before 2018.

Moreover no one should imagine that the improvement at the end of 2010 will correspond to a return of high growth. The recovery will take long. For instance, stock markets will take a decade to return to levels comparable to 2007, if they ever return to that. Remember that it took twenty years before Wall Street resumed its 1920 levels. Well, according to LEAP/E2020, the present crisis is deeper and longer than in the 1930s. The general public will gradually become aware of the long-term aspect of this crisis in the coming three months and this situation will immediately trigger two tendencies carrying with them socio-economic instability: fear of the future and enhanced criticism towards leaders.

The risk of sudden collapse of all capital-based pension systems
Finally, among the various consequences of the crisis for dozens of millions of people in the US, Canada, UK, Japan, Netherlands and Denmark in particular (3), there is the fact that, from the end of the year 2008 onward, news about major losses on the part of the organizations in charge of managing the financial assets supposed to finance pensions will multiply. The OECD anticipates that pension funds will lose 4,000 billion USD in 2008 only (4). In the Netherlands (5) as well as in the United Kingdom (6), monitoring organizations recently blew the whistle asking for an emergency contribution reappraisal and a State intervention. In the United States, growing numbers of announcements call for contribution increases and benefit reductions (7), knowing that it is only in a few weeks time that most of these funds will start calculating their total losses (8). Most of them are still deluding themselves about their capacity to build up again their capital after the markets turn around. In March 2009, when pension fund managers, pensioners and governments will become simultaneously aware of the fact that the crisis is there to last, that it coincides with the « baby-boomer » generation’s age of retirement and that the markets will not resume their 2007 levels until many long years (9), chaos will flood this sector and governments will reach the moment when they will be compelled to nationalize all these funds. And Argentina, who took this decision a few months ago already, will appear a pioneer.

All the trends described above are already at work. Their combination and the public becoming aware of the consequences they could entail, will result in the great collective psychological trauma of Spring 2009, when everyone will realize that we are all trapped into a crisis worse than in the 1930s and that there is no possible way out in the short-term. The impact on the world’s collective mentalities of people and policy-makers will be decisive and modify significantly the course of the crisis in its next stage. Based on greater disillusion and fewer beliefs, social and political instability will settle down worldwide.

Finally, this GEAB N°30 presents a series of 13 questions & answers designed to enhance savers'/investors'/decision-makers' capacity to understand and anticipate the next stages of the global systemic crisis:
1. Is this crisis different from the previous crises which affected capitalism?
2. Is this crisis different from the 1930s crisis?
3. Is the crisis as serious in Europe or Asia as in the USA?
4. Are the current actions undertaken by public authorities worldwide sufficient to curb the crisis?
5. What are the major risks still weighting on the world financial system? And are all savings equal in front of the crisis?
6. Is the Eurozone a true protection shield against the worst aspects of the crisis and what should the Eurozone do to improve its protection status?
7. Is the Bretton Woods system (in its 1970s last version) currently collapsing? Should the Euro take the place of the Dollar?
8. What can be expected from the next G20 meeting in London?
9. Do you think that deflation is right now the biggest threat to economies worldwide?
10. Do you think that the Obama administration will be able to prevent the USA from sinking into what you called the ‘Very Great US Depression’?
11. In terms of currencies, beyond your anticipation of the Dollar resuming its collapse in the very next months, do you think that the UK Pound and the Swiss Franc are still currencies with an international status?
12. Do you think that the CDS market is about to implode in the coming months? And what could be the consequences of such a phenomenon?
13. Is there a ‘US Treasury Bonds Bubble” about to burst?

Credit: GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin

Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb

2009-03-01T20:43:00.006-05:00

In this photo provided by FOX News, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
WASHINGTON – The top U.S. military official said Sunday that Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, declaring it would be a "very, very bad outcome" should Tehran move forward with a bomb.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the assessment when questioned in a broadcast interview about a recent report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on the state of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can create nuclear fuel and may be sufficiently advanced to produce the core of warheads.

Mullen was asked if Iran now had enough fissile material to make a bomb. He responded, "We think they do, quite frankly. And Iran having a nuclear weapon I've believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world."

State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Sunday that it was not possible say how much fissile material Iran has accumulated.

"There are differing view not only outside government but also inside the government" on how far Iran has gone, Wood said. He added that while he was not suggesting Mullen was incorrect, "We just don't know" exactly how much fissile material Iran now holds.

"We are concerned they are getting close" to having enough to build a nuclear weapon, he added. Wood spoke to reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Egypt.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran has processed 2,222 pounds (1,010 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium. But the report left unclear whether Iran is now capable, even if it wanted, of further processing that material into a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium to arm one weapon.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who like Mullen appeared on the Sunday talk shows, did not go as far as Mullen. The Iranians, Gates said, are "not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time" for continued diplomatic efforts.

And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, recently told National Public Radio that the IAEA report "confirms what we all had feared and anticipated, which is that Iran remains in pursuit of its nuclear program."

Iran, now subjected to various penalties by the U.N., the U.S. and others over its nuclear program, denies it wants to build a bomb. It asserts its program is intended to provide the country with the homegrown ability to generate electricity from nuclear reactors.

So far, the U.S. has not relented in its claims that Iran has ambitions to join the club of nuclear-armed nations. Mullen seemed to restate that position in his remarks on CNN's "State of the Union." He was not asked to elaborate.

Under an international nuclear treaty it has signed, Iran has the right to develop a civilian program for the nuclear generation of electricity. But any such program must be open to international inspection. Iran has balked at that after it became known in past years that the country had hidden portions of its nuclear effort that could be linked to a weapons program.

At issue now is Iran's uranium enrichment efforts. The Bush administration insisted that was a precursor to making weapons-grade materials. President Barack Obama has sought to change course with Iran, offering diplomatic engagement in a bid to prove Tehran has more to lose by ignoring the wishes of other countries than it has to gain through its nuclear efforts.

"The question is whether you can increase the level of the sanctions and the cost to the Iranians of pursuing that program at the same time you show them an open door if they want to engage with the Europeans, with us and so on if they walk away from that program," Gates said. "Our chances of being successful, it seems to me, are a lot better at $35 or $40 oil than they were at $140 oil because there are economic costs to this program, they do have economic challenges at home."

Days after Obama announced his plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, Mullen and Gates made clear their support for the commander in chief's approach.

Mullen said he was comfortable with the decision, while noting he was reluctant to talk about "winning and losing" in Iraq. Rather, he said, the conditions are in place for the Baghdad government to successfully take control of the country.

Mullen said Obama listened extensively to the American military leadership and U.S. commanders in Iraq before announcing withdrawal. Under the president's order, the 142,000 U.S. forces in Iraq would be drawn down to between 35,000 and 50,000 troops by the 2010 date. All forces would be withdrawn by the last day of 2011.

Gates said he thought it was "fairly remote" that conditions in Iraq would change enough to alter significantly the Obama plan. He said the president has said he retains the authority to change a plan if it's in the national security interests of the United States.

"Our soldiers will be consolidated into a limited number of bases in order to provide protection for themselves and for civilians who are out working in the Iraqi neighborhoods and countryside as well," Gates said. "The risk to our troops will be substantially less than certainly was last year, and it has, has gradually declined."

Gates appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," while Mullen also was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."

___

Associated Press Writer Robert Burns contributed to this story from Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt.

Credit: Yahoo News

Red Meat: Rush Limbaugh Mocks Harry Reid at CPAC- "This War Is Lost... This War Is Lost"

2009-03-01T00:16:00.006-05:00

Comeback.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Red Meat: Rush Limbaugh Mocks Harry Reid at CPAC- "This War Is Lost... This War Is Lost"

Rush Limbaugh dared to mock democrats for waging war against Bush and the War in Iraq. Rush Limbaugh mocked Harry Reid and blasted democrats for actively seeking America's defeat in the Iraq War. The full transcript is posted at Rush's website.

Rush Limbaugh on Harry Reid waving the white flag:

Comeback.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Red Meat: Rush Limbaugh Mocks Harry Reid at CPAC- "This War Is Lost... This War Is Lost"

Rush Limbaugh dared to mock democrats for waging war against Bush and the War in Iraq. Rush Limbaugh mocked Harry Reid and blasted democrats for actively seeking America's defeat in the Iraq War. The full transcript is posted at Rush's website.

Rush Limbaugh on Harry Reid waving the white flag:

For some reason the media wants to forget that democrats waged a war against the War in Iraq.

From his speech today at CPAC:

Rush: This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us want to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail!

CROWD: Yes!

RUSH: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's Dingy Harry Reid waiving a white flag: [Harry Reid impression] This war is lost. This war is -- [Cheers and Applause] They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton -- [Crowd Booing] -- said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Petraeus. We're in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed? [Applause]

The Politico reported on Rush Limbaugh's speech today.

Credit: Gateway Pundit

HATE PREACHER GETS OK TO RUN SHARIA LAW DEMO

2009-02-28T23:58:00.005-05:00

Pictured Hate Preacher Anjem Choudary

By Tom Savage and Ross Kaniuk

HATE preacher Anjem Choudary will march in London today calling for Britain to adopt Islamic Sharia law.

The startling move comes just days after processions celebrating St George were banned for being racist.

Choudary was given the green light yesterday despite a previous demonstration in which some of his supporters chanted: “Bomb the UK”.

Publicity for the march, in the East End, carries 41-year-old Choudary’s personal mobile number and says the aim of the campaign is to “emulate the Prophet and his companions, by calling for Islam and speaking out against the oppression of man-made law”.

It says that Britain is full of “disbelievers” who are involved in prostitution, gambling, alcoholism and worshipping other gods.

The publicity says women are welcome to join the march but they must walk at the back of the procession as “strict segregation will be enforced”.

The demo comes 18 months after three of Choudary’s supporters were jailed for soliciting murder in a London protest against cartoons of the prophet Mohammed published in Denmark.

That was when some demonstrators chanted “Bomb the UK” and “Europe, you will pay with your blood”. Organiser Choudary was fined.

Today’s march won permission after a council withdrew funding for a St George’s Day parade in the Midlands – on the grounds that it was “racist”.

Parade founder Mark Cowles, 40, of West Bromwich, said yesterday: “I can’t believe Choudary’s event can go ahead.

“The British establishment is trying to take away the British voice but other cultures choose to force their way of life on us.”

Credit: Star Sunday

Related reading: Islam For The UK

Reid joins Pelosi in opposing ban revival

2009-02-28T22:31:00.005-05:00

By J. Taylor Rushing

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.

"Sen. Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future," Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.

It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.

Reid's stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Holder said during a press conference Wednesday in Phoenix that Obama had made reinstating the ban one of his campaign promises.

"There are obviously a number of things that are — that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so I’m not sure exactly what the sequencing will be," Holder said. "It is something, however, that we still think would be an appropriate thing to do."

The news caught Capitol Hill by surprise, immediately pitting Democrats and Republicans against each other and even exposing deep divides among Democrats. A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the NRA for voting for the 1994 ban.

Credit: The Hill

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 10 October 1787

Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, and More

2009-02-28T20:33:00.006-05:00

By Larry Kudlow

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s address to Congress and budget. He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds. That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next ten years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge tax increase on all blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, and new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

Obama’s tax hikes will generate fewer revenues and lower economic growth. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner. There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse. Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

Credit: National Review Online

A Tribute To Ronald Reagan & My Own Video Thoughts

2009-02-27T09:31:00.021-05:00

A Tribute to Ronald Reagan & smaller government

Related reading: Senator calls Obama 'world’s best salesman of socialism'

The Medical insurance industry has behaved so badly that no one wants to defend it anymore. In the video I mention and singled out Doctors unfairly but, I realize that the blame should be evenly spread amongst everyone, patients with the I don't care the insurance will pay for it attitude, vendors who overcharge, the insurance companies themselves, government regulation, etc... The point was that insurance is what caused the mess in the first place and the government is a bigger insurance company and should not be looked at for improving the situation.

Interesting Reading In Regards To Healthcare Linked below.

Don’t Mess with Texas, Insurance Industry

Those for socialized healthcare read this: Slowing the Growth of Health Care Costs — Lessons from Regional Variation

Above is a link to a very important article in plain English from one of the
"Big 5" medical journals. There is an interactive feature linked to it which is worth a minute of your time as well. There is nothing in the article that those who have been involved with health care planning haven't known for well over a decade. But for those who have not been, this should be a real eye-opener as the nation re-engages in the health care reform debate. Simply stated, there are incredible regional differences in health care costs and the rate of change in health care costs. The reimbursements providers receive for caring for Medicare patients are set centrally and are controlled by the political class. If we are going to reign in health care costs don't expect organized medicine to do it.

Obama Can’t Have It All When It Comes to Iraq and Afghanistan

2009-02-27T08:10:00.004-05:00

By Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland
National Security Expert

Cognitive Dissonance – def. The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes.

President Obama’s Defense Budget - def. The inconsistent belief that we can end the Iraq War, win the Afghanistan War, increase the size of the Army and Marines, raise pay and benefits to the troops and cut defense spending.

President Obama’s Iraq Policy – def. The inconsistent attitude that everything about President Bush’s Iraq policy was wrong, but we are now able to withdraw, and leave behind a self-sustaining democracy in the heart of the Arab Middle East.

President Obama’s address to Congress was one of the most brilliant pieces of oratory in a generation. But the parts dealing with Pentagon spending and our withdrawal from Iraq are at odds with reality. Quite simply, the words and the deeds don’t match up.

Obama promises cuts in defense spending. Without getting specific, he claims we will save money by withdrawing from Iraq and eliminating new weapons systems. That’s true. It won’t give him a lot of savings, certainly not enough to help plug the budget gap, but it will help. But what he’s not telling you about is the additional spending required to do the other things he mentions. Let’s break it down.

There is only one way Obama can cut defense spending –- by pulling out of Afghanistan. If he does, it will mean the only military success he has to crow about is Iraq –- Bush’s War. Because even though Iraq has cost us far too much in lives and treasure, we leave behind a self-sustaining democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Not because of Obama, but because Bush’s Surge Strategy succeeded. Oops.

First, our Marine and Army units are seriously depleted after seven years of war. Most of their equipment is worn out and needs retooling, repairing and replacing. He might choose not to make those units “whole”, but not if he plans to divert some of them to Afghanistan this spring. So far he’s talked about sending in 17,000 troops, perhaps to be followed by more. They need to go in with equipment and spare parts. That will add to defense spending.
Second, Obama plans to add 100,000 troops to the Army and Marines. That’s 100,000 additional men and women who will need training and equipment. That will add to defense spending.

Third, as we ramp up in Afghanistan we can expect, sadly, an increase in casualties. As we saw with the surge in Iraq, things got worse before they got better. Increased casualties are not only tragic, but providing them with adequate care and benefits is expensive. That will add to defense spending.

And those are just direct military costs. There will be additional spending needed to pay for Obama’s ‘soft power’ plans. In that part of the world, money talks. General Petraeus has indicated we will push for a Sunni Awakening-type effort with the Afghan tribes. That it will require additional monies and outlays to the tribal leaders to pay for their militias, and regional reconstruction programs. So, in fact, Obama will have to increase defense spending, not cut it, if he plans to ramp up in Afghanistan.

There is only one way Obama can cut defense spending –- by pulling out of Afghanistan. If he does, it will mean the only military success he has to crow about is Iraq –- Bush’s War. Because even though Iraq has cost us far too much in lives and treasure, we leave behind a self-sustaining democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Not because of Obama, but because Bush’s Surge Strategy succeeded. Oops.

Sorry, Mr. President, you can’t have it all.

PS: By the way, Mr. President. Your pledge to cut ‘unnecessary’ weapons systems is probably a good idea, but it will also eliminate alot of AMERICAN jobs. Oops.

Credit: Fox News

Other Great Fox News Links

Obama Iraq Plan Might End the War, But Will It Complete the Mission?

YOU DECIDE: Is $3.6 Trillion Worth It?

A Letter to President Obama

Let’s Get Back To “Small Is Beautiful”

Official: Obama to Reverse Bush Abortion Regulation

Ex-DC Mayor Marion Barry Released From Hospital, Faces Tax Trial

Orange County California Newspaper

2009-02-27T08:06:00.000-05:00

This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple.

NOT printed in the Orange County Paper..................

Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace!

From: 'David LaBonte'

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print' it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were.. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules; one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill.. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte

KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET!!

LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!!

I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!!

Credit: Email submission from a friend

If You're a Responsible American. You're Screwed...

2009-02-27T07:00:00.000-05:00

The U.S. Supplies Welfare To Hamas Terrorists

2009-02-27T00:25:00.008-05:00

Clinton to Israel

February 26, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton will make her first official visit to Israel.

The centerpiece of the secretary of state's tour, announced Thursday by the State Department, will be a March 2 fund-raising conference for the Palestinians in Egypt; she continues from there to Israel and the Palestinian areas. The United States is expected to pledge $900 million to rebuild the Gaza Strip after the war its Hamas overlords launched against Israel devastated the area.

Clinton reportedly will be pressing Israel to ease restrictions on the transfer of humanitarian assistance into the strip.

Clinton, who will be accompanied by her chief Middle East mediator, George Mitchell, will also visit Turkey. The release from the State Department did not elaborate, but the Obama administration is expected to embrace the Turkish-mediate Israel-Syria peace talks. Bush administration policy was not to encourage the talks.

Jeffrey Feltman, an acting assistant secretary of state, met Thursday with Syria's envoy to Washington, Imad Moustapha, the ambassador's most senior meeting with a U.S. official in years.

The State Department announcement of the Feltman-Moustapha meeting made clear that even with the Obama administration's commitment to greater outreach, it still has red lines. "There remain key differences between our two governments, including our concerns about Syria’s support to terrorist groups and networks, Syria’s acquisition of nuclear and non-conventional weaponry, interference in Lebanon and worsening human rights situation," the statement said. "This meeting is an opportunity to use dialogue to discuss these concerns."

Credit: JTA

After the global outcry over Israel defending itself against continued rocket attack from the Gaza Strip where is the money other than from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia who will donate $1B to rebuild Gaza? The citizens of Gaza elected Hamas who believes in launching rockets at Israel so they should live with the consequences without American tax payers money. Other areas in the world are in need of rebuilding too like right here at home.

Huckabee Blasts McCain for Supporting $700B Bailout

2009-02-26T22:31:00.004-05:00

Mike Huckabee says John McCain missed a chance last fall to offer a conservative alternative to the $700 billion financial rescue plan.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee took shots at former presidential primary rival John McCain on Thursday, blaming McCain's actions during the economic meltdown last fall for his general election loss to Barack Obama.

When McCain suspended his campaign last September and flew back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis, he "meekly" joined Obama and voted for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, Huckabee said.

McCain should have offered a "true, authentic conservative choice rather than a big government echo with a weak 'me too' way of doing things," he said. "We missed our chance."

The FOX News host urged fiscal and social conservatives to come together for and be "competent conservatives" for the future of the party.

"Let's stir up things, let's make some waves, let's change this country. Because if we don't, there may not be another generation left to get the job done," he said.

He also attributed November's humiliating defeat to Republicans abandoning their principals.

"The fortunes of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are interwoven. Let's not have a divorce. Let's have a reconciliation," he said. "We didn't lose because of social conservatives. We lost because we wanted somehow to be the party that forgot what we stood for," he said.

Huckabee also did some MSNBC bashing, referring to the cable network as the "Oh God Channel" or the "MSBS channel" for the way Chris Matthews reacted to Bobby Jindal's speech Tuesday night.

Credit: Fox News

Financial crisis sparks unrest in Europe

2009-02-26T14:00:00.004-05:00

Thousands of Opel workers from around Germany took part in a mass rally on Thursday demanding parent General Motors (GM.N) scrap plans for plant closures in Europe.

The global financial and economic crisis has sparked many protests in parts of Europe. Here are some details:

* BOSNIA -- Workers of Bosnia's only alumina producer Birac protested on Feb. 9 in Banja Luka, demanding salary payments and government support to offset falling metal prices.

* BRITAIN -- British workers held a series of protests at power plants, demonstrating against the employment of foreign contractors to work on critical energy sites.

-- The protests follow a week-long dispute at the Total-owned Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, which resulted in Total agreeing to hire more British workers on the project. Workers voted to end the unofficial strike on Feb. 5.

* BULGARIA -- Police officers, banned by law from striking, have held three "silent" protests since December to demand a 50 percent pay hike and better working conditions. Bulgaria, the poorest EU nation, has been hit by protests demanding the government take measures to shore up the economy.

-- Farmers blocked the only Danube bridge link with Romania and rallied across Bulgaria on Feb. 4 demanding the government set a minimum protective price for milk and stop imports of cheap substitutes.

* FRANCE -- President Nicolas Sarkozy faced criticism from both unions and bosses on Feb. 19 over new measures to tackle the economic crisis. Sarkozy offered an additional 2.65 billion euros ($3.4 billion) of social spending in an effort to quell labour unrest over a previous stimulus package that targeted investment rather than consumers. France's eight union federations called for a day of action on March 19.

-- Up to 2.5 million protesters took to the streets of France on Jan. 29 in a day of strikes and rallies to denounce the economic crisis but the strike failed to paralyse the country and support from private sector workers was limited.

-- A union representative was killed last week and several policemen wounded by protesters on the French Caribbean island in violence over the cost of living. Guadeloupe, a region of France and part of the EU, has been brought to a standstill in February by a general strike over high prices for food.

* GERMANY -- Thousands of Opel workers from around Germany took part in a mass rally at the company's headquarters, demanding on Thursday that parent General Motors scrap plans for plant closures in Europe. Vice Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier at the rally, added, "This is about more than just Opel. It's about the future of the car industry in Germany." * GREECE -- Greek farmers protesting low product prices ended a two week blockade of a border crossing with Bulgaria on Feb. 7 when their demands for compensation were met. Greece had endured days of travel chaos with thousands of angry farmers setting roadblocks across the country, but most have ended after the government pledged 500 million euros ($640 million) in subsidies on products such as olive oil and wheat. -- High youth unemployment was a main driver for rioting in Greece in December, initially sparked by the police shooting of a youth in an Athens neighbourhood. The protests forced a government reshuffle.

* ICELAND -- Prime Minister Geir Haarde resigned on Jan. 26 after protests. The first leader in the world to fall as a direct result of the financial crisis, he was replaced by Johanna Sigurdardottir, who heads a new centre-left coalition.

* IRELAND -- Nearly 100,000 people marched through Dublin on Feb. 21 to protest at government cutbacks in the face of a deepening recession and bailouts for the banks.

* LATVIA -- A new Latvian prime minister was appointed on Thursday after the four-party ruling coalition collapsed on Feb. 20 and the president called for talks to forge a new government to tackle a deepening economic crisis. The government was the second to succumb to the financial crisis.

-- Latvia's agriculture minister had already gone on Feb. 3 amid protests by farmers over falling incomes. A 10,000-strong protest on Jan. 13 descended into a riot. Government steps to cut wages, as part of an austerity plan to win international aid, have angered people.

* LITHUANIA -- Police fired teargas lon Jan. 16 to disperse demonstrators who pelted parliament with stones in protest at cuts in social spending. Police said 80 people were detained and 20 injured. Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius said the violence would not stop an austerity plan.

* MONTENEGRO -- In Podgorica, aluminium workers demanded on Feb. 9 to be paid their salaries and an immediate restart of suspended production at the Kombinat Aluminijuma Podgorica (KAP), a Russian-owned plant.

* RUSSIA -- Hundreds of angry communists rallied in Moscow on Feb. 23 in protest at the Kremlin's handling of the crisis that has rocked the Russian economy, the latest in a series of demonstrations held across Russia as the economic crisis bites.

-- The opposition rallied about 350 people in central Moscow two days earlier to demand early presidential elections.

-- On Jan. 31, thousands of opposition supporters rallied in Moscow and the port of Vladivostok over hardships caused by the financial crisis. The next day hundreds of Moscow demonstrators called for Russia's leaders to resign.

* UKRAINE - Hundreds of Ukrainians protested at separate demonstrations on Feb. 23, with some urging President Viktor Yushchenko to quit while others demanded their money back from banks hit by the financial crisis.

Credit: Reuters

This young lady describes the direction the current administration is taking us better than anyone I've read so far

2009-02-25T22:08:00.008-05:00

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

Credit: Townhall.com

ACLU Signs Add to Washington State's Immigration Storm

2009-02-25T21:48:00.005-05:00

By Jana Winter

An immigration showdown is brewing on Washington's Olympic Peninsula, where simmering tensions and borderline hostility have fueled a turf war between the local community and the Border Patrol agents assigned to protect it.

Now the American Civil Liberties Union has jumped into the ring and upped the ante, rolling out a campaign that will install signs inside buses informing riders of their rights — to ignore Border Patrol agents.

The signs, entitled, "YOUR RIGHTS with border patrol agents on this bus," makes three points:

• If you're a U.S. citizen, you don't have to prove it.
• If you're not a U.S. citizen and are 18 or older, you must show your immigration papers to federal agents.
• Everyone has the right to remain silent.

The campaign, which could start as early as next week, is the latest in a series of expanding grassroots efforts aimed at curbing the expansion of Border Patrol forces and the powers of its agents.

Click here to see ACLU flyer.

Last summer the Border Patrol beefed up its presence in the region, and in October it began conducting random roadside stops at checkpoints located at and within the international border to combat, what it says, is a real threat to national security.

This move has put them at odds with human rights groups and even local law enforcement — some who have rejected federal immigration money to protest the Border Patrol's tactics.

The ACLU has joined forces with left-leaning groups around the state — lavender farmers, retirees, activists, grandparents, Socialists, Green Party members, politicians, Unitarians, Christians, vineyard owners, hippies and other assorted protesters — who say these measures have infringed on people's civil liberties.

The ACLU says it is just informing frightened residents, U.S. citizens and immigrants — both legal and illegal — of their rights.

They say Border Patrol agents spend their time rounding up illegal immigrants well inland of the border and wasting their resources and manpower by conducting immigration status checks on local buses and at random checkpoints on roads well inside the border.

"They set up random checkpoints, no suspicion of criminal activity or no suspicion they'd even near the border, continued to follow and stop random people and demand citizenship information from them," said Jennifer Shaw, Deputy Director of the ACLU Washington. "They go up to folks and say, 'Are you a citizen?"

But critics of the ACLU campaign say it is designed to give illegal immigrants — and possibly terrorists — a playbook for evading federal law enforcement agents working to secure one of the most dangerous and porous borders in the country at a time when the threat to national security is particularly high.

"These are the places that terrorists or criminals would use to egress away from the border. There are only a few ways to get in," said Michael Bermudez, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman in Blaine, Wash., of the recent bus-sign campaign.

Bermudez said there's good reason for Border Patrol agents to be pursuing illegal immigrants.

"We're concerned with securing the areas between ports of entry, concerned with preventing terrorists and their mass weapons of terrorism," he said.

ACLU's pamphlets and signs will be posted inside buses that will pick up and drop off passengers at the Port Angeles ferry terminal -- right across the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Victoria, B.C.

That's where Algerian-born Ahmed Ressam docked on American soil in 1999 with explosives in the trunk of his car and a plan to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve. The "Millennium Bomber" was apprehended by Customs and Border agents and is currently serving a 22-year sentence.

Border Patrol agents also point out that the 2010 Winter Olympics will be held in Vancouver, not far from the crossing.

"Heightened border security is not only appropriate, it is necessary," Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, told FOXNews.com.

"We've got the Olympics coming up. Do you know what terrorists want? Terrorists want to make the biggest splash they can to impair different countries with a different world view than they have, and making that splash at the Olympics is got to be close to the top of their list, if not the top."

Lois Danks, 62, of Sequim, Wash., who manages computer systems for a state health center, said people live in a constant state of anxiety and fear.

"The Border Patrol SUV starts driving down the middle of a street out of nowhere — and it's pretty quiet out here — it's pretty scary even if you're a citizen," said Danks. "That's not American values."

Dank, is also a coordinator of the Stop the Checkpoints Committee, a grassroots umbrella group comprised of splinter organizations — religious, spiritual, civil rights, human rights and assorted interest groups — from all over the state of Washington that are working with the ACLU to circulate petitions and protest the Border Patrol.

She said that the group is planning a "big, big" march on International Women's Day, March 7.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., also a member of the Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the agency's new secretary, Janet Napolitano, on February 9, calling for an investigation into the Border Patrol's tactics on the Olympic Peninsula.

Click here to see letter from Dicks to Napolitano.

Dicks' chief of staff George Behan said the Washington state lawmaker will, possibly as early as next week, get an audience with Napolitano.

He said one of the main issues Dicks wants to discuss with Napolitano is how best to utilize the Border Patrol, which is now spending much of its time away focusing on finding and detaining illegal immigrants. "The issue is limited amount of resources," Behan said. "The payoff seems to be pretty minimal. It's largely farm workers," he said. "This isn't Al Qaeda."

But Lungren said the danger is real and the actions of the agents fall within Border Patrol guidelines.

"There is nothing that we ask our Border Patrol agents to do that's inconsistent with our constitutions," Lungren told FOXNews.com. "There are certain questions that they ask at the border or within reasonable distance from the border because they're at the border or within reasonable distance from the border — and that's considered reasonable."

As for the community upset about Border Patrol agents on buses, the target of the new campaign the ACLU is rolling out, Lungren said that the general public isn't always privy to national security issues.

"People should be not surprised that Border Patrol should be asking people on conveyances moving from north to south these questions."

Credit: Fox News

Rush Limbaugh and Barack Obama...

2009-02-24T21:38:00.014-05:00

President Obama says he opposes any move to bring back the so-called fairness doctrine? Snake in the grass will let his friends take credit on this one.

HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey wants "to hear that the White House will actively oppose any attempts to regulate political content on broadcast airwaves."

Ed Morrissey is not alone in believing Obama is just giving his media friends a way to release him from the blame of the works of his administration. Who's Obama kidding he's been as the video above suggests attacking Rush and the talk radio types non stop.

Is a patter developing? Obama Opposes Nationalizing Banks, Then Promptly Begins Talks To Nationalize Banks Yep, the pattern is clear!

September 30, 1999 Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

2009-02-24T18:07:00.016-05:00

PDF FORMAT DATED COPY

New York Times . Page 1 of 2
***Septemer 30,1999***

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets - including the New York metropolitan region - will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope
to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub prime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates - anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paving significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called
subprime market.

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the sub prime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this mess Bill Clinton! Note: Bill Clinton was never blamed for this banking mess and Clinton was also wrongly credited for a balanced budget. Mr. Clinton had a Republican congress in charge of the purse and they should be given credit for the balanced budget. In 2008 voters who had little time for reviewing facts were duped by the liberal media into blaming Bush for the banking mess. Bush had a Democrat controlled congress for the last 2 years of his administration and that coincides with the economy tanking. Unfortunately Obama brings more power to the wrong party period end of story.

EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!!

If We Nationalize Our Banks They Will Become Political Institutions

2009-02-23T17:19:00.008-05:00

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, Freedomnomics/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland

Why has the stock market fallen so much as politicians have talked about nationalizing the banks? If this was such a wonderful way of fixing credit markets, wouldn’t you think that stocks would go up?

The discussion might not be academic any longer with reports in today’s Wall Street Journal and elsewhere that the Obama administration is talking with Citibank about taking over as much as 40 percent of the company’s stock. Such a move would make the government not only Citi’s largest shareholder, by far, but it would effectively give the government complete control.

"There are strong reasons to believe that the losses from politicizing banks could be huge. Politicization may not only hurt the banks, it might also effect their customers."

Politicians from Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) support nationalization. Democratic economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and Alan Blinder also support it. Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan supports a very limited nationalization. President Obama has already been on the record saying he opposed nationalization but now the state of negotiations with Citi has apparently already changed his mind.

Nationalization is being sold as necessary to help the banks but some banks were forced to take bailout funds over their objections last fall. Now some banks such as Bank of America are objecting to this new “help.” And who can blame them? Bank of America has continued to remain profitable despite being coaxed by the Federal Reserve to take over troubled financial institutions.

In the fall the government claimed that banks had to accept bailout funds because those that didn’t would stigmatize those who did. The argument made little sense then because the money given to the banks was claimed to have corrected their problems so there should have been little remaining concern.

For those financial institutions in trouble there is a simple solution available that we use for firms all the time — bankruptcy. If necessary, deposit insurance is where the government could be using the trillions of dollars it wants to spend. Bankruptcy judges are quite sensitive to keeping firms functioning and there is no reason why they couldn’t handle these financial companies as well.

Yet, there are strong reasons to believe that the losses from politicizing banks could be huge. Politicization may not only hurt the banks, it might also effect their customers.

Just the mention of nationalization last week caused stocks to fall but bank stocks collapsed. Bank of America’s shares fell 36 percent after Senator Dodd announced on Friday that nationalization might be necessary. Citigroup’s stock fell by 22 percent to $1.95 on Friday.

Why did just a mere mention of nationalization cause such a strong reaction? Because when governments around the world have bought an ownership stake in companies, the desire to run firms efficiently goes out the window. Studies consistently find that even partial government ownership reduces firm profitability. We once had a national bank in the U.S. — the Bank of the United States — and President Andrew Jackson eliminated it because the bank funded politically connected businesses.

Is that really a surprise when politically powerful Congressmen grant defense contracts to companies who have a lot of workers in their congressional districts? It is bad enough for national defense but is that the way we want our banks to be run, too?

A recent and all too typical example involves Airbus, the giant European aircraft maker. For example, the company’s CEO resigned in 2006 complaining that political concerns took precedent over what made financial sense. Germany, France, Spain, and the U.K. all own shares in the company. — That means that manufacturing plants and jobs are not distributed in ways that make the most sense economically but to ensure that each country gets its “fair” share of highly paid jobs all subsidized with taxpayer money.

Here is one reason that the Airbus CEO resigned:

“The contribution of the United Kingdom taxpayer alone towards the A380 program is 530 million [British pounds]. In return for that, Broughton [in England]…got to make the wings. But it also means that each completed set of wings has to make a remarkable journey to the final assembly site in France by way of container ship, river barge and specially adapted road trailer. With the main fuselage having to travel from Germany and the tailfin from Spain, no wonder Christian Streiff, the man who was drafted in to head Airbus in July [2006], commented that there must be a simpler way.”

Putting the wing factory next door to where the fuselage was made would have saved a lot of money — money that could have paid higher wages or encouraged more investments and expanded production. Governments could even have taxed away those savings and used them for everything from education to medical care. But politically it was more important that certain constituencies get particular jobs.

This wasted money not only means financial loses for the firms, it also means a poorer country.

But with banks there is an even worse possibility. Over the last couple of decades the federal government used regulations to forced banks to give mortgages to people the banks thought were too risky — people who couldn’t make down payments and may have only had income from welfare. With the government owning the banks, banks may be asked to fund all sorts of politically desirable borrowers. The problem now is that with government ownership — instead of just regulations — the political pressure might be much harder to track.

Economists have also argued that government owned companies frequently charge less than the cost of their products — in other words, they engage in predatory pricing. In this case, nationalized banks backed by the federal government might charge lower interest rates than private banks, forcing the remaining private banks out of business.

The point isn’t that banks are bad investments. The problem is that nationalization will make banks into bad investments.

Capitalism might not be liked very much by those on the left, but capitalist countries are wealthier than socialist ones for a reason and that wealth has allowed governments to provide previously unheard of help for the poor. The reason? Incentives matter. Government has neither the expertise nor the incentive to run companies efficiently.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Credit: FOX NEWS

UN: Iran Can Make One Bomb Now

2009-02-23T13:35:00.006-05:00

By J.D. Longstreet

“Iran has now built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.” (From the Financial Times.) For details go HERE. The report goes on to say: “The new figures come in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran’s production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.”

No Kidding? Why, they must be joking, right? Hardly. Iran has been telling the world what they are doing and what they intend to do with that bomb as soon as they have it built. Well, for all we know, they may have the thing built, already!

If the diplomats of this world have anything to learn at all, it is this… when a man, or a country, tells you they intend to do something, then you’d damn well better listen and prepare your counter move.

I grew up as a scrawny little kid. I was picked on a lot because of my size. Until I learned that I had to strike first, with everything I had, before the bully, or would- be bully knew what had hit him. It saved my behind a number of times. Some of those guys would have wiped the floor up with my scrawny little behind had I not taken matters into my own hands and removed the threat. I suppose that is one of the reasons I can relate to the nation of Israel, as I certainly do today.

I bring Israel into this, for two reasons, which quickly boil down into one reason. Israel will be target number one for Iran’s Atom Bomb. Israel will have to remove the threat before Iran can strike and Israel must be prepared to act alone. The US can no longer be counted on to stand beside Israel. I am confident that Israel knows this and that may be the underlying reason why, Benjamin Netanyahu may very well be the next Prime Minister of Israel. The stage is being set.

Now… for those of you with terminally short attention spans… a word about Iran:

Last July, I wrote in this very space the following: “Iran is the instigator of much of the terror around the globe today with training, and with money, munitions, material, and in a number of cases, personnel. It is one thing for Iran, alone, to have the bomb, it is quite another for Iran to begin handing those nuclear bombs off to bands of terrorists, all over the planet, who have absolutely no qualms about setting one of them off in Berlin, Paris, Lisbon, London, or New York! And therein lies the greatest threat posed by Iran’s ownership of The Bomb. Too often we have adjusted our national blinders so that we are seeing only an atomic attack upon Israel instigated by Iran. I must tell you, the likelihood of Iran arming terrorists with A-bombs is far more likely and, far and away, more dangerous to the US and the world.

Some of us in America understand that it will take a nuclear disaster in one of our large cities to get the attention of that portion of Americans who normally do not take part in the daily grind of everyday politics in the country and the world. They are those folks who will ask: “Now why would anyone want to bomb one of our great cities”? They are the folks who will STILL be puzzled as the mushroom cloud rears it’s dark, ugly, countenance above the ruins of what was formally a thriving metropolis with hundreds of thousand of Americans minding their own business, just like them, before the blinding flash that took their lives.

We have always had those folks with us. Historians tell us that when the 13 Colonies girded for war against Great Britain, 1/3 were for the War for Independence, 1/3 were against the war, and 1/3 didn’t care, one way or the other.

In the days of yesteryear it was gallant, chivalrous even, to allow the opponent to get off the first shot before America took them out. Today… there will be no chance to strike back. The weapons of war are so powerful that he who gets of the first shot, most likely, will be the winner (if there is such a thing as a “winner” in a nuclear war.)

The point of my rambling is this: Iran must be stopped. And the deed must be done sooner, rather than later. Americans, befuddled by all the politics in the air, both day and night for the past two years, (and the recession on top of that worry) are NOT paying attention to the gathering threat from Iran. Americans are distracted. Distracted is not a good thing when a country is at war for it’s very existence. (It is also “not a good thing” when we have a Commander-in-Chief as naïve as the one we have now. But, we elected the President, and we are stuck with him for at least four years. And, I am convinced he has no idea the trouble the world is in and no idea of how to deal with it.)

We DO have a choice. We can take out the nuclear threat from Iran and continue to enjoy a life of freedom, or we can allow Iran to build the bomb, disseminate it to terrorist bands around the globe, and live in fear and trembling as slaves to the Islamofacists. Those are the choices. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND… contrary to what some leading politicians would have us believe.

Now, understand. I am not “warmongering” here. What I AM trying to do is redirect the spotlight onto the very REAL, and possibly worse, threat emanating from Iran’s possession of an Atomic Bomb. And that is… again… arming terrorists with it.

For the past 292 years we have had it rather easy, as a nation. We’ve had our wars, even amongst ourselves, but, we have had periods of peace. But, I fear that is over.

I hate to break it to some of you, but the war on terror is a never-ending war. It is not likely we will ever again have a world without US troops in the Middle East. But, even if it comes to pass, that we DO manage to dampen the hostilities there, it will be only temporary. In the meantime, wars all over the globe will flare-up and US troops will be required and called into combat in diverse places. It will be a constant struggle; waged from day to day, as young Americans spill their blood in an attempt to keep the death and destruction from our shores. But, eventually, it will arrive here, in America, and we, too, will live then as Israel does today. We’ll not be able to board a municipal bus without worrying if it has a bomb affixed to it, or enter the doors of a shopping mall without the same fear, or attend a sporting event, without that same dark worry tugging at our conscious minds. It will become a way of life and we will yearn for these days of relative peace. Hardly an American family will survive without a death, or multiple deaths, of their young as a result of these wars.

Gloomy? Yes, it is, very. But as I approach my seventieth decade on this earth, I can look ahead and base this prediction on my experience of the 5 wars, in my lifetime, (so far) in which we have engaged the enemy and found that we have won, lost, or “tied” at the conclusion.

It is said in the Holy Scriptures that in the latter days, or “end times” as some refer to those days, “men will cry peace, peace, but there will be no peace”. Those Scriptures have proven time and time again to be right on target. I see no reason to doubt them, or their wisdom, as we stand at the threshold of a war without end.”

That was written in July of last year.

I watch with anxious anticipation the elections in Israel and I hope against hope that Netanyahu becomes the Prime Minister. For I believe Bibi will stand up to Obama and I am convinced, at least at this point in history that Netanyahu will do whatever it takes to stop Iran cold. If so, Netanyahu will have saved the world… at least for another day.

————————————————————-

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”.

Credit: Western Front America

Mike Baker: Terrorists and Morality

2009-02-22T18:55:00.006-05:00

By Mike Baker

Just the other night, while having our usual Wednesday happy hour at the office with the handful of PWB staffers either still gainfully employed or not currently incarcerated, one of the interns asked if I thought it was morally okay to be happy that the senior Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyeh had just been blown up in a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.

Huh? Or better yet, mmmm.

As I poured myself a tasty measure of bourbon (from a bottle bought just that day to celebrate Mughniyeh’s explosion) I stared at the intern with my best, most sincere look of concern. This was certainly a moral quandary.

A young, idealistic intern, just at the beginning of life’s journey — all full of beans and optimism. As I silently pondered how the folks at Bakers make their bourbon so yummy, I also took a minute to consider how best to answer the intern’s stupid question. The pause clearly made me look wise. Wise and sensitive to her concern.

I sat down, snagged a couple of cashews, which I think go really well with bourbon, and stared hard at the intern.

The fact that just that morning I had declared it “Mughniyeh Finally Got What He Deserved By Being Blown Straight To Hell Day" at the office, with a banner, refreshments and everything, clearly had made her think I was insensitive to his death.

The rest of the staff sat quietly waiting for an answer. “Did I think it was morally okay to be happy that Mughniyeh got all blowed up?"

Time for an answer.

I milked the whole silence thing for all it was worth and now an answer was in order. I carefully set my glass down on the desk, not wanting to spill a drop as I climbed up on the official PWB soapbox that we keep in the office for occasions just like this.

I said that every human life starts out as precious; something to be treasured, valued and treated with dignity and respect.

But then some of those lives veer off track, becoming murderers, pedophiles or in Mughniyeh’s case, a butchering terrorist with the blood of several hundred innocent people on his hands. At the point where these individuals choose to carry out heinous acts, they opt out of civilization and all those lofty, righteous ideals regarding the treatment of human life.

That’s the point where I no longer feel a moral obligation to worry about how they are treated. If you choose to become a terrorist, I choose to view you as less than human. We’ve all got free will. Ain’t life grand?

Now, of course, there are loads of people who bang on about the values of our country, and how treating even one terrorist improperly eats away at our principles and makes us less American.

Whether celebrating the termination of a bloodthirsty killer or using an aggressive technique in very limited circumstances to gather information from the high value detainee who doesn’t respond to kindness, the theory goes that we are debasing ourselves, chipping away at our humanity, causing the rest of the world to hate us or contributing to the destruction of our planet.

Something like that.

Well, take a deep breath, count to three, and in a clear, strong voice say, "What a load of crap."

According to that argument, if we stray from our ideals, we sink to the level of the terrorists.

I receive a fair amount of email from readers on the left side of the spectrum (and believe me, I value the fact that they take the time to read and respond to the PWB) who are keen to point out that it doesn’t matter what the terrorists do or how abhorrent their behavior may be, we must be true to our principles lest we become just like the terrorists.

Really?

Because honestly, I don’t have any problem differentiating myself from the terrorists. While I applaud the theoretical concept of "treat the terrorist as you yourself would want to be treated," I am always surprised by the realization that some people can’t separate theory from real life.

Down here on planet Earth, it’s okay to want to kill terrorists and still maintain your humanity. In fact my theory, known as the Baker Principle, states that the fewer terrorists you have makes it easier to maintain your humanity.

Scientific research has actually shown that as the numbers of terrorists decrease, your chances of getting blown up, beheaded or otherwise targeted and killed likewise decreases. In some academic circles this is referred to as a direct corollary. As opposed to a coronary which is something entirely different.

A coronary is something I may have if, as a nation, we become any more apologetic for the way we deal with terrorists.

Good God.

The Democrats in Congress couldn’t see their way clear to approving the Senate amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a thirty plus year old piece of work that was enacted back when we were using rotary telephones to ask Sarah to connect us to Barney over at the Mayberry sheriff’s office.

I’m no specialist on the subject, but I’m pretty sure that the thing about technology is that it changes over the years. Unfortunately, the terrorists have proven to be early enablers of technology, using the internet and telecoms advances to their benefit.

Certainly we have also benefited, but frankly the good guys spend a great deal of time trying to stay even, much less one step ahead, of the enemy. Amendments to FISA, as well as the now expired Protect America Act, contain elements designed to account for the changes in technology.

Another element of FISA that has Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other like minded politicians up in arms is the effort to provide immunity from prosecution and dumb-ass law suits for the private telecommunications companies that assist the government in its efforts to identify, monitor and collect information on terrorist suspect communications.

Here’s the honest to Gods truth — the government (whichever administration is in place) needs the cooperation of the private sector in order to properly protect national security. Whether we’re talking about cooperation in research and technology or assistance from telecoms with communications intercepts, the private sector is a critical part of homeland defense.

Exactly how many telecoms companies will willingly assist the U.S. government if they think they’ll be subjected to prosecution or enormously expensive law suits from tools who think the government is out to listen to the average citizen? I’m willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the answer is none.

So, let’s screw the national security effort. The main thing is that we’ve protected the civil liberties of terrorists and the citizens of our country who believe that we’ve overblown the whole war on terrorism thing.

As a politician, I suppose it’s much more important to pander to the progressive side of your party than it is to do something constructive, logical and important.

It’s all part of the same malaise that comes from a false sense of security, and a bizarre self loathing on the part of some who think the U.S. and the Bush administration are the root causes of terrorism.

Imagine the disappointment on the faces of all those excited voters currently getting drunk on the rhetoric from Senator Obama and Senator Clinton about change, a new direction, hope and restoring our image when, in early 2009, we all wake up to find that the world is the same, the fraternal order of terrorists still want to kill us and Hugo Chavez still hates us.

Oh well.

They may not be much for fighting terrorists, but at least under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi our fearless politicians stood up to the evil Bush administration and made sure that pesky FISA and Protect America Act won’t trample on any of our rights.

Perhaps now the Speaker of the House can turn her attention to foreign policy issues again. How about another trip to Syria? Wait, wasn’t that where Imad Mughniyeh was killed, in an upscale Damascus neighborhood after attending a local function? You don’t suppose Syrian President Bashar Assad knew Mughniyeh was living in Damascus do you?

I suppose it’s possible he didn’t know Mughniyeh was responsible for the death of 241 U.S. marines and over 60 U.S. Embassy personnel in Beirut back in the 1980s.

There is a chance no one told the President that Mughniyeh planned the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Center in Buenos Aries back in the 1990s that killed over 100 civilians.

It’s conceivable that his staff forgot to mention to the President that Mughniyeh oversaw the kidnapping and killing of Beirut Station Chief William Buckley among other kidnappings, managed the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and directed the team that hijacked the TWA flight during which young US Navy diver Robert Stethem was killed and dumped on the Beirut airport tarmac.

Never mind.

Listen, Ms. Pelosi, if you do travel back to Damascus for another chat with Bashar, please let him know how happy I was to see that Mughniyeh got what he deserved. If he asks, let him know I’m pretty sure my morality is still intact and I’m happy to report I can still differentiate myself from the terrorists.

Just my opinion. As always, we love to hear your thoughts and comments, regardless of your morality or place on the political spectrum. Till next week, stay safe.

Let me know your thoughts on the subject. Send your comments to peoplesweeklybrief@hotmail.com

Mike Baker served for more than 15 years as a covert field operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, specializing in counterterrorism, counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations around the globe. Since leaving government service, he has been a principal in building and running several companies in the private intelligence, security and risk management sector, including most recently Prescience LLC, a global intelligence and strategy firm. He appears frequently in the media as an expert on such issues. Baker is also a partner in Classified Trash, a film and television production company. Baker serves as a script consultant and technical adviser within the entertainment industry, lending his expertise to such programs as the BBC's popular spy series "Spooks" as well as major motion pictures. In addition, Baker is a writer for a BBC drama to begin production in July 2007.

Credit: Fox News