Little wonder we are headed for 'third world status'. Sorry, we are now 'third world status'. How can this happen in America?
Stimulus Bill Explanation
Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics
professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill.
Can you explain it to me?"
The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my
office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help
me with my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you."The student agreed.
At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool.
They both went out back to the pool, and the professor
handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own
bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end,
and fill your bucket with as much water as you can."
The student did as he was instructed.
The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow
end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it" The student was confused but did what he was told.
The professor then explained they were going to do this many
more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.
The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?
The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.
The student didn't think the economics professor was serious,
but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.
However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the
deep end, the student began to become worried that his
economics professor had gone mad.
The student finally replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable
time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when
this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it
was before, so all you'll really have accomplished is the destruction
of what could have been truly productive action!"
The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, "Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill."
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama AND Media Mislead America On Foreclosures
Why would anyone believe anything that comes out of Washington or the main stream media these days - I don't know who they are except they don't come from around here - they aren't anyone that I know or anyone that represents me or mine.
The people in control of our government are not Americas, they come from some other place. Why else would they intentionally want to destroy our country?
Sigh - Keep the faith
THE FORECLOSURE FIVE
NY Post February 21, 2009
By ALAN REYNOLDS
February 21, 2009 --
When President Obama discusses his $275 billion mortgage bailout, he talks as if it was a national problem, caused by a national decline in home prices. "We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans," he says. But there is no national market for homes and no national price for homes. Instead, most of the United States will pay for the folly of few.
The beneficiaries of taxpayer charity will be highly concentrated in just five states - California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida and Michigan. That is not because the subsidized homeowners are poor (Californians with $700,000 mortgages are not poor), but because they took on too much debt, often by refinancing in risky ways to "cash out" thousands more than the original loan.
Nearly all sub-prime loans were for refinancing, not buying a home. It turns out that the five states with by far the highest foreclosure rates have some things in common with each other, but very little in common with most other states.
I studied the latest available figures for state foreclosure rates, changes in home prices over one and five years, existing home sales, the percentage of mortgages that are underwater, and unemployment. Then I compared figures for the five most foreclosure-prone states with New York and also with the 25th-ranking (median) state.
One out of 76 homes in Nevada went into foreclosure in January, for example, compared with one out of 173 in California, with Arizona and Florida close behind. In New York, by contrast, only 1 out of 2,271 homes went into foreclosure. Nationwide, foreclosures fell 10% in January, to one out of every 466 homes. But that is a "mean" average dominated by places like California and Florida. In the median state with the 25th highest foreclosure rate, by contrast, only one out of 949 homes was in foreclosure - just one-tenth of 1%.
Foreclosure rates were even lower in 25 other states. In Vermont, foreclosures amounted to just one out of 51,906 homes. Foreclosure can be a personal crisis, but it is not a national crisis.Now consider the change in home prices between the third quarters of 2007 and 2008, using the OFHEO price index - the only measure available by state. Like most of the new mortgage-relief plan, the OFHEO index covers mortgages that qualified for Fannie and Freddie financing. It excludes jumbo mortgages larger than $729,750 in high-cost areas like New York City.
As of the third quarter of 2008, OFHEO home prices were still higher than a year before in 18 states, and down less than 2% in a dozen others. Double-digit declines in home prices were confined to just four states - surprise, every one of the Foreclosure Five except Michigan.
Even though California home prices fell 20.8% over the year ending in the fall of 2008, however, they were still 50% higher than they were just five years ago. In Florida and Nevada too, the bust in home prices obviously followed a speculative boom. Back in April 6, 2008, a New York Times graph showed that default rates on only the riskiest subprime mortgages had already reached 21% in Merced and Stockton, California, and ranged from 19% to 24% in Fort Myers and Naples, Florida.So what's happening now?
By looking at sales, you can see the free market is working very well. Sales of existing homes over the past year have soared in four states where home prices fell the most. Reducing the inventory of unsold homes, foreclosed or not, makes it easier to sell remaining homes and thereby works to arrest falling home prices. Falling home prices are not the problem, they're the solution.
Obama is particularly interested in mortgages that are underwater - that is, larger than the value of the home. But again, this varies enormously by state. The state with the tenth highest percentage of underwater mortgages, Texas, has the same 16.5% underwater as the so-called national average. The other 40 states have a below-average percentage of homes that are worth less than their mortgages, which means the mean average is not at all typical of most states.
A similar report from First American Core Logic reports that only 4.4% of New York mortgages are underwater, not even a tenth as many as in Nevada.
Looking at the Foreclosure Five, you find another consistency - unemployment rates far above the national average (half the states were below 5.9% in December).The exception is Arizona, where unemployment is a more reasonable 6.9%. Stephen Miller of the University of Nevada and Rangan Gupta of the University of Pretoria explained the apparent anomaly by explaining that migration and the market for second homes make Phoenix housing dependent on economic conditions in Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
Miller and Gupta found that "Los Angeles housing prices cause housing prices in Las Vegas (directly) and Phoenix (indirectly). In addition, Las Vegas housing prices cause housing prices in Phoenix" to rise or fall in step.
Boosting the Obama team's selective mortgage subsidies, Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com recently told NBC, "either you can help your neighbor, and help them so they can stay in their home. Or don't help them, and they'll lose their home, and it will cost you money, because . . . your home will have just dropped in value."
On the contrary, federal subsidies for over-indebted homeowners will not often involve helping "neighbors" but rather those who live thousands of miles away, mainly in just five states.
In reality, the "Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan" compels taxpayers in most states to help those in just a few. Aside from Michigan's unique dependence on autos, the other four states' problems are already being solved the old-fashioned way: If something becomes too expensive, cut the price. Or move.
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press, 2006).
The people in control of our government are not Americas, they come from some other place. Why else would they intentionally want to destroy our country?
Sigh - Keep the faith
THE FORECLOSURE FIVE
NY Post February 21, 2009
By ALAN REYNOLDS
February 21, 2009 --
When President Obama discusses his $275 billion mortgage bailout, he talks as if it was a national problem, caused by a national decline in home prices. "We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans," he says. But there is no national market for homes and no national price for homes. Instead, most of the United States will pay for the folly of few.
The beneficiaries of taxpayer charity will be highly concentrated in just five states - California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida and Michigan. That is not because the subsidized homeowners are poor (Californians with $700,000 mortgages are not poor), but because they took on too much debt, often by refinancing in risky ways to "cash out" thousands more than the original loan.
Nearly all sub-prime loans were for refinancing, not buying a home. It turns out that the five states with by far the highest foreclosure rates have some things in common with each other, but very little in common with most other states.
I studied the latest available figures for state foreclosure rates, changes in home prices over one and five years, existing home sales, the percentage of mortgages that are underwater, and unemployment. Then I compared figures for the five most foreclosure-prone states with New York and also with the 25th-ranking (median) state.
One out of 76 homes in Nevada went into foreclosure in January, for example, compared with one out of 173 in California, with Arizona and Florida close behind. In New York, by contrast, only 1 out of 2,271 homes went into foreclosure. Nationwide, foreclosures fell 10% in January, to one out of every 466 homes. But that is a "mean" average dominated by places like California and Florida. In the median state with the 25th highest foreclosure rate, by contrast, only one out of 949 homes was in foreclosure - just one-tenth of 1%.
Foreclosure rates were even lower in 25 other states. In Vermont, foreclosures amounted to just one out of 51,906 homes. Foreclosure can be a personal crisis, but it is not a national crisis.Now consider the change in home prices between the third quarters of 2007 and 2008, using the OFHEO price index - the only measure available by state. Like most of the new mortgage-relief plan, the OFHEO index covers mortgages that qualified for Fannie and Freddie financing. It excludes jumbo mortgages larger than $729,750 in high-cost areas like New York City.
As of the third quarter of 2008, OFHEO home prices were still higher than a year before in 18 states, and down less than 2% in a dozen others. Double-digit declines in home prices were confined to just four states - surprise, every one of the Foreclosure Five except Michigan.
Even though California home prices fell 20.8% over the year ending in the fall of 2008, however, they were still 50% higher than they were just five years ago. In Florida and Nevada too, the bust in home prices obviously followed a speculative boom. Back in April 6, 2008, a New York Times graph showed that default rates on only the riskiest subprime mortgages had already reached 21% in Merced and Stockton, California, and ranged from 19% to 24% in Fort Myers and Naples, Florida.So what's happening now?
By looking at sales, you can see the free market is working very well. Sales of existing homes over the past year have soared in four states where home prices fell the most. Reducing the inventory of unsold homes, foreclosed or not, makes it easier to sell remaining homes and thereby works to arrest falling home prices. Falling home prices are not the problem, they're the solution.
Obama is particularly interested in mortgages that are underwater - that is, larger than the value of the home. But again, this varies enormously by state. The state with the tenth highest percentage of underwater mortgages, Texas, has the same 16.5% underwater as the so-called national average. The other 40 states have a below-average percentage of homes that are worth less than their mortgages, which means the mean average is not at all typical of most states.
A similar report from First American Core Logic reports that only 4.4% of New York mortgages are underwater, not even a tenth as many as in Nevada.
Looking at the Foreclosure Five, you find another consistency - unemployment rates far above the national average (half the states were below 5.9% in December).The exception is Arizona, where unemployment is a more reasonable 6.9%. Stephen Miller of the University of Nevada and Rangan Gupta of the University of Pretoria explained the apparent anomaly by explaining that migration and the market for second homes make Phoenix housing dependent on economic conditions in Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
Miller and Gupta found that "Los Angeles housing prices cause housing prices in Las Vegas (directly) and Phoenix (indirectly). In addition, Las Vegas housing prices cause housing prices in Phoenix" to rise or fall in step.
Boosting the Obama team's selective mortgage subsidies, Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com recently told NBC, "either you can help your neighbor, and help them so they can stay in their home. Or don't help them, and they'll lose their home, and it will cost you money, because . . . your home will have just dropped in value."
On the contrary, federal subsidies for over-indebted homeowners will not often involve helping "neighbors" but rather those who live thousands of miles away, mainly in just five states.
In reality, the "Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan" compels taxpayers in most states to help those in just a few. Aside from Michigan's unique dependence on autos, the other four states' problems are already being solved the old-fashioned way: If something becomes too expensive, cut the price. Or move.
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press, 2006).
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Israel Defends It's Self Against Western and Eastern Left Terrorists
Just what is Israel suppose to do about Arab terrorist killing it's people? Would we stand by and let that happen in America? Well , maybe, now with Obama at the controls.
Great article by Ralph Peters -
DAMNED IF THEY DO
By RALPH PETERS
December 29, 2008
DEAD Jews aren't news, but killing terrorists outrages global activists.
On Saturday, Israel struck back powerfully against its tormentors. Now
Israel's the villain. Again.
How long will it be until the UN General Assembly passes a resolution
creating an international Holocaust Appreciation Day?
Israel's airstrikes against confirmed Hamas terrorist targets in the
Gaza Strip were overdue, discriminating and skillful. So far, this
retaliatory campaign has been a superb example of how to employ
postmodern airpower.
Instead of bombing empty buildings in the dead of night in the hope of
convincing bloodthirsty monsters to become peace-loving floral arrangers
- the US Air Force version of "Shock and Awe" - the Israeli Defense
Force aimed to /kill/ terrorists.
Israel's attack aircraft appear to have accomplished that part of the
mission. As I write, some 300 terrorist dead have been reported in Gaza,
while the propaganda-savvy information office of Hamas has strug- gled
to prove that 20 civilians died.
Given the fact that Hamas adheres to the terrorist practice of locating
command sites, arsenals and training facilities in heavily populated
areas, the results suggest that the IDF - supported by first-rate
intelligence work - may have executed the most accurate wave of
airstrikes in history, with a 15-to-1 terrorist-to-civilian kill ratio.
The bad news is that it still won't be enough. While Israel has
delivered a painful blow against Hamas, it's still not a paralyzing hit.
The only way to neuter such a terror threat - even temporarily - is to
go in on the ground and scour every room, basement and underground
tunnel in a region.
That would mean high Israeli casualties and, of course, condemnation of
Israel's self-defense efforts by every self-righteous, corrupt and
bigoted organization and government on earth, from Turtle Bay to Tehran.
What have been Israel's "crimes?" Not "stealing Palestinian land," but
making that land productive, while exposing the incompetence and sloth
of Arab culture.
Israel's crime isn't striking back at terror, but demonstrating, year
after year, that a country in the Middle East can be governed without
resort to terror. Israel's crime hasn't been denying Arab rights, but
insisting on human rights for women and minorities.
Israel's crime has been making democracy work where tyranny prevailed
for 5,000 years. Israel's crime has been /survival/ against overwhelming
odds, while legions of Arab nationalists, Islamist extremists and
Western leftists want every Jew dead.
But Israel's greatest crime was to expose the global cult of victimhood,
to prove that hard work, fortitude and courage could overcome even
history's grimmest disaster.
Was it a crime to hand Gaza back to Palestinian authorities, to give
peace a chance? Look what Israel received in return for trading land for
peace.
Let us /never/ forget the fundamental truth that, while Israel longs to
live in peace with its neighbors, those neighbors openly profess the
desire to eliminate Israel and exterminate its people.
Indeed, Arab and regional jealousy toward Israel is so all-consuming, so
/necessary/ to excuse the Arab art of failure, that even these judicious
airstrikes will hardly make a dent in the terrorist threat.
Unless Israel sends in ground forces for the long haul - and thousands
of IDF reservists are being mobilized - there will be, at best, a
temporary respite from terror attacks. Even a new occupation of Gaza
would not fully solve the problem.
A crucial point about interfaith and interethnic conflicts that we
sheltered Americans refuse to understand is that, all too often, there's
just no good solution - and not even a bad solution, short of acts of
barbarism.
It's a rare conflict that results in an enduring peace. Unintended
consequences abound. At times, you fight just to buy time, to gain
breathing space - or merely to frustrate an enemy's designs for a
limited period.
That's the situation Israel faces: No hope of an ultimate victory, but a
constant fight to survive. Enemies who believe their god ordains their
actions can't be placated. For faith-fueled terrorists, such as the core
members of Hamas, the struggle with Israel's a zero-sum game. Compromise
is, at most, an expedient tool, never an acceptable end state.
What will we see in the coming days? Much depends on Israel's resolve.
The most probable scenario is that Hamas will continue launching terror
rockets for a few weeks to salve its wounded vanity and maintain the
image of "resistance," but will ultimately reduce its attacks against
Israel - while it rebuilds its cadres and restocks its arsenal.
Israel will have bought time, not peace.
What might Israel have done better? It's /essential/ to take out the top
terrorist leaders. But Israel's government remains reluctant to target
the cowardly Hamas leaders hiding in Damascus - or even the top
terrorists remaining in Gaza.
For terrorist bosses, the rank-and-file are disposable and replaceable.
You can't just kill the gunmen. You have to kill the names.
We may sympathize with the average Palestinian family, exploited by
/generations/ of corrupt leaders and now caught in yet another round of
violence. But let us never forget that Israel hasn't fired thousands of
blind rockets into Palestinian cities, that Israeli suicide bombers
don't attack Arab restaurants and bus stops, and that Israel seeks to
avoid harming civilians - while Hamas seeks to kill as many civilians as
possible.
In a world where there are no good answers, Israel just answered as best
it could. The world's response? "How dare Jews defend themselves."
Humanity doesn't progress. It just changes clothes.
Great article by Ralph Peters -
DAMNED IF THEY DO
By RALPH PETERS
DEAD Jews aren't news, but killing terrorists outrages global activists.
On Saturday, Israel struck back powerfully against its tormentors. Now
Israel's the villain. Again.
How long will it be until the UN General Assembly passes a resolution
creating an international Holocaust Appreciation Day?
Israel's airstrikes against confirmed Hamas terrorist targets in the
Gaza Strip were overdue, discriminating and skillful. So far, this
retaliatory campaign has been a superb example of how to employ
postmodern airpower.
Instead of bombing empty buildings in the dead of night in the hope of
convincing bloodthirsty monsters to become peace-loving floral arrangers
- the US Air Force version of "Shock and Awe" - the Israeli Defense
Force aimed to /kill/ terrorists.
Israel's attack aircraft appear to have accomplished that part of the
mission. As I write, some 300 terrorist dead have been reported in Gaza,
while the propaganda-savvy information office of Hamas has strug- gled
to prove that 20 civilians died.
Given the fact that Hamas adheres to the terrorist practice of locating
command sites, arsenals and training facilities in heavily populated
areas, the results suggest that the IDF - supported by first-rate
intelligence work - may have executed the most accurate wave of
airstrikes in history, with a 15-to-1 terrorist-to-civilian kill ratio.
The bad news is that it still won't be enough. While Israel has
delivered a painful blow against Hamas, it's still not a paralyzing hit.
The only way to neuter such a terror threat - even temporarily - is to
go in on the ground and scour every room, basement and underground
tunnel in a region.
That would mean high Israeli casualties and, of course, condemnation of
Israel's self-defense efforts by every self-righteous, corrupt and
bigoted organization and government on earth, from Turtle Bay to Tehran.
What have been Israel's "crimes?" Not "stealing Palestinian land," but
making that land productive, while exposing the incompetence and sloth
of Arab culture.
Israel's crime isn't striking back at terror, but demonstrating, year
after year, that a country in the Middle East can be governed without
resort to terror. Israel's crime hasn't been denying Arab rights, but
insisting on human rights for women and minorities.
Israel's crime has been making democracy work where tyranny prevailed
for 5,000 years. Israel's crime has been /survival/ against overwhelming
odds, while legions of Arab nationalists, Islamist extremists and
Western leftists want every Jew dead.
But Israel's greatest crime was to expose the global cult of victimhood,
to prove that hard work, fortitude and courage could overcome even
history's grimmest disaster.
Was it a crime to hand Gaza back to Palestinian authorities, to give
peace a chance? Look what Israel received in return for trading land for
peace.
Let us /never/ forget the fundamental truth that, while Israel longs to
live in peace with its neighbors, those neighbors openly profess the
desire to eliminate Israel and exterminate its people.
Indeed, Arab and regional jealousy toward Israel is so all-consuming, so
/necessary/ to excuse the Arab art of failure, that even these judicious
airstrikes will hardly make a dent in the terrorist threat.
Unless Israel sends in ground forces for the long haul - and thousands
of IDF reservists are being mobilized - there will be, at best, a
temporary respite from terror attacks. Even a new occupation of Gaza
would not fully solve the problem.
A crucial point about interfaith and interethnic conflicts that we
sheltered Americans refuse to understand is that, all too often, there's
just no good solution - and not even a bad solution, short of acts of
barbarism.
It's a rare conflict that results in an enduring peace. Unintended
consequences abound. At times, you fight just to buy time, to gain
breathing space - or merely to frustrate an enemy's designs for a
limited period.
That's the situation Israel faces: No hope of an ultimate victory, but a
constant fight to survive. Enemies who believe their god ordains their
actions can't be placated. For faith-fueled terrorists, such as the core
members of Hamas, the struggle with Israel's a zero-sum game. Compromise
is, at most, an expedient tool, never an acceptable end state.
What will we see in the coming days? Much depends on Israel's resolve.
The most probable scenario is that Hamas will continue launching terror
rockets for a few weeks to salve its wounded vanity and maintain the
image of "resistance," but will ultimately reduce its attacks against
Israel - while it rebuilds its cadres and restocks its arsenal.
Israel will have bought time, not peace.
What might Israel have done better? It's /essential/ to take out the top
terrorist leaders. But Israel's government remains reluctant to target
the cowardly Hamas leaders hiding in Damascus - or even the top
terrorists remaining in Gaza.
For terrorist bosses, the rank-and-file are disposable and replaceable.
You can't just kill the gunmen. You have to kill the names.
We may sympathize with the average Palestinian family, exploited by
/generations/ of corrupt leaders and now caught in yet another round of
violence. But let us never forget that Israel hasn't fired thousands of
blind rockets into Palestinian cities, that Israeli suicide bombers
don't attack Arab restaurants and bus stops, and that Israel seeks to
avoid harming civilians - while Hamas seeks to kill as many civilians as
possible.
In a world where there are no good answers, Israel just answered as best
it could. The world's response? "How dare Jews defend themselves."
Humanity doesn't progress. It just changes clothes.
Republicans On The Attack : Kill the "Fairness Doctrine"
The liberal Democrats aren't happy with control of 98% of all media in this country and world wide as well as most institutions in local, state and federal governments - they want to control all outlets of information as to not have any debate of the issues. Witness the "Pork Bill" just past that will change our lives and those of the next three generations or longer, and was never debated or even read by most of those that voted on it.
The bill is loaded with everything from 'national health care' to aid to criminal operations like ACORN - this organization is under investigation in 15 states for voter fraud and yet there is funding for them in this 'travesty of theft'.
They only reason we knew anything about this bill before it was voted on was "Talk Radio". It doesn't take rocket science to figure out way the liberals want to get ride of this source of information. It's bad for the liberal agenda as it casts light the fraud that is Democrats and liberals.
To the liberal Democrats, it is imperative that everyone gets the same information at the same time and from the same source - the liberal Democrat agenda of socialist Marxism. It has to be this way to control the population.
Keep the faith - there are some people now in our government that are joining the battle.
DeMint to Force Vote on Fairness Doctrine
Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:49 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Sen. Jim DeMint announced that he will force a vote next week on a bill that prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
The South Carolina Republican’s bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is co-sponsored by John Thune, R-S.D., and 27 others and will be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.
President Barack Obama is opposed to any move to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday.
But as Sen. DeMint notes in a statement, some Democrats in Congress have indicated that they would support a reinstatement.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, asked in a recent interview if she favored reinstatement, said: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”
Back in June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by John Gizzi of Human Events if she personally supported the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, and she declared: “Yes.”
As recently as last week, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in an interview: “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.”
Sen. DeMint stated: "I'm glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it.
“With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?"
Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. The FCC repealed the measure in 1987.
Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.
The Broadcaster Freedom Act has also been introduced in the House and currently has 177 co-sponsors.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The bill is loaded with everything from 'national health care' to aid to criminal operations like ACORN - this organization is under investigation in 15 states for voter fraud and yet there is funding for them in this 'travesty of theft'.
They only reason we knew anything about this bill before it was voted on was "Talk Radio". It doesn't take rocket science to figure out way the liberals want to get ride of this source of information. It's bad for the liberal agenda as it casts light the fraud that is Democrats and liberals.
To the liberal Democrats, it is imperative that everyone gets the same information at the same time and from the same source - the liberal Democrat agenda of socialist Marxism. It has to be this way to control the population.
Keep the faith - there are some people now in our government that are joining the battle.
DeMint to Force Vote on Fairness Doctrine
Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:49 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Sen. Jim DeMint announced that he will force a vote next week on a bill that prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
The South Carolina Republican’s bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is co-sponsored by John Thune, R-S.D., and 27 others and will be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.
President Barack Obama is opposed to any move to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday.
But as Sen. DeMint notes in a statement, some Democrats in Congress have indicated that they would support a reinstatement.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, asked in a recent interview if she favored reinstatement, said: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”
Back in June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by John Gizzi of Human Events if she personally supported the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, and she declared: “Yes.”
As recently as last week, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in an interview: “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.”
Sen. DeMint stated: "I'm glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it.
“With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?"
Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. The FCC repealed the measure in 1987.
Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.
The Broadcaster Freedom Act has also been introduced in the House and currently has 177 co-sponsors.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
CNBC's Own Attacked by Obama's Goons
WOW ! It seems the press is up set now that one of the main stream media's own people is being attacked by our fearless leader. Why wasn't there speeches on freedom of the press when Limbaugh was attacked? Where was the outrage? Was it that nobody cared in the media seeing that it was a conservative? Are they that stupid?
Holy smokes - attack the good guys? Hey, we're on the same team? We all want America to go down the tubes so we can come back as absolute rulers of the universe !! Go figure!!
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2009/02/rick-santelli-rips-up-mortgage-bill.html
Holy smokes - attack the good guys? Hey, we're on the same team? We all want America to go down the tubes so we can come back as absolute rulers of the universe !! Go figure!!
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2009/02/rick-santelli-rips-up-mortgage-bill.html
Monday, February 23, 2009
Pat Buchanan On Obama's Race Agenda
This is interesting in that we never hear anything about how the white community reacts to charges of racism that are manufactured. The main stream media won't touch anything that has to do with black on white racism.
Barack should know better then to use his race as a hammer to gain political advantage or to cause problems in the country.
BUCHANAN TO OBAMA
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America . Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ' 60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona ? And Johnstown , and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving ' white kids.?
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing. Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Barack should know better then to use his race as a hammer to gain political advantage or to cause problems in the country.
BUCHANAN TO OBAMA
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America . Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ' 60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona ? And Johnstown , and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving ' white kids.?
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing. Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Obama Clueless On Afghanistan AND Foreign Policy
Another great article by Ralph Peters - as sure as the sun comes up in the East, it is a sure thing that Obama has no idea what to do in Afghanistan. He will leave the strategy and all the details to others, Marxist socialists all, while he flies around the country spreading fear and doom about our rotten country and how he will fix every one's problems.
Obama wants to drive us into abject poverty mentally and physically by depriving us of our free will. Witness the attack on the first amendment. What's next? Easy, the second amendment - disarm the country so no one can defend themselves against the criminals and thugs from Washington or Chicago.
Given all of his arrogant socialist agenda, what does he use for intelligence on making decisions to defend the country? Easy again - he doesn't care about defending the country - 'where there is confusion their is profit'.
I wonder if anyone on the left has any idea of what is going on in our country or the world for that matter, or if they even care. In reality, I believe they don't care as evidenced by Obama's spending bill that is going to bankrupt us all when less than 5% is for stimulus. I believe he and the Marxist left want only one thing and that is total power to control every aspect of our lives for generations to come.
Keep the faith though - we will win the battle.
PAKISTAN'S US POWS
By RALPH PETERS
February 17, 2009
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/nyp.postopinion/opedcolumnists;comp=%27%0D%0A+%20adid%20+%20%27;pos=menusky1;sz=160x600;dcove=d;tile=1;ord=123456789?>// --
THE 36,000 US troops in Afghanistan are prisoners of war. They're still armed and fighting. But their fate lies in Pakistan's hands, not ours.
It's time to rethink our nonstrategy in Kabul. We got our initial actions right in the autumn of 2001, slaughtering terrorists, toppling the Taliban and empowering would-be allies. But we've been getting it wrong every year since. We're now on the verge of /doubling/ our troop commitment to a mismanaged war that lacks sane goals and teeters toward inanity. And we're putting our troops at the mercy of one of the world's most-corrupt states - Pakistan - which has cut a deal with extremists to enforce Sharia law a short drive from the capital.
After taking apart al Qaeda's base network and punishing the Taliban, we should have left the smoking ruins. This should have been a classic punitive expedition: We're /not/ obliged to rehabilitate foreign murderers. As for those who exclaim that "We would have had to go back!" - well, so what? Had we needed to hammer Afghanistan again in 2007 or 2008, that still would've been cheaper in blood (ours /and/ the Afghans') and treasure than trying to build a "rule of law" state where no real state ever existed.
Staying left us with criminally vulnerable logistics - ever the bane of campaigns in the region. The Brits and the Soviets both learned the hard way that superior fighting skills don't suffice in Afghanistan: You need dependable, redundant supply lines. But we rely on a long, imperiled land route through Pakistan for up to 80 percent of our supplies - a route that Pakistan can close at any time. And the Pakistanis /have/ closed it, just to make a point.
I'm convinced that the recent flurry of successful attacks on supply yards in Peshawar and along the Khyber Pass route were tacitly - if not actively - approved by the Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) and the military. Previous attacks were rare and unsuccessful. Suddenly, in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, our trucks were burning. The Pakistanis were making the point that we're at their mercy: They wanted us to rein in a (rightly) outraged India. They also want the new US administration to multiply foreign-aid bribes. (There isn't enough cash left in the country for Pakistan's elite to steal.)
Our response? We're paying up. Plus, dumber than dirt, we're turning to the /Russians /for an alternate supply line - after they bullied the Kyrgyz government into ending our access to a vital airbase north of the Afghan border. But the central problem is the blind-alley mission. We kidded ourselves that we could conjure up a functioning rule-of-law state in the obstinately lawless territory known as Afghanistan, whose various ethnic groups hate each other unto death.
Instead of setting a realistic goal - mortally punishing our enemies - we decided to create a model democracy in a territory that hasn't reached the sophistication of medieval Europe. And our own politics only complicate the mess. Since Iraq was "Bush's war," the American left rejected it out of hand. For Democrats seeking to prove they're tough on terror, Afghanistan became the "good war" by default. Yet /partial/ success in Iraq could spark positive change across the Middle East. Success in Afghanistan - whatever that is - changes nothing. Iraq is the old, evocative heart of Arab civilization. Afghanistan is history's black hole.
But President Obama has made Afghanistan his baby to show that he's strong on security. What's the end-state, Mr. President? How do we get there? How do you solve the greater /Pakistan/ problem? By sending another 30,000 US hostages in uniform? De- fine the mission - what, specifically, are they sup- posed to accomplish?
God knows, every decent American should want this ragamuffin surge to succeed - but it's the military equivalent of the financial bailout package: Just throw more resources at a problem and hope something works. Personally, I'm sick of seeing our troops used as a substitute for intelligent policies - while every wonk in Washington drones on about there being no military solution to war, for God's sake. No military solution? Great. Bring the troops home and deploy more diplomats, contractors and accountants. See how long they survive.
It's grimly entertaining to observe how American leftists, who shrieked that we should "support the troops, bring them home" while Iraq was all the rage, won't say "Boo!" about Obama's war of choice. (They're still not enlisting, either.) Our botched deployment to Afghanistan as warriors who morphed into squatters defies military logic, history and common sense. The Brits learned - finally - that you deal with Afghan problems by occasionally hammering Afghans, then leaving them to sort out their own mess. You kill the guilty and leave. Not us. We're going to build Disneyworld on the Kabul River./
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Looking for Trouble."/
Obama wants to drive us into abject poverty mentally and physically by depriving us of our free will. Witness the attack on the first amendment. What's next? Easy, the second amendment - disarm the country so no one can defend themselves against the criminals and thugs from Washington or Chicago.
Given all of his arrogant socialist agenda, what does he use for intelligence on making decisions to defend the country? Easy again - he doesn't care about defending the country - 'where there is confusion their is profit'.
I wonder if anyone on the left has any idea of what is going on in our country or the world for that matter, or if they even care. In reality, I believe they don't care as evidenced by Obama's spending bill that is going to bankrupt us all when less than 5% is for stimulus. I believe he and the Marxist left want only one thing and that is total power to control every aspect of our lives for generations to come.
Keep the faith though - we will win the battle.
PAKISTAN'S US POWS
By RALPH PETERS
February 17, 2009
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/nyp.postopinion/opedcolumnists;comp=%27%0D%0A+%20adid%20+%20%27;pos=menusky1;sz=160x600;dcove=d;tile=1;ord=123456789?>// --
THE 36,000 US troops in Afghanistan are prisoners of war. They're still armed and fighting. But their fate lies in Pakistan's hands, not ours.
It's time to rethink our nonstrategy in Kabul. We got our initial actions right in the autumn of 2001, slaughtering terrorists, toppling the Taliban and empowering would-be allies. But we've been getting it wrong every year since. We're now on the verge of /doubling/ our troop commitment to a mismanaged war that lacks sane goals and teeters toward inanity. And we're putting our troops at the mercy of one of the world's most-corrupt states - Pakistan - which has cut a deal with extremists to enforce Sharia law a short drive from the capital.
After taking apart al Qaeda's base network and punishing the Taliban, we should have left the smoking ruins. This should have been a classic punitive expedition: We're /not/ obliged to rehabilitate foreign murderers. As for those who exclaim that "We would have had to go back!" - well, so what? Had we needed to hammer Afghanistan again in 2007 or 2008, that still would've been cheaper in blood (ours /and/ the Afghans') and treasure than trying to build a "rule of law" state where no real state ever existed.
Staying left us with criminally vulnerable logistics - ever the bane of campaigns in the region. The Brits and the Soviets both learned the hard way that superior fighting skills don't suffice in Afghanistan: You need dependable, redundant supply lines. But we rely on a long, imperiled land route through Pakistan for up to 80 percent of our supplies - a route that Pakistan can close at any time. And the Pakistanis /have/ closed it, just to make a point.
I'm convinced that the recent flurry of successful attacks on supply yards in Peshawar and along the Khyber Pass route were tacitly - if not actively - approved by the Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) and the military. Previous attacks were rare and unsuccessful. Suddenly, in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, our trucks were burning. The Pakistanis were making the point that we're at their mercy: They wanted us to rein in a (rightly) outraged India. They also want the new US administration to multiply foreign-aid bribes. (There isn't enough cash left in the country for Pakistan's elite to steal.)
Our response? We're paying up. Plus, dumber than dirt, we're turning to the /Russians /for an alternate supply line - after they bullied the Kyrgyz government into ending our access to a vital airbase north of the Afghan border. But the central problem is the blind-alley mission. We kidded ourselves that we could conjure up a functioning rule-of-law state in the obstinately lawless territory known as Afghanistan, whose various ethnic groups hate each other unto death.
Instead of setting a realistic goal - mortally punishing our enemies - we decided to create a model democracy in a territory that hasn't reached the sophistication of medieval Europe. And our own politics only complicate the mess. Since Iraq was "Bush's war," the American left rejected it out of hand. For Democrats seeking to prove they're tough on terror, Afghanistan became the "good war" by default. Yet /partial/ success in Iraq could spark positive change across the Middle East. Success in Afghanistan - whatever that is - changes nothing. Iraq is the old, evocative heart of Arab civilization. Afghanistan is history's black hole.
But President Obama has made Afghanistan his baby to show that he's strong on security. What's the end-state, Mr. President? How do we get there? How do you solve the greater /Pakistan/ problem? By sending another 30,000 US hostages in uniform? De- fine the mission - what, specifically, are they sup- posed to accomplish?
God knows, every decent American should want this ragamuffin surge to succeed - but it's the military equivalent of the financial bailout package: Just throw more resources at a problem and hope something works. Personally, I'm sick of seeing our troops used as a substitute for intelligent policies - while every wonk in Washington drones on about there being no military solution to war, for God's sake. No military solution? Great. Bring the troops home and deploy more diplomats, contractors and accountants. See how long they survive.
It's grimly entertaining to observe how American leftists, who shrieked that we should "support the troops, bring them home" while Iraq was all the rage, won't say "Boo!" about Obama's war of choice. (They're still not enlisting, either.) Our botched deployment to Afghanistan as warriors who morphed into squatters defies military logic, history and common sense. The Brits learned - finally - that you deal with Afghan problems by occasionally hammering Afghans, then leaving them to sort out their own mess. You kill the guilty and leave. Not us. We're going to build Disneyworld on the Kabul River./
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Looking for Trouble."/
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Life and Liberty in Our Republic - A Nation of Laws - A Video
This little video is just what we all need right now - we meed to revisit who and what we are about in this country - What our founding fathers thought was important to our survival - how did they know all this back then, and now so many of us are denying their wisdom.
I played this over several times to get the true meaning and the important message that it holds for us as a nation. I thought of how our nation is sliding into the dark pit of socialism and what it means to be an American - - the first thing that came to my mind was the Pledge of Allegiance:
"I Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is stands - one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" This is what we are about - this is who we are. We will not be ruled by a demagogue or a tyrant.
If others want to redefine who we are through force of government or arms, then we must demand, as the people of this great nation have done in the past, they be removed from power. So many have given so much in our history to secure our rights and liberties, it only seems right that, we the people, must have this basic right to determine our own destiny and not those that see themselves as all powerful in our government.
Keep the faith - Liberty and Justice for all - our Republic lives.
http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm
I played this over several times to get the true meaning and the important message that it holds for us as a nation. I thought of how our nation is sliding into the dark pit of socialism and what it means to be an American - - the first thing that came to my mind was the Pledge of Allegiance:
"I Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is stands - one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" This is what we are about - this is who we are. We will not be ruled by a demagogue or a tyrant.
If others want to redefine who we are through force of government or arms, then we must demand, as the people of this great nation have done in the past, they be removed from power. So many have given so much in our history to secure our rights and liberties, it only seems right that, we the people, must have this basic right to determine our own destiny and not those that see themselves as all powerful in our government.
Keep the faith - Liberty and Justice for all - our Republic lives.
http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm
Saturday, February 21, 2009
America In Crisis: Obama Is the Problem - Not The Solution
I can't add anything to this article by Investor's BD - They are on the money here as we have stated in many other postings.
It is clear to me Obama wants to destroy the economy and drive us all into some kind of dependency to big government - he is doing everything wrong to save the country and he knows it.
I cannot come to grips as to how this could happen in America. The president of the United States knowingly and willingly, along with the Democrat congress, taking steps to harm our country.
Keep the faith - time to fight back - call, write everyone in the book to protest this insanity.
Taxing The Truth
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT*Stimulus:* President Obama, a smart man, says that tax cuts for the wealthy are the main reason we're now in such economic trouble. Someone needs to tell him how utterly — and dangerously — wrong that is. Read More: *Budget & Tax Policy
<http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1823&cid=1824>* <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1805>
"We have tried that strategy time and time again," the president said Monday of "tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans," and "it's only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now. "Well, he's half-right: We have tried it again and again. But rather than create crises, economic growth has been restored. The evidence is pretty much beyond dispute.
Since World War I — the start of the modern financial era — we've suffered four major downturns. In three of them, the government cut tax rates. And each time an economic boom ensued. In only one did the government respond by raising taxes, erecting trade barriers and enacting massive new spending programs to get out of the slump. Today, we call that time the Great Depression.
As noted in a recent study by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian, President Roosevelt's efforts at government direction of the economy likely extended the Depression by seven years.
As history shows, lower taxes, not more government, work best:
The 1920s:
When the income tax was established in 1913, the rate was 7%. But it quickly soared, especially for the rich, and by 1918 the top rate was 77%. Unfortunately, coming out of the war the economy was a mess, with prices falling, unemployment soaring and nominal GDP dropping by more than 15% in just one year.
From 1921 to 1925, under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, tax rates were slashed to 25%, and GDP rose at an annual rate of 3.4% in the four years after the tax cuts vs. 2% before. All told, GDP swelled more than 50% during the 1920s. All this was undone, however, on a bipartisan basis — first by President Hoover, a Republican, then by the Democrat FDR.
Hoover boosted the top income tax rate to 63%. Then, FDR took it to 79%, while also doubling the corporate tax to 24%, imposing a Social Security tax of 2% and raising taxes on stocks and dividends, estates, and "excess" profits. Is it any wonder the economy went nowhere in the 1930s?•
The 1960s:
President Kennedy, a Democrat, believed strongly that lower taxes meant higher growth, and he was soon proven right. Before he was assassinated, JFK proposed cutting top tax rates from a punitive 91% to 70%. In 1965, his cuts were enacted under President Johnson by a Democratic Congress. Once again, growth took off, along with private investment. Real GNP, which averaged just 2.4% from 1952 to 1960, expanded at 4.5% during the '60s. The expansion that began in 1961 and ended in 1970 was, at the time, the longest ever.•
The 1980s:
President Reagan took over an economy with a 21% prime interest rate, double-digit unemployment and inflation, slowing productivity and flagging economic growth. But he too was a big tax cutter. His 25% across-the-board rate cuts snapped the economy out of its funk, creating the longest peacetime expansion ever at the time. During Reagan's two terms real GDP growth averaged 3.2% compared with 2.8% in the preceding eight years.After stagnating through most of the 1970s, real median family income grew $4,000 under Reagan.
Investment boomed, as did the stock market, business creation and innovation. Some 20 million new jobs were created, due to the increased incentives to work, save and invest resulting from lower tax rates.We all want our new president to succeed. But to do so, he needs to drop the class-warfare rhetoric on taxes and cut them instead. Like Coolidge. Like Kennedy. Like Reagan.
It is clear to me Obama wants to destroy the economy and drive us all into some kind of dependency to big government - he is doing everything wrong to save the country and he knows it.
I cannot come to grips as to how this could happen in America. The president of the United States knowingly and willingly, along with the Democrat congress, taking steps to harm our country.
Keep the faith - time to fight back - call, write everyone in the book to protest this insanity.
Taxing The Truth
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT*Stimulus:* President Obama, a smart man, says that tax cuts for the wealthy are the main reason we're now in such economic trouble. Someone needs to tell him how utterly — and dangerously — wrong that is. Read More: *Budget & Tax Policy
<http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1823&cid=1824>* <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1805>
"We have tried that strategy time and time again," the president said Monday of "tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans," and "it's only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now. "Well, he's half-right: We have tried it again and again. But rather than create crises, economic growth has been restored. The evidence is pretty much beyond dispute.
Since World War I — the start of the modern financial era — we've suffered four major downturns. In three of them, the government cut tax rates. And each time an economic boom ensued. In only one did the government respond by raising taxes, erecting trade barriers and enacting massive new spending programs to get out of the slump. Today, we call that time the Great Depression.
As noted in a recent study by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian, President Roosevelt's efforts at government direction of the economy likely extended the Depression by seven years.
As history shows, lower taxes, not more government, work best:
The 1920s:
When the income tax was established in 1913, the rate was 7%. But it quickly soared, especially for the rich, and by 1918 the top rate was 77%. Unfortunately, coming out of the war the economy was a mess, with prices falling, unemployment soaring and nominal GDP dropping by more than 15% in just one year.
From 1921 to 1925, under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, tax rates were slashed to 25%, and GDP rose at an annual rate of 3.4% in the four years after the tax cuts vs. 2% before. All told, GDP swelled more than 50% during the 1920s. All this was undone, however, on a bipartisan basis — first by President Hoover, a Republican, then by the Democrat FDR.
Hoover boosted the top income tax rate to 63%. Then, FDR took it to 79%, while also doubling the corporate tax to 24%, imposing a Social Security tax of 2% and raising taxes on stocks and dividends, estates, and "excess" profits. Is it any wonder the economy went nowhere in the 1930s?•
The 1960s:
President Kennedy, a Democrat, believed strongly that lower taxes meant higher growth, and he was soon proven right. Before he was assassinated, JFK proposed cutting top tax rates from a punitive 91% to 70%. In 1965, his cuts were enacted under President Johnson by a Democratic Congress. Once again, growth took off, along with private investment. Real GNP, which averaged just 2.4% from 1952 to 1960, expanded at 4.5% during the '60s. The expansion that began in 1961 and ended in 1970 was, at the time, the longest ever.•
The 1980s:
President Reagan took over an economy with a 21% prime interest rate, double-digit unemployment and inflation, slowing productivity and flagging economic growth. But he too was a big tax cutter. His 25% across-the-board rate cuts snapped the economy out of its funk, creating the longest peacetime expansion ever at the time. During Reagan's two terms real GDP growth averaged 3.2% compared with 2.8% in the preceding eight years.After stagnating through most of the 1970s, real median family income grew $4,000 under Reagan.
Investment boomed, as did the stock market, business creation and innovation. Some 20 million new jobs were created, due to the increased incentives to work, save and invest resulting from lower tax rates.We all want our new president to succeed. But to do so, he needs to drop the class-warfare rhetoric on taxes and cut them instead. Like Coolidge. Like Kennedy. Like Reagan.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Freedom of Speech Not Necessary : Liberal Democrats Are Enough
The liberal establishment has all newspapers and magazines and television but it's not enough - now they want talk radio as well - Just like the 'spending bill', the liberals do not want any debate on anything - debate alone bring light to their shady dealings - something that can not be tolerated.
Control of all media by one group is a good thing? You decide. Keep the faith.
The liberal Democrats’ Next Target: Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck
It is critically important to remember that we will have many battles ahead.
Obama, along with Pelosi and Reid, are planning the most radical agenda ever in American history.
In fact, just this week Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin called for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
This sham is nothing more than an effort to gag Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and hundreds of talk-radio hosts around the nation.
We now know that the Democrats have the votes to pass radical legislation like the Fairness Doctrine.
We need to stop them now before it’s too late.
If the liberals in Congress close down talk radio, they know they will control the flow of information to Americans.
They will be free to pass the most radical legislation ever, such as giving amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens.
This is why our work is so important at The National Republican Trust PAC.
Recently, CNN called us the “powerful National Republican Trust” -— and we have been cited by hundreds of other media including Fox News, CNN, and others.
During the last election cycle we were the third-largest political action committee in the U.S.
The big media know just how influential we were.
During the recent presidential election, our ads exposing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama came late, but had a devastating effect. Exit polls showed that almost every undecided voter went for John McCain.
In the special Georgia race, we raised close to $1.4 million and helped elect Republican Saxby Chambliss in a landslide.
Control of all media by one group is a good thing? You decide. Keep the faith.
The liberal Democrats’ Next Target: Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck
It is critically important to remember that we will have many battles ahead.
Obama, along with Pelosi and Reid, are planning the most radical agenda ever in American history.
In fact, just this week Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin called for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
This sham is nothing more than an effort to gag Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and hundreds of talk-radio hosts around the nation.
We now know that the Democrats have the votes to pass radical legislation like the Fairness Doctrine.
We need to stop them now before it’s too late.
If the liberals in Congress close down talk radio, they know they will control the flow of information to Americans.
They will be free to pass the most radical legislation ever, such as giving amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens.
This is why our work is so important at The National Republican Trust PAC.
Recently, CNN called us the “powerful National Republican Trust” -— and we have been cited by hundreds of other media including Fox News, CNN, and others.
During the last election cycle we were the third-largest political action committee in the U.S.
The big media know just how influential we were.
During the recent presidential election, our ads exposing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama came late, but had a devastating effect. Exit polls showed that almost every undecided voter went for John McCain.
In the special Georgia race, we raised close to $1.4 million and helped elect Republican Saxby Chambliss in a landslide.
Turn-Coat Republicans AND Spineless Democrats Must Be Defeated in 2010
It's time to take a stand - it's time to make up our minds as to who we are and what are personal responsibility is to our families and to our country that has given us everything.
If you live in these states and reelect this Republicans that decided 'face time on camera' was more important then the survival of their country, then you are just as responsible for the crisis as they are. This goes for the Democrats as well -vote these guys back in in 2010 as your representatives, then you are the problem and not the solution to our problems.
Keep the faith - change is coming - millions are angry as hell!!
Specter Takes $6.5 Billion for His Pet Project
Send a Message to Specter, Snowe, and Collins That They Won’t Forget!
Dear American:
In the next few days, Congress will vote on a stimulus program that will now cost you and me at least $789 billion.
The New York Times called it the largest economic-spending package in history.
It is.
It is also the largest pork-and-welfare spending spree in history.
It is simply shocking that Congress did not hold proper hearings for this plan.
Public input was not only censored — it was ignored as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid worked feverishly to slam this political payoff called a stimulus down our throats.
And the Republicans in the House and Senate were completely cut out except for three senators who defected to vote for the Democratic plan.
Their names are well known: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine.
New revelations of political wheeling and dealing that helped get these liberal Republicans to betray their colleagues and parties are emerging.
For example, The New York Times reported that Arlen Specter insisted that the “stimulus” include $6.5 billion for “medical research.”
Yes, that’s $6.5 billion of your money.
Why so much?
The paper says Specter has cancer and he wants more funding for research.
No matter how worthy the cause, Specter’s receipt of a $6.5 billion political payoff proves that this bill was not about stimulus and jobs, but about political shenanigans.
We must hold these Republicans to account.
We at The National Republican Trust have already warned disloyal Republicans like Specter that we will support any Republican challenger in their next election.
And we also plan on exposing their actions.
Cleverly, President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress stampeded this “stimulus” bill through Congress to prevent opposition from organizing and responding to this shameful waste of taxpayer money.
No matter — we at The Republican National Trust will soon unleash radio ads exposing Specter, Collins, and Snowe, as well as key Democrats who should have stopped this bill.
We need your help to run these ads to send these senators a message — Go Here Now.
If you live in these states and reelect this Republicans that decided 'face time on camera' was more important then the survival of their country, then you are just as responsible for the crisis as they are. This goes for the Democrats as well -vote these guys back in in 2010 as your representatives, then you are the problem and not the solution to our problems.
Keep the faith - change is coming - millions are angry as hell!!
Specter Takes $6.5 Billion for His Pet Project
Send a Message to Specter, Snowe, and Collins That They Won’t Forget!
Dear American:
In the next few days, Congress will vote on a stimulus program that will now cost you and me at least $789 billion.
The New York Times called it the largest economic-spending package in history.
It is.
It is also the largest pork-and-welfare spending spree in history.
It is simply shocking that Congress did not hold proper hearings for this plan.
Public input was not only censored — it was ignored as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid worked feverishly to slam this political payoff called a stimulus down our throats.
And the Republicans in the House and Senate were completely cut out except for three senators who defected to vote for the Democratic plan.
Their names are well known: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine.
New revelations of political wheeling and dealing that helped get these liberal Republicans to betray their colleagues and parties are emerging.
For example, The New York Times reported that Arlen Specter insisted that the “stimulus” include $6.5 billion for “medical research.”
Yes, that’s $6.5 billion of your money.
Why so much?
The paper says Specter has cancer and he wants more funding for research.
No matter how worthy the cause, Specter’s receipt of a $6.5 billion political payoff proves that this bill was not about stimulus and jobs, but about political shenanigans.
We must hold these Republicans to account.
We at The National Republican Trust have already warned disloyal Republicans like Specter that we will support any Republican challenger in their next election.
And we also plan on exposing their actions.
Cleverly, President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress stampeded this “stimulus” bill through Congress to prevent opposition from organizing and responding to this shameful waste of taxpayer money.
No matter — we at The Republican National Trust will soon unleash radio ads exposing Specter, Collins, and Snowe, as well as key Democrats who should have stopped this bill.
We need your help to run these ads to send these senators a message — Go Here Now.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Sara Palin Finds Spending Package Harmful
Again, Palin is in touch with reality just as she was during the campaign - she is one of us - she knows what it's like to have to earn a living.
Obviously it's too late to veto this bill as she wanted Obama to do, not that he had any intention to do so, but nonetheless she is still on the right side of common sense.
Keep the faith - Palin is on our side!
Palin No Fan of Obama Stimulus Bill
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:49 PM
By: Dave Eberhart
It’s academic now that President Barack Obama has signed the stimulus bill into law, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was one of the last politicos to get her licks in.
Palin voiced her opposition to the Obama stimulus bill during an interview on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” Congress hadn’t had time to digest it before passing the bill, she said.
“I wish he would veto it and send it back until our lawmakers can read it and know what’s in it," Palin said. "I think I speak for a lot of Alaskans" who wonder how the bill will affect individual states. "So until our guy and our gals in Congress can read it and understand what the impacts are, I don’t want to see it signed.”
The former Republican candidate for vice president added, “I would call for a veto, absolutely, and let’s do this right, understanding that there is going to be some kind of stimulus package. There are going to be some kind of attempts for economic recovery. I say construction projects that put people to work . . . but these big huge expanded social programs where we are adding people to the rolls, and then the economic stimulus package dollars from the feds are going to dry up at some point. States then are going to be beholden to these programs.
“We will have to pay for them. That’s not right, that’s not fair. We just want to make sure that whatever is it is that is passed makes sense for the states, for the residents of our individual states.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obviously it's too late to veto this bill as she wanted Obama to do, not that he had any intention to do so, but nonetheless she is still on the right side of common sense.
Keep the faith - Palin is on our side!
Palin No Fan of Obama Stimulus Bill
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:49 PM
By: Dave Eberhart
It’s academic now that President Barack Obama has signed the stimulus bill into law, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was one of the last politicos to get her licks in.
Palin voiced her opposition to the Obama stimulus bill during an interview on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” Congress hadn’t had time to digest it before passing the bill, she said.
“I wish he would veto it and send it back until our lawmakers can read it and know what’s in it," Palin said. "I think I speak for a lot of Alaskans" who wonder how the bill will affect individual states. "So until our guy and our gals in Congress can read it and understand what the impacts are, I don’t want to see it signed.”
The former Republican candidate for vice president added, “I would call for a veto, absolutely, and let’s do this right, understanding that there is going to be some kind of stimulus package. There are going to be some kind of attempts for economic recovery. I say construction projects that put people to work . . . but these big huge expanded social programs where we are adding people to the rolls, and then the economic stimulus package dollars from the feds are going to dry up at some point. States then are going to be beholden to these programs.
“We will have to pay for them. That’s not right, that’s not fair. We just want to make sure that whatever is it is that is passed makes sense for the states, for the residents of our individual states.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama Daschle Health Care Disaster : It's Here!
This article was written before the nightmare spending disaster was voted on by the senate and pasted - now the complete collapse of our heath care system is here.
I find it almost impossible to believe this is happening in America - I have always believed we had a grip on reality, at least most of us, but now I believe we are in real trouble as a nation.
Keep the faith - never give up the fight.
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan:
Betsy McCaughey
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) --
Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle , until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1:>, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis
According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS <http://www.hhs.gov/> secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541) What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Medicare <http://www.medicare.gov/> now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate <http://www.senate.gov/> in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid.
The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny. The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com
I find it almost impossible to believe this is happening in America - I have always believed we had a grip on reality, at least most of us, but now I believe we are in real trouble as a nation.
Keep the faith - never give up the fight.
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan:
Betsy McCaughey
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) --
Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle , until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1:>, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis
According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS <http://www.hhs.gov/> secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541) What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Medicare <http://www.medicare.gov/> now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate <http://www.senate.gov/> in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid.
The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny. The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
McCain Left Out of Obama Government : McCain Wonders Why - dah!
I wonder if John McCain has ever stopped to ponder his past history of " let's all work together" strategy now that he has been thrown under the bus but Obama? His maverick status seems to have disappeared from his friends in the press. In fact, John McCain is now just another 'also ran' amongst dozens.
For the liberal Democrats, it business as usual only this time they are going for the throat. This time it's for keeps - the mere thought of losing power again is so horrendous that they will stop at nothing to secure their power position. This means, anything, including the total destruction of the United States if necessary. They know they will always have the good life because they are in power and can take it from the rest of us which they are soing right now with this spending pork barrel that Obama just signed.
Believe this, we all are about to live the nightmare of Marxist socialism, Chicago style.
Over the top? Not at all - Only those that have drunk from the 'cup of trueth' and sit in the front pew of the church of liberalism will deny this fact, and there are millions that will gladly, willingly, welcome the heavy boot of this tyranny. What has gone wrong with so many of us? Why have so many lost their way?
Keep the faith
McCain: Stimulus Package is "Generational Theft'
Sunday, February 15, 2009
WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama failed to include Republicans in writing the big economic stimulus bill.
The Arizona Republican says the $787 billion measure will create what he calls "generational theft" — huge federal deficits for years to come.
McCain, who lost the presidential race to Obama, says the president is backtracking on promises of bipartisanship. McCain is not happy with the process that led to passage of the stimulus bill.
He calls it a bad beginning to Obama's presidency.
McCain acknowledges that Republicans excluded Democrats when the GOP held power on Capitol Hill. But he says Obama had promised to work differently.
McCain offers this advice: "Let's start over now and sit down together."
He appeared Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
For the liberal Democrats, it business as usual only this time they are going for the throat. This time it's for keeps - the mere thought of losing power again is so horrendous that they will stop at nothing to secure their power position. This means, anything, including the total destruction of the United States if necessary. They know they will always have the good life because they are in power and can take it from the rest of us which they are soing right now with this spending pork barrel that Obama just signed.
Believe this, we all are about to live the nightmare of Marxist socialism, Chicago style.
Over the top? Not at all - Only those that have drunk from the 'cup of trueth' and sit in the front pew of the church of liberalism will deny this fact, and there are millions that will gladly, willingly, welcome the heavy boot of this tyranny. What has gone wrong with so many of us? Why have so many lost their way?
Keep the faith
McCain: Stimulus Package is "Generational Theft'
Sunday, February 15, 2009
WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama failed to include Republicans in writing the big economic stimulus bill.
The Arizona Republican says the $787 billion measure will create what he calls "generational theft" — huge federal deficits for years to come.
McCain, who lost the presidential race to Obama, says the president is backtracking on promises of bipartisanship. McCain is not happy with the process that led to passage of the stimulus bill.
He calls it a bad beginning to Obama's presidency.
McCain acknowledges that Republicans excluded Democrats when the GOP held power on Capitol Hill. But he says Obama had promised to work differently.
McCain offers this advice: "Let's start over now and sit down together."
He appeared Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tim Geithner And Other Liberal Socialists To Nationalize Economy
What this means is the Obama administration is about to steal the assets of all of us for the common good - Obama is going to take our bank savings accounts, 401k's and any other assets that we have hidden away for our retirement and give it to those that have nothing - Oh and a large share, of course, off the top, will go Obama and his friends in power.
This how socialism works - guess who will have all of their assets still in their collective hands - you got it, the liberals in power. We, down here in the trenches, will have just enough to stay alive and to produce enough products to keep the liberal elite in power and living the good life.
What is going on here -? Is this how our America is suppose to be run? Did anyone ever believe we could become a 'third world' dung heap? Do we just stand by and watch Obama make this happen?
Keep the faith - stay alert!!
A PLAN TO KILL BANKS
By ALAN REYNOLDS
February 11, 2009
THE economy is suffering from too much debt and not enough credit, says Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. While announcing a new "Financial Stability Plan" yesterday, he noted that many firms and households "borrowed beyond their means," due to a "boom in credit."
also complained that many banks (having finally come to their senses) have tightened lax lending standards. He insisted, "We must get credit flowing again to businesses and families."
Before spending yet another $2 trillion to fix something, it might help to find out what's broken.
Last October, the Minneapolis Fed published "Facts and Myths about the Financial Crisis of 2008" by V.V. Chari, Lawrence Christiano and Patrick J. Kehoe. Bank lending had /not/ declined, they showed, nor had sales of nonfinancial commercial paper. Besides, 80 percent of nonfinancial corporate borrowing is done outside the banking system, they noted, such as selling bonds and commercial paper.
Bank lending was 5.7 percent higher in December than a year earlier, and roughly flat from September to January (surprisingly strong for a falling quarter with rising credit risks). And the areas commonly pointed to for signs of a credit squeeze last fall (such as high interest rates on loans between banks) don't look troublesome today. On the contrary, healthy companies have been raising billions by selling long-term bonds at low interest rates.
So why does Geithner suggest that cuts in /bank lending/ caused the recession (rather than, say, the squeeze on profits from /too much/ debt) and that increased bank lending (rather than bond sales) is the cure?
The new Treasury plan continues to put most of the emphasis on pushing banks to make more loans to over-indebted consumers, homeowners and firms. Unlike last year, however, Geithner now believes, "Our policies must be designed to mobilize and leverage private capital, not to supplant or discourage private capital. When government investment is necessary, it should be replaced with private capital as soon as possible."
That's a laudable goal - but contradictory. In reality, government capital replaces ("crowds out") private capital, leaving taxpayers holding a bigger and bigger bag. Call that nationalization by default.
Under the new and old TARP schemes, the mere threat of /incremental nationalization/ of banks and insurance companies will always "supplant and discourage private capital." You could watch it happening while Geithner spoke - as investors rudely pushed bank stocks down sharply. (An "ultra short" exchange-trade fund that bets heavily /against/ financial stocks (SKF) was up 15 percent by the end of his talk and 18 percent at closing.)
This is nothing new. As I observed on this page last fall ("Why Bailouts Scare Stocks," Sept. 18), Treasury plans to "help" financial institutions always /scare away/ private investors.
In mid-January, for example, Bank of America stock fell from $10.50 to $5.10 in three days on news that "the bank is close to getting billions in additional aid from the government." Then President Obama's inauguration shared The Wall Street Journal's front page with the headline: "Banks Hit by Nationalization Fears: Financials Plunge as US Considers New Rescue Options."
Nationalization fears began last September with the virtual expropriation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. Shareholders were swiftly wiped out, with no vote on the bad deal.
The federal assault on financial stocks escalated in October, when Congress converted TARP by whim into a "Capital Purchase Program" (CPP) - a scheme for /incremental nationalization/ of select banks, via Treasury purchases of preferred stock with warrants. Investors soon realized that CPP is simply a time-release dose of /the same poison/ deliberately used to punish shareholders in Fannie, Freddie and AIG.
Neel Kashkari, Treasury's TARP czar, described this plan as "purchasing equity in healthy banks around the country." But from the perspective of common shareholders, Treasury's purchase of senior preferred shares is no different from the banks taking on /more debt./
TARP-afflicted firms will have to pay dividends to the Treasury for its preferred shares before any remaining crumbs fall to common shareholders. Treasury will be first to get any dividends or capital gains if the firm does well, and first to get repaid in the event of bankruptcy.
Once a bank or insurance company gets in bed with the government, the property rights of that company's stockholders become uniquely insecure. When the government jumps into the cockpit, smart stockholders bail out.
And depressed stock prices deflate the banks' capital cushion, regardless of Treasury investments - making them more likely to fail and therefore less likely to lend. In other words, government "help" achieves the opposite of Geithner's declared goal.
"Our work will be guided by the lessons of the last few months," says Geithner. But he never /learned/ those lessons. On the contrary, he continues to emphasize how sternly "conditions placed on banks" will be /enforced/, while naively expecting private investors to risk money in enterprises under intensely /politicized/ control.
Companies as valuable as Bank of America and AIG need stockholder support, not taxpayer support. If Secretary Geithner really hopes to get stockholders back in, the government will have to get out.
Alan Reynolds, a Cato Institute senior fellow, is the author of "Income and Wealth."
This how socialism works - guess who will have all of their assets still in their collective hands - you got it, the liberals in power. We, down here in the trenches, will have just enough to stay alive and to produce enough products to keep the liberal elite in power and living the good life.
What is going on here -? Is this how our America is suppose to be run? Did anyone ever believe we could become a 'third world' dung heap? Do we just stand by and watch Obama make this happen?
Keep the faith - stay alert!!
A PLAN TO KILL BANKS
By ALAN REYNOLDS
February 11, 2009
THE economy is suffering from too much debt and not enough credit, says Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. While announcing a new "Financial Stability Plan" yesterday, he noted that many firms and households "borrowed beyond their means," due to a "boom in credit."
also complained that many banks (having finally come to their senses) have tightened lax lending standards. He insisted, "We must get credit flowing again to businesses and families."
Before spending yet another $2 trillion to fix something, it might help to find out what's broken.
Last October, the Minneapolis Fed published "Facts and Myths about the Financial Crisis of 2008" by V.V. Chari, Lawrence Christiano and Patrick J. Kehoe. Bank lending had /not/ declined, they showed, nor had sales of nonfinancial commercial paper. Besides, 80 percent of nonfinancial corporate borrowing is done outside the banking system, they noted, such as selling bonds and commercial paper.
Bank lending was 5.7 percent higher in December than a year earlier, and roughly flat from September to January (surprisingly strong for a falling quarter with rising credit risks). And the areas commonly pointed to for signs of a credit squeeze last fall (such as high interest rates on loans between banks) don't look troublesome today. On the contrary, healthy companies have been raising billions by selling long-term bonds at low interest rates.
So why does Geithner suggest that cuts in /bank lending/ caused the recession (rather than, say, the squeeze on profits from /too much/ debt) and that increased bank lending (rather than bond sales) is the cure?
The new Treasury plan continues to put most of the emphasis on pushing banks to make more loans to over-indebted consumers, homeowners and firms. Unlike last year, however, Geithner now believes, "Our policies must be designed to mobilize and leverage private capital, not to supplant or discourage private capital. When government investment is necessary, it should be replaced with private capital as soon as possible."
That's a laudable goal - but contradictory. In reality, government capital replaces ("crowds out") private capital, leaving taxpayers holding a bigger and bigger bag. Call that nationalization by default.
Under the new and old TARP schemes, the mere threat of /incremental nationalization/ of banks and insurance companies will always "supplant and discourage private capital." You could watch it happening while Geithner spoke - as investors rudely pushed bank stocks down sharply. (An "ultra short" exchange-trade fund that bets heavily /against/ financial stocks (SKF) was up 15 percent by the end of his talk and 18 percent at closing.)
This is nothing new. As I observed on this page last fall ("Why Bailouts Scare Stocks," Sept. 18), Treasury plans to "help" financial institutions always /scare away/ private investors.
In mid-January, for example, Bank of America stock fell from $10.50 to $5.10 in three days on news that "the bank is close to getting billions in additional aid from the government." Then President Obama's inauguration shared The Wall Street Journal's front page with the headline: "Banks Hit by Nationalization Fears: Financials Plunge as US Considers New Rescue Options."
Nationalization fears began last September with the virtual expropriation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. Shareholders were swiftly wiped out, with no vote on the bad deal.
The federal assault on financial stocks escalated in October, when Congress converted TARP by whim into a "Capital Purchase Program" (CPP) - a scheme for /incremental nationalization/ of select banks, via Treasury purchases of preferred stock with warrants. Investors soon realized that CPP is simply a time-release dose of /the same poison/ deliberately used to punish shareholders in Fannie, Freddie and AIG.
Neel Kashkari, Treasury's TARP czar, described this plan as "purchasing equity in healthy banks around the country." But from the perspective of common shareholders, Treasury's purchase of senior preferred shares is no different from the banks taking on /more debt./
TARP-afflicted firms will have to pay dividends to the Treasury for its preferred shares before any remaining crumbs fall to common shareholders. Treasury will be first to get any dividends or capital gains if the firm does well, and first to get repaid in the event of bankruptcy.
Once a bank or insurance company gets in bed with the government, the property rights of that company's stockholders become uniquely insecure. When the government jumps into the cockpit, smart stockholders bail out.
And depressed stock prices deflate the banks' capital cushion, regardless of Treasury investments - making them more likely to fail and therefore less likely to lend. In other words, government "help" achieves the opposite of Geithner's declared goal.
"Our work will be guided by the lessons of the last few months," says Geithner. But he never /learned/ those lessons. On the contrary, he continues to emphasize how sternly "conditions placed on banks" will be /enforced/, while naively expecting private investors to risk money in enterprises under intensely /politicized/ control.
Companies as valuable as Bank of America and AIG need stockholder support, not taxpayer support. If Secretary Geithner really hopes to get stockholders back in, the government will have to get out.
Alan Reynolds, a Cato Institute senior fellow, is the author of "Income and Wealth."
Monday, February 16, 2009
Banks Attacked September 18th : 550B : Coordinated?
The attack on the banks that took place last fall, September 18th, had to be a coordinated attack on the US banking system and the US economy with designs to destroy our country as we know it.
Was this planned? How else could all this take place in such a short period of time? I'm sure an investigation is under way to find out just what happened and run down those that were trying to create huge problems for the United States.
My guess would be Soros and friends. He did something similar in England - way not here. As this article points out, Obama is doing everything wrong to stabilize the financial system.
Keep the faith
Banking System Nearly Evaporated Last Fall
Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:48 PM*
By:* Gene J. Koprowski
The chairman of the capital markets subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), says the global economy nearly collapsed last fall during a frenetic few hours as more than half a trillion dollars vanished during an "electronic run" on U.S. banks.
Speaking in an interview with the public service broadcaster C-SPAN, Kanjorski said that there was a "tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars," on Sept. 18.
No one is saying, at this point, who, or what, caused the run on the banks. The U.S. Treasury Department, during the last months of the Bush Administration, however, saved the banks by providing immediate liquidity, Kanjorski says."Treasury opened its window to help. They pumped $105 billion dollars into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide," Kanjorski said."We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic. And that's what actually happened.
"If the Bush Treasury had not acted quickly and made the money available immediately, the United States and perhaps the world’s banking system would have collapsed by 2 p.m. on Sept. 18, Kanjorski said."Five-and-a-half trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the world, and within 24 hours, the world economy would have collapsed," he said."It would have been the end of our political system and economic system as we know it."
Other experts agree that something suspicious happened last fall with world financial markets, and speculate that the new administration is not doing the right things with its stimulus program to repair the deep damage.The plan floated this week by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to have all banks and financial companies undergo a comprehensive “stress test” may be a bad omen for Wall Street, note some.
"Capital via a government bridge loan to private capital will be available for those entities which fail the stress test. But, when asked if he would liquidate the failed banks, Geithner did an end-around to avoid having to give an answer," says Michael Markowski, an analyst and editor of Stock Diagnostics and Bear Market Navigator, in a note to investors."The Treasury Secretary’s ducking the answer, and his vagueness until a more comprehensive plan is put in place, indicates that problem banks will be liquidated if they cannot get access to private funding.
This is also very bad news for the stock market and especially for bank and financial stocks.”© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Was this planned? How else could all this take place in such a short period of time? I'm sure an investigation is under way to find out just what happened and run down those that were trying to create huge problems for the United States.
My guess would be Soros and friends. He did something similar in England - way not here. As this article points out, Obama is doing everything wrong to stabilize the financial system.
Keep the faith
Banking System Nearly Evaporated Last Fall
Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:48 PM*
By:* Gene J. Koprowski
The chairman of the capital markets subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), says the global economy nearly collapsed last fall during a frenetic few hours as more than half a trillion dollars vanished during an "electronic run" on U.S. banks.
Speaking in an interview with the public service broadcaster C-SPAN, Kanjorski said that there was a "tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars," on Sept. 18.
No one is saying, at this point, who, or what, caused the run on the banks. The U.S. Treasury Department, during the last months of the Bush Administration, however, saved the banks by providing immediate liquidity, Kanjorski says."Treasury opened its window to help. They pumped $105 billion dollars into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide," Kanjorski said."We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic. And that's what actually happened.
"If the Bush Treasury had not acted quickly and made the money available immediately, the United States and perhaps the world’s banking system would have collapsed by 2 p.m. on Sept. 18, Kanjorski said."Five-and-a-half trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the world, and within 24 hours, the world economy would have collapsed," he said."It would have been the end of our political system and economic system as we know it."
Other experts agree that something suspicious happened last fall with world financial markets, and speculate that the new administration is not doing the right things with its stimulus program to repair the deep damage.The plan floated this week by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to have all banks and financial companies undergo a comprehensive “stress test” may be a bad omen for Wall Street, note some.
"Capital via a government bridge loan to private capital will be available for those entities which fail the stress test. But, when asked if he would liquidate the failed banks, Geithner did an end-around to avoid having to give an answer," says Michael Markowski, an analyst and editor of Stock Diagnostics and Bear Market Navigator, in a note to investors."The Treasury Secretary’s ducking the answer, and his vagueness until a more comprehensive plan is put in place, indicates that problem banks will be liquidated if they cannot get access to private funding.
This is also very bad news for the stock market and especially for bank and financial stocks.”© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Obituary For A Friend ; Common Sense is Dead
With the insanity that is occuring in our government today, and as a result what is in store for us for the next generation, one has to believe that "common sense" is truly dead. What has replaced it is ignorance and greed - the true mark of socialist elites.
As Obama said "we won, the people voted" He has promised to change America and the vote in the congress today has done just that - To all those that voted for Obama, I wonder how you will explaine to your children that you have just morgaged their future and unwittingly, or knowingly, relagated them to finanical servatude for their entire lives.
I wonder if your kids will find that same overpowering delight for your "messiah" when they understand you have enslaved them to a financial disaster that will rob them of their chance for freedom to chose their own destiny. One thing for sure - better you then me!
Keep the faith - the battle goes on!
An Obituary printed in the London Times
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense , who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be> remembered for having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial> policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in> charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place . Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding> an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.
He is survived by his four stepbrothers:
I Know My Rights,
I Want It Now,
Someone Else Is To Blame,
and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
As Obama said "we won, the people voted" He has promised to change America and the vote in the congress today has done just that - To all those that voted for Obama, I wonder how you will explaine to your children that you have just morgaged their future and unwittingly, or knowingly, relagated them to finanical servatude for their entire lives.
I wonder if your kids will find that same overpowering delight for your "messiah" when they understand you have enslaved them to a financial disaster that will rob them of their chance for freedom to chose their own destiny. One thing for sure - better you then me!
Keep the faith - the battle goes on!
An Obituary printed in the London Times
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense , who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be> remembered for having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial> policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in> charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place . Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding> an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.
He is survived by his four stepbrothers:
I Know My Rights,
I Want It Now,
Someone Else Is To Blame,
and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
When the Next Attack on American Soil Will Come AND How to React
This a great article on how the terrorist will attack us and what we should be doing now to stop it before it happens, and it will happen. Do we have a plan for our families and communities - ah - no! We think now after 7 years of not being hit all is well - especially since we got rid of George Bush.
Juval Aviv has some good suggestions that need to be implemented immediately - they are practical and easy - all we have to do is actually believe they are necessary. Will we believe? Will we do what is necessary to protect ourselves? Not a chance. That's a job for others to worry about and besides, this is America, it can't happen again anyway. The "One" will protet us.
Keep the faith - look around, understand the threat and be prepared for anything.
*AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ BY EVERY AMERICAN!*
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie 'Munich' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.
In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information thatEVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us. He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on FoxNews stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time,O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back onthe show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the MiddleEast) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant. Now for his future predictions He predicts the next terrorist attack on theU.S. will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive indeveloping strategies that are truly effective.
For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the newexplosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He say she's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved.
In Israel, security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport. Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i. e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York,San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time(Wyoming, Montana, etc.). The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, in cluding rural areas.
Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away. Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'. He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead,'homegrown' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S.
He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East. These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them. Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that factSOON.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel's, Ireland's and England's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens,'like babies'.
Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake. Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago, someone tried to steal the briefcase! In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly& calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.
But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government tofully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism. Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan inplace to best care for the students until parents could get there.. (In New YorkCity, this was days, in some cases!)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel. Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency?
He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow. Aviv says that the U.S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terroristattack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak?
You need to have a plan.
Juval Aviv has some good suggestions that need to be implemented immediately - they are practical and easy - all we have to do is actually believe they are necessary. Will we believe? Will we do what is necessary to protect ourselves? Not a chance. That's a job for others to worry about and besides, this is America, it can't happen again anyway. The "One" will protet us.
Keep the faith - look around, understand the threat and be prepared for anything.
*AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ BY EVERY AMERICAN!*
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie 'Munich' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard -- she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.
In a lecture in New York City a few weeks ago, he shared information thatEVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us. He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on FoxNews stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time,O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back onthe show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the MiddleEast) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant. Now for his future predictions He predicts the next terrorist attack on theU.S. will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive indeveloping strategies that are truly effective.
For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the newexplosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He say she's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked! Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved.
In Israel, security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport. Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i. e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York,San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time(Wyoming, Montana, etc.). The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, in cluding rural areas.
Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away. Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'. He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead,'homegrown' -- having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S.
He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East. These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them. Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that factSOON.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel's, Ireland's and England's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens,'like babies'.
Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake. Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago, someone tried to steal the briefcase! In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly& calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.
But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government tofully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism. Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan inplace to best care for the students until parents could get there.. (In New YorkCity, this was days, in some cases!)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel. Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency?
He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow. Aviv says that the U.S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terroristattack, will immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak?
You need to have a plan.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Dangerous New Element Discovered : Governmentium (Gv)
I believe we knew that this element was out there somewhere but we just didn't know how to synthesize it's hidden properties until know.
This new element appears to be something that effects some people more than others. It is believed the people that are most susceptible have a certain genes makeup that allows this infectious element to be all consuming - these infected individuals display overpowering greed and a deep hatred for those that are not infected. It has become apparent they are doomed to be looked on as mutants by the uninfected populations.
This a warning to all those of us that have not been infected by this horrible infectious "thing" - always be aware of your surroundings and be alert to anyone that might want to "infect" you with this disease. These genetic mutants are dangerous as they will stop at nothing to gain control of the normal population.
Keep the faith - stand firm - wash your conscious often with thoughts of reality - this is how we will be protected from infection while fighting in the trenches.
New Element Discovered : A Scientific Breakthough
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. This new element, Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Govenmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from four days to four years to complete!
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
This new element appears to be something that effects some people more than others. It is believed the people that are most susceptible have a certain genes makeup that allows this infectious element to be all consuming - these infected individuals display overpowering greed and a deep hatred for those that are not infected. It has become apparent they are doomed to be looked on as mutants by the uninfected populations.
This a warning to all those of us that have not been infected by this horrible infectious "thing" - always be aware of your surroundings and be alert to anyone that might want to "infect" you with this disease. These genetic mutants are dangerous as they will stop at nothing to gain control of the normal population.
Keep the faith - stand firm - wash your conscious often with thoughts of reality - this is how we will be protected from infection while fighting in the trenches.
New Element Discovered : A Scientific Breakthough
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. This new element, Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Govenmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from four days to four years to complete!
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Al Franklin : Just Another Liberal Tax Cheat
Here we are again - it's just another Democrat that has decided paying taxes are just for the lower classes, not for the smartest people in the room. Democrats don't pay for anything, they are in power to take what ever they want.
Pelosi's comment on "political culture of corruption" is on the mark and they are all liberal Democrats. Oh no - who knew?
Keep the faith - we are "draining the swamp" of all of the liberals that are hiding there -
Al Franken Admits $50,000 Tax Debt
Friday, February 6, 2009
By: Ronald Kessler
Overlooked in coverage of Tim Geithner’s and Tom Daschle’s unpaid taxes is the $70,000 that Minnesota Democratic senatorial candidate Al Franken has admitted to owing in back taxes, interest, and penalties.
Last April, the California Tax Franchise Board revealed that Franken owed the state $5,800 in taxes, fines, and penalties because he did not file returns in 2003 through 2007. Franken then admitted that he owed more than $50,000 in back taxes to 17 states.
Franken blamed everything on his accountant of 18 years, saying he failed to report the income from the comedian’s celebrity appearances and speeches in those states where he made money outside of Minnesota and New York, where he lives. Franken claimed he overpaid taxes in those two states and will file for refunds.
But the accountant, Allen Chanzis, has not verified Franken’s account. In fact, he has said he was told not to talk to the press. Nor has Franken released any documentation to show that he overpaid taxes in two states.
“I’ve been told to say ‘no comment,’” the accountant told reporters.
On top of failing to pay taxes in 17 states, the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board hit Franken’s corporation with a $25,000 penalty for failing to carry worker’s compensation insurance for his employees in New York. Yet Franken ran as an advocate of middle-class voters.
Chanzis’ Web site specifically says his firm “handles multi-state filings” and that he has “unique expertise in all aspects of tour accounting and reporting.” It is absurd to think that Chanzis did not understand the tax laws. More likely, Franken — who bears the ultimate responsibility for paying his own taxes — directed his accountant not to pay the taxes. Since his accountant will not talk to the press, presumably on orders of his client, we have no way of knowing whether Franken actually overpaid in the two states where he lives.
After a recount, Franken came out 225 votes ahead of Republican Norm Coleman. Coleman has challenged the results in court, and the issue is being litigated.
To be sure, Franken’s failure to pay taxes was known to voters, and he is not subject to anyone else’s confirmation. But coming on top of the Geithner and Daschle tax debacles, Franken’s failure to pay taxes gives new meaning to Sen. Jim DeMint’s comment that Democrats favor higher taxes as long as they do not have to pay them.
Commenting on Daschle’s withdrawal as a Cabinet nominee, President Barack Obama said, “Ultimately it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.”
If Franken is seated as a U.S. senator, he will send the opposite message.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Pelosi's comment on "political culture of corruption" is on the mark and they are all liberal Democrats. Oh no - who knew?
Keep the faith - we are "draining the swamp" of all of the liberals that are hiding there -
Al Franken Admits $50,000 Tax Debt
Friday, February 6, 2009
By: Ronald Kessler
Overlooked in coverage of Tim Geithner’s and Tom Daschle’s unpaid taxes is the $70,000 that Minnesota Democratic senatorial candidate Al Franken has admitted to owing in back taxes, interest, and penalties.
Last April, the California Tax Franchise Board revealed that Franken owed the state $5,800 in taxes, fines, and penalties because he did not file returns in 2003 through 2007. Franken then admitted that he owed more than $50,000 in back taxes to 17 states.
Franken blamed everything on his accountant of 18 years, saying he failed to report the income from the comedian’s celebrity appearances and speeches in those states where he made money outside of Minnesota and New York, where he lives. Franken claimed he overpaid taxes in those two states and will file for refunds.
But the accountant, Allen Chanzis, has not verified Franken’s account. In fact, he has said he was told not to talk to the press. Nor has Franken released any documentation to show that he overpaid taxes in two states.
“I’ve been told to say ‘no comment,’” the accountant told reporters.
On top of failing to pay taxes in 17 states, the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board hit Franken’s corporation with a $25,000 penalty for failing to carry worker’s compensation insurance for his employees in New York. Yet Franken ran as an advocate of middle-class voters.
Chanzis’ Web site specifically says his firm “handles multi-state filings” and that he has “unique expertise in all aspects of tour accounting and reporting.” It is absurd to think that Chanzis did not understand the tax laws. More likely, Franken — who bears the ultimate responsibility for paying his own taxes — directed his accountant not to pay the taxes. Since his accountant will not talk to the press, presumably on orders of his client, we have no way of knowing whether Franken actually overpaid in the two states where he lives.
After a recount, Franken came out 225 votes ahead of Republican Norm Coleman. Coleman has challenged the results in court, and the issue is being litigated.
To be sure, Franken’s failure to pay taxes was known to voters, and he is not subject to anyone else’s confirmation. But coming on top of the Geithner and Daschle tax debacles, Franken’s failure to pay taxes gives new meaning to Sen. Jim DeMint’s comment that Democrats favor higher taxes as long as they do not have to pay them.
Commenting on Daschle’s withdrawal as a Cabinet nominee, President Barack Obama said, “Ultimately it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.”
If Franken is seated as a U.S. senator, he will send the opposite message.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Republicans Snowe, Collins and Specter Bolt from Reality
The Republicans that decided to take a turn from Demcracy and vote Marxist socialism have in effect, isolated themselves from nearly 70% of the American public that finds this travisty of political gamemenship a fraud.
I can't help but believe the three aren't just ignorant of the horrendous implications that this bill has on future generations, the many provisions in this bill that have nothing to do with helping to restore our country to solvency but are designed to bring us all to our collective knees with new taxes and laws that will cripple manufacturing for decades or generations to come.
I believe these three are just plain self serving, out of touch with the American dream of personal freedom and liberty and very stupid people. Only 30% of the public approve of this bill now but these three seem to have no clue as to what their responsibility is to the country.
They need to be asked to leave the party - the Democrat are welcome to them - we don't need or want more "mavericks" in the party. One is enough.
Keep the faith -
Specter, Snowe, Collins Anger GOP Base
Sunday, February 8, 2009 7:39 PM
By: Tim Collie
Three liberal Republican senators — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter — who pledged their support this weekend to President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus bill are drawing the wrath of many conservatives.
As news filtered through the media that a "deal" had been cut with the defecting GOP Senators — giving Democrats the 60-plus votes they need to overcome a Republican filibuster — Republican officials and pundits expressed outrage.
The bolting senators cited soaring unemployment numbers, the country's worsening recession and the fact they cut about $100 billion off of the Senate Democrats' proposed plan as key factors for their decision to betray the GOP Senate caucus to join with the Democrats.
But critics note that the Democratic "compromise" plan comes in at $827 billion — $8 billion more in spending than the already bloated House bill that called for $819 billion in new spending. They also note the so-called stimulus bill offers little immediate relief to the economy. According to a Congressional Budget Office report issued last week, only a fraction of the stimulus will be spent in 2009.
Though weekends are noted for slow news cycles, Collins, Snowe, and Specter already are finding they are under hostile fire, lambasted on conservative Web sites throughout the weekend and the subjects of angry calls by many of their constituents, according to reports.
“Arlen Specter is DONE,” wrote a blogger named steelfish on the FreeRepublic Web site. “He won his last primary by less than 1 percent against a real conservative of Pat Toomey. And only because the President Bush came to PA and campaigned for him. He is DONE.”
Specter is up for re-election in 2010. Washington Republican strategists tell Newsmax this weekend that Specter's defection has sealed the deal: he will face a primary for the GOP nomination.
"We don't care if we lose the Pennsylvania Senate seat to the Democrats," one Washington strategist told Newsmax. "Better to remove Fifth columnists from the party."
The sentiment was echoed in chat rooms and blogs across the web.
“They are frauds. RINOS" Republicans in Name Only, wrote a blogger named Croupier101 on the Fox News blog site.
On TV news shows Sunday, their Republican colleagues distanced themselves from the defecting troika -- arguing that the small GOP support for the plan did not suggest Congressional Democrats or the White House sought a bipartisan stimulus.
"This agreement is not bipartisan," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I've been in bipartisan agreements, many. This is three Republican senators. Every Republican congressman voted against it in the House, plus Democrats. And all but three Republicans stayed together on this. That's not bipartisanship. That's just picking off a couple of senators," McCain said.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the trio’s support must have been disappointing to Obama, who has staked much on his ostensible ability to transcend the partisan divide.
"Having three Republicans, potentially, support it in the Senate out of 535 members of Congress is hardly a bipartisan effort. I think it's a disappointment — surely must be for President Obama," Cornyn told "FOX News Sunday." He added he fully expects the bill to pass "with almost exclusively Democratic support."
The three were the target of a furious national campaign by liberal groups, who besieged their offices with phone calls and emails urging them to support the stimulus plan. Without Democrats controlling a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate, the trio's support was essential in advancing the contentious plan to a final vote next week.
Their help more than likely will result in pushing the stimulus over the finish line.
In a video posted on YouTube, Republican Rep. Ron Paul said the three “caved in and went with the Democrats.”
The former presidential candidate, who has a sizable libertarian following on the Internet, especially among college students, praised his fellow House Republicans for unanimously opposing the stimulus. But he lamented that after eight years of the massive spending done under the Bush administration, Republican opposition was too little, too late.
"It is like they're born-again budget conservatives," Paul said. "Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? And you see our last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can't blame the Democrats for the conditions we have.
"We have to blame both parties and presidents of the last several decades to have generated this huge government."
The stimulus package, which is expected to come in at about $827 billion when the Senate votes, includes tax cuts and credits and spending on infrastructure, education and other projects that supporters say will create and save jobs.
But critics contend the stimulus is nothing more than a laundry list of political payback to groups that supported the Democrats in the last election. They note that less than 5 percent of the spending goes to infrastructure projects.
Collins said she broke ranks with her party because of the progress congressional negotiators had made on the bill.
"Well, I know that some of my Republican colleagues are unhappy with the position that I've taken," Collins told reporters Saturday. "I hope they will look at the fact that we were able to cut $110 billion of unnecessary spending from this bill. I think that's a good accomplishment. I also think that it's important that we do pass a stimulus bill to help turn the economy around."
But Snowe and Specter have kept a low profile since the deal was struck. Despite their huge role, none made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. Specter said Friday night that the agreement wasn't perfect but it was necessary.
That assertion was greeted with wild derision on the Internet and with veiled scorn by other Republican leaders.
Julie Ann O'Brien, executive director of the Maine Republican Party, said she already has received plenty of e-mails from people across the country, the majority scolding the two Senators for their support of the bill.
"We have heard from both sides," she told FOXNews.com. "We've heard from those who are pleased that Sen. Collins, in particular, has been willing to play and negotiate. And there are others who feel strongly that they are not acting like Republicans are supposed to act."
O'Brien doesn't anticipate any local political fallout for Snowe or Collins, noting that both won't face re-election for several years and that voters are familiar with them.
"People know what they're getting when they vote for them," she said. "They lean conservative on most issues — that's why they're Republicans. But they really do, I feel, do what is right — not politically right but morally right."
On Sunday, a liberal, union-supported issue advocacy group initially founded in 2005 to rally against President Bush’s Social Security reform plan was praising the three in ads in Maine and Pennsylvania.
"Senators Snowe and Collins have worked with President Obama and other senators to reach agreement on a plan that has support from a broad range of groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and organized labor," says the version of the ad in Maine.
"Call Senators Snowe and Collins today at 202-224-3121. Thank them for their leadership and tell them to keep fighting for a plan to get our economy moving again."
But Collins, at least, has left herself some wiggle room on the final bill that emerges after House-Senate negotiations.
"Well, I know that some of my Republican colleagues are unhappy with the position that I've taken," Collins told FOX News. "I hope they will look at the fact that we were able to cut $110 billion of unnecessary spending from this bill. I think that's a good accomplishment.”
Yet she conceded that if a bill comes back from the conference committee with the House "once again bloated with wasteful spending and it's too expensive, then I'll vote against it."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
I can't help but believe the three aren't just ignorant of the horrendous implications that this bill has on future generations, the many provisions in this bill that have nothing to do with helping to restore our country to solvency but are designed to bring us all to our collective knees with new taxes and laws that will cripple manufacturing for decades or generations to come.
I believe these three are just plain self serving, out of touch with the American dream of personal freedom and liberty and very stupid people. Only 30% of the public approve of this bill now but these three seem to have no clue as to what their responsibility is to the country.
They need to be asked to leave the party - the Democrat are welcome to them - we don't need or want more "mavericks" in the party. One is enough.
Keep the faith -
Specter, Snowe, Collins Anger GOP Base
Sunday, February 8, 2009 7:39 PM
By: Tim Collie
Three liberal Republican senators — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter — who pledged their support this weekend to President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus bill are drawing the wrath of many conservatives.
As news filtered through the media that a "deal" had been cut with the defecting GOP Senators — giving Democrats the 60-plus votes they need to overcome a Republican filibuster — Republican officials and pundits expressed outrage.
The bolting senators cited soaring unemployment numbers, the country's worsening recession and the fact they cut about $100 billion off of the Senate Democrats' proposed plan as key factors for their decision to betray the GOP Senate caucus to join with the Democrats.
But critics note that the Democratic "compromise" plan comes in at $827 billion — $8 billion more in spending than the already bloated House bill that called for $819 billion in new spending. They also note the so-called stimulus bill offers little immediate relief to the economy. According to a Congressional Budget Office report issued last week, only a fraction of the stimulus will be spent in 2009.
Though weekends are noted for slow news cycles, Collins, Snowe, and Specter already are finding they are under hostile fire, lambasted on conservative Web sites throughout the weekend and the subjects of angry calls by many of their constituents, according to reports.
“Arlen Specter is DONE,” wrote a blogger named steelfish on the FreeRepublic Web site. “He won his last primary by less than 1 percent against a real conservative of Pat Toomey. And only because the President Bush came to PA and campaigned for him. He is DONE.”
Specter is up for re-election in 2010. Washington Republican strategists tell Newsmax this weekend that Specter's defection has sealed the deal: he will face a primary for the GOP nomination.
"We don't care if we lose the Pennsylvania Senate seat to the Democrats," one Washington strategist told Newsmax. "Better to remove Fifth columnists from the party."
The sentiment was echoed in chat rooms and blogs across the web.
“They are frauds. RINOS" Republicans in Name Only, wrote a blogger named Croupier101 on the Fox News blog site.
On TV news shows Sunday, their Republican colleagues distanced themselves from the defecting troika -- arguing that the small GOP support for the plan did not suggest Congressional Democrats or the White House sought a bipartisan stimulus.
"This agreement is not bipartisan," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I've been in bipartisan agreements, many. This is three Republican senators. Every Republican congressman voted against it in the House, plus Democrats. And all but three Republicans stayed together on this. That's not bipartisanship. That's just picking off a couple of senators," McCain said.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the trio’s support must have been disappointing to Obama, who has staked much on his ostensible ability to transcend the partisan divide.
"Having three Republicans, potentially, support it in the Senate out of 535 members of Congress is hardly a bipartisan effort. I think it's a disappointment — surely must be for President Obama," Cornyn told "FOX News Sunday." He added he fully expects the bill to pass "with almost exclusively Democratic support."
The three were the target of a furious national campaign by liberal groups, who besieged their offices with phone calls and emails urging them to support the stimulus plan. Without Democrats controlling a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate, the trio's support was essential in advancing the contentious plan to a final vote next week.
Their help more than likely will result in pushing the stimulus over the finish line.
In a video posted on YouTube, Republican Rep. Ron Paul said the three “caved in and went with the Democrats.”
The former presidential candidate, who has a sizable libertarian following on the Internet, especially among college students, praised his fellow House Republicans for unanimously opposing the stimulus. But he lamented that after eight years of the massive spending done under the Bush administration, Republican opposition was too little, too late.
"It is like they're born-again budget conservatives," Paul said. "Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? And you see our last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can't blame the Democrats for the conditions we have.
"We have to blame both parties and presidents of the last several decades to have generated this huge government."
The stimulus package, which is expected to come in at about $827 billion when the Senate votes, includes tax cuts and credits and spending on infrastructure, education and other projects that supporters say will create and save jobs.
But critics contend the stimulus is nothing more than a laundry list of political payback to groups that supported the Democrats in the last election. They note that less than 5 percent of the spending goes to infrastructure projects.
Collins said she broke ranks with her party because of the progress congressional negotiators had made on the bill.
"Well, I know that some of my Republican colleagues are unhappy with the position that I've taken," Collins told reporters Saturday. "I hope they will look at the fact that we were able to cut $110 billion of unnecessary spending from this bill. I think that's a good accomplishment. I also think that it's important that we do pass a stimulus bill to help turn the economy around."
But Snowe and Specter have kept a low profile since the deal was struck. Despite their huge role, none made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows. Specter said Friday night that the agreement wasn't perfect but it was necessary.
That assertion was greeted with wild derision on the Internet and with veiled scorn by other Republican leaders.
Julie Ann O'Brien, executive director of the Maine Republican Party, said she already has received plenty of e-mails from people across the country, the majority scolding the two Senators for their support of the bill.
"We have heard from both sides," she told FOXNews.com. "We've heard from those who are pleased that Sen. Collins, in particular, has been willing to play and negotiate. And there are others who feel strongly that they are not acting like Republicans are supposed to act."
O'Brien doesn't anticipate any local political fallout for Snowe or Collins, noting that both won't face re-election for several years and that voters are familiar with them.
"People know what they're getting when they vote for them," she said. "They lean conservative on most issues — that's why they're Republicans. But they really do, I feel, do what is right — not politically right but morally right."
On Sunday, a liberal, union-supported issue advocacy group initially founded in 2005 to rally against President Bush’s Social Security reform plan was praising the three in ads in Maine and Pennsylvania.
"Senators Snowe and Collins have worked with President Obama and other senators to reach agreement on a plan that has support from a broad range of groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce and organized labor," says the version of the ad in Maine.
"Call Senators Snowe and Collins today at 202-224-3121. Thank them for their leadership and tell them to keep fighting for a plan to get our economy moving again."
But Collins, at least, has left herself some wiggle room on the final bill that emerges after House-Senate negotiations.
"Well, I know that some of my Republican colleagues are unhappy with the position that I've taken," Collins told FOX News. "I hope they will look at the fact that we were able to cut $110 billion of unnecessary spending from this bill. I think that's a good accomplishment.”
Yet she conceded that if a bill comes back from the conference committee with the House "once again bloated with wasteful spending and it's too expensive, then I'll vote against it."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Marxist Media Is Hate Machine for Liberal Democrats
What the bottom line is that if the liberal media and their Marxist coharts in our congress don't have anything to lie about or spin some information into a misleading article to support their defeatist agneda, they will have nothing to say at all.
If a liberal Democrat ever told the truth about anything, they would cease to be a liberal - they would automaticly become a conservative.
Keep the faith
This has been verified, check it out:> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/v/victory-ignored.htm >
The London Times reports... (What do you bet that when> our troops all get sent home that our new President is going> to take all the credit???? Ready for a shock? Below is an> article from the London Times about our military.> Interesting, it is! Our media coverage is shameful!) Winning Isn't News!!
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq .. London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than> 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of> Iraq, has in over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200> fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there. Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside. Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved 'satisfactory' progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.'
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for> withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates , which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.' The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically> because the President stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights> Reserved.
Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican initiated response to 9/11. Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in order to give him credit. God bless our troops, God bless our current President and God bless the U.S.A.
If a liberal Democrat ever told the truth about anything, they would cease to be a liberal - they would automaticly become a conservative.
Keep the faith
This has been verified, check it out:> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/v/victory-ignored.htm >
The London Times reports... (What do you bet that when> our troops all get sent home that our new President is going> to take all the credit???? Ready for a shock? Below is an> article from the London Times about our military.> Interesting, it is! Our media coverage is shameful!) Winning Isn't News!!
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq .. London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than> 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of> Iraq, has in over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200> fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there. Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside. Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved 'satisfactory' progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.'
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for> withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates , which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.' The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically> because the President stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights> Reserved.
Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican initiated response to 9/11. Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in order to give him credit. God bless our troops, God bless our current President and God bless the U.S.A.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Democrats Working Over-Time To Destroy America
This from Newsmax -
Obama's Stimulus Can Be Defeated.
You Need to Act Now to Make It Happen.
American Democracy Depends on It.
Urgent Message from Dick Morris
Dear Friends:
President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are close to suffering their first defeat in Congress.
With your help, Obama's massive pork-barrel, socialist, wealth-distribution program billed as a "stimulus" plan can be stopped.
Obama promised to be nonpartisan. But he's been anything but.
We now know the stimulus program includes billions for bureaucrats' new cars, Hollywood movie makers, arts programs, anti-smoking campaigns, efforts to reduce sexually transmitted diseases, and a litany of programs totally unrelated to the economy.
Obama promised massive infrastructure programs to create new jobs. But get this: Less than 5% of the $800 billion plus program goes for such programs.
What a joke.
The latest polls show the American people are waking up.
A new Rasmussen poll finds that more than a majority of Americans believe the Obama stimulus plan will hurt the economy more than help it.
Of course, they are right. Obama and the Democrats could have asked for immediate, across-the-board tax cuts to stimulate the economy immediately.
But they wouldn't do it. Nooooooo, that's a Republican idea!
Obama's Stimulus Can Be Defeated.
You Need to Act Now to Make It Happen.
American Democracy Depends on It.
Urgent Message from Dick Morris
Dear Friends:
President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are close to suffering their first defeat in Congress.
With your help, Obama's massive pork-barrel, socialist, wealth-distribution program billed as a "stimulus" plan can be stopped.
Obama promised to be nonpartisan. But he's been anything but.
We now know the stimulus program includes billions for bureaucrats' new cars, Hollywood movie makers, arts programs, anti-smoking campaigns, efforts to reduce sexually transmitted diseases, and a litany of programs totally unrelated to the economy.
Obama promised massive infrastructure programs to create new jobs. But get this: Less than 5% of the $800 billion plus program goes for such programs.
What a joke.
The latest polls show the American people are waking up.
A new Rasmussen poll finds that more than a majority of Americans believe the Obama stimulus plan will hurt the economy more than help it.
Of course, they are right. Obama and the Democrats could have asked for immediate, across-the-board tax cuts to stimulate the economy immediately.
But they wouldn't do it. Nooooooo, that's a Republican idea!
Friday, February 06, 2009
Congressional Democrats Trying to Steal Freedom and Democracy
Here is just more of the same on the liberal Democrats trying to force feed us a national disaster and they are losing the battle - Remember this is not about saving the country - it's about Democrats taking power over all of us for generations to come.
Keep the faith -
Dear Fellow American:
President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are on the verge of putting into law a $819 billion “stimulus” program — unless they are stopped.
This program is nothing less than a rip-off of taxpayers like you and me.
The U.S. Senate will vote soon on this spending boondoggle, one of the most disgusting pork-barrel bills ever presented to Congress.
And hold on to your hat: The Senate version backed by Majority Leader Harry Reid is even worse — it calls for an additional $71 billion in spending — totaling $890 billion.
Believe it or not, you can help us stop this bill from ever becoming law if we make sure 40 U.S. senators — all Republicans — oppose the bill.
Under Senate rules, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid, must come up with 60 votes to stop the Republican filibuster.
That’s why Obama and his allies are launching an all-out effort to pressure several liberal Republicans to cross over and vote for the package.
The Democrats also are worried about several conservatives in their party who are up for re-election in 2010 and just might not want to vote for such an outrageous bill.
Keep the faith -
Dear Fellow American:
President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are on the verge of putting into law a $819 billion “stimulus” program — unless they are stopped.
This program is nothing less than a rip-off of taxpayers like you and me.
The U.S. Senate will vote soon on this spending boondoggle, one of the most disgusting pork-barrel bills ever presented to Congress.
And hold on to your hat: The Senate version backed by Majority Leader Harry Reid is even worse — it calls for an additional $71 billion in spending — totaling $890 billion.
Believe it or not, you can help us stop this bill from ever becoming law if we make sure 40 U.S. senators — all Republicans — oppose the bill.
Under Senate rules, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid, must come up with 60 votes to stop the Republican filibuster.
That’s why Obama and his allies are launching an all-out effort to pressure several liberal Republicans to cross over and vote for the package.
The Democrats also are worried about several conservatives in their party who are up for re-election in 2010 and just might not want to vote for such an outrageous bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
