The question now remains is what will Mr Obama have to say about his buddy that he said to the Russian minister on a open mic to tell Putin, " if I get reelected I will have more flexibility to do more".
Putin thinks Mr Obama is totally controllable. Putin believes Obama likes how the communists control all aspects of peoples lives. Mr Obama likes the communist Chinese as well because they have total power to do anything they want.
Russia’s ban on US adoptions a sign that ‘reset’ has reached its limits
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/28/russias-ban-on-us-adoptions-a-sign-that-reset-has-reached-its-limits/#ixzz2Ge2Vz6nf
Anna Borshchevskaya is an assistant director in the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council.
On December 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill banning U.S. citizens from adopting Russian children. His move was taken in response to the passage of America’s Magnitsky Act on December 14. This act, a successor to the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik amendment which linked Soviet emigration to trade, was named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who uncovered a $230 million Interior Ministry embezzlement scheme which Foreign Policy magazine labeled Russia’s “crime of the century.” In revenge for exposing its corruption, the Interior Ministry ordered Magnitsky’s arrest in 2008. He was tortured and murdered in prison. The Magnitsky Act sanctions Russia’s worst human rights violators by denying them U.S. visas and freezing their assets in U.S. banks.
To protest the passage of the Magnitsky Act, Putin and his United Russia Party have targeted orphans, the most defenseless constituency in Russia. According to prominent Russian commentator Yulia Latynina, Russia now has 600,000 orphans, more than the Soviet Union had during World War II. Conditions in Russian orphanages are well known: children face routine abuse and neglect. They are often bound, made to lie in their own urine and excrement, and sent to asylums.
Their best hope is adoption. Since 1991, Americans have adopted somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 Russian children, including disabled children, who are most at risk in Russian institutions. These adopted children thrive. True, Russian officials say that 19 Russian children adopted by Americans have died. Putin says their abusers have not been held accountable by U.S. courts. These deaths are tragic, but Putin’s crocodile tears run dry. As Vladimir Kara-Murza, senior advisor at the pro-reform Institute for Modern Russia, notes, between 1991 and 2006 more than 1,200 adopted children died in Russianfamilies.
Many Russians recognize that Putin has gone too far. A recent Levada Center poll showed that 39 percent of Russian citizens support the Magnitsky Act. While this may not seem like much, for the Russian public, which is very skeptical of Americans, it is. The Magnitsky Act hits Russia’s human rights abusers where it hurts — their wallets. And Russian citizens who are tired of the corruption that stifles Russia’s growth appreciate this.
If Putin were serious about improving U.S.-Russian relations and making Russia democratic, he would punish those responsible for Magnitsky’s murder. Instead, many of the officials implicated in Magnitsky’s death have received promotions. Only prison doctor Dmitry Kratov has been charged. But despite Russia’s 99 percent conviction rate, on December 28 a Russian court set Kratov free, just as the Russian ban on U.S. adoptions passed.
The ban on U.S. adoptions will only worsen Putin’s image, both at home and abroad. The American response will be important. The White House opposed the Magnitsky Act’s most biting prescriptions, and John Kerry — President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of state — used his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure the bill’s dilution. Putin’s callousness should show Obama that his cornerstone “reset” policy with Russia has long since reached its limits.
Anna Borshchevskaya is an assistant director in the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/28/russias-ban-on-us-adoptions-a-sign-that-reset-has-reached-its-limits/#ixzz2Gdq9nLx4
Monday, December 31, 2012
Hillary Now Hospitalized? Fact or Fiction?
That this is actually true or that it its nothing but a progressive socialist liberal Democrat ploy to avoid a congress investiagtion, can be explained by Hillary herself when she used the phrase to explain her take on General Patraeus' "surge" in Afghanistan, 'One has to suspend disbelief '.
Hillary Hospitalized with Blood Clot
By Karen DeYoung,
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized in New York on Sunday after doctors monitoring her recovery from a concussion discovered a blood clot, according to a statement from her office.
The statement said that “in the course of a follow-up exam, Secretary Clinton’s doctors discovered a blood clot had formed, stemming from the concussion she sustained several weeks ago. She is being treated with anti-coagulants and is at New York-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours.
“Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion. They will determine if any further action is required.”
Clinton aide Philippe Reines, who issued the statement, declined to provide further details.
Reines said on Thursday that Clinton’s recuperation was continuing and that she was expected to resume her office schedule this week.
Clinton, 65, has not been seen in public since the first week in December, when she reportedly contracted a stomach virus during a trip to Europe. On Dec. 15, the State Department said that she had fainted at her home two days earlier, as a result of dehydration from the virus, and had sustained a concussion. The State Department said that her doctors had advised further rest.
During her absence, Clinton canceled an overseas trip and her scheduled testimony before Congress about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. She also did not appear at the White House on Dec. 21, when President Obama introduced Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) as his nominee to succeed Clinton.
Republicans have said that they are likely to hold up Kerry’s nomination hearing until Clinton testifies about the Benghazi attack, but the impact of this new disclosure was unclear.
Clinton said two summers ago that she would not stay in her job in a second Obama term.
Before the announcement about Clinton’s hospitalization, Obama appeared Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and reaffirmed an earlier decision by Clinton to carry out all 29 recommendations made by a State Department review panel that examined the circumstances surrounding the attacks in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11. “My message to the State Department has been very simple, and that is we’re going to solve this,” he said. “We’re not going to be defensive about it; we’re not going to pretend that this was not a problem — this was a huge problem.”
Obama said one major finding — that the State Department relied too heavily on untested local Libyan militias to safeguard the compound in Benghazi — reflected “internal reviews” by the government. “It confirms what we had already seen based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies,” he said.
Hillary Hospitalized with Blood Clot
By Karen DeYoung,
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized in New York on Sunday after doctors monitoring her recovery from a concussion discovered a blood clot, according to a statement from her office.
The statement said that “in the course of a follow-up exam, Secretary Clinton’s doctors discovered a blood clot had formed, stemming from the concussion she sustained several weeks ago. She is being treated with anti-coagulants and is at New York-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours.
“Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion. They will determine if any further action is required.”
Clinton aide Philippe Reines, who issued the statement, declined to provide further details.
Reines said on Thursday that Clinton’s recuperation was continuing and that she was expected to resume her office schedule this week.
Clinton, 65, has not been seen in public since the first week in December, when she reportedly contracted a stomach virus during a trip to Europe. On Dec. 15, the State Department said that she had fainted at her home two days earlier, as a result of dehydration from the virus, and had sustained a concussion. The State Department said that her doctors had advised further rest.
During her absence, Clinton canceled an overseas trip and her scheduled testimony before Congress about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. She also did not appear at the White House on Dec. 21, when President Obama introduced Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) as his nominee to succeed Clinton.
Republicans have said that they are likely to hold up Kerry’s nomination hearing until Clinton testifies about the Benghazi attack, but the impact of this new disclosure was unclear.
Clinton said two summers ago that she would not stay in her job in a second Obama term.
Before the announcement about Clinton’s hospitalization, Obama appeared Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and reaffirmed an earlier decision by Clinton to carry out all 29 recommendations made by a State Department review panel that examined the circumstances surrounding the attacks in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11. “My message to the State Department has been very simple, and that is we’re going to solve this,” he said. “We’re not going to be defensive about it; we’re not going to pretend that this was not a problem — this was a huge problem.”
Obama said one major finding — that the State Department relied too heavily on untested local Libyan militias to safeguard the compound in Benghazi — reflected “internal reviews” by the government. “It confirms what we had already seen based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies,” he said.
Blacks Should Support NRA Gun Proposal : Star Parker
The question now is why would blacks accept a proposal from an organization that is hated by progressive socialist liberals, the very controlling element of nearly the entire black population?
Why would the parents of children in urban schools that are out of control want what's best for their kids and yet vote more then 93% in favor of people that want them to to stay right where they are? It doesn't make sense.
Why, after decades of voting for progressive liberal socialist in mass, and in the face of huge unemployment numbers of better then 50% of black youth and 10% of adult blacks women, worse for adult black men, still believe that the progressive socialist liberal Democrats have their best interest at heart?
A good example is Mr Obama sends in kids to a private school, but publicly denied others in D.C. to have the same opportunity, mostly black and poor, to decide to send their kids to charter schools. Did anyone protest this? Where was the outrage from the black community? The press? Why no screaming headlines?
There has to be an answer for this that makes sense. As of today, no one has any idea of why blacks are convinced the progressive liberals are their best option for prosperty. Why does this happen? By the way, Star Parker is a black women.
Blacks Should Embrace NRA Gun Proposal
Star Parker (Town Hall)
What is the essence of freedom? Property and a gun. I never met my grandfather, but that's the lesson I took from his life. He was one generation out of slavery and bought property and guns.
It's so predictable that today's discussion on gun control is similar to the noise we hear from liberals every time there is a mass shooting. What is new this time is that the NRA, under the direction of Wayne LaPierre, David Keene and Asa Hutchinson, has put forth a concrete plan that most American parents should appreciate will keep children safer at school.
Why is it that liberals find it sensible to expand the reach of government each time a crisis arises, yet solutions that protect our freedoms and our ability to control our own lives they invariably find irrational?
Consider even the question of cost, which has been one point of contention regarding the NRA’s proposal to provide armed security for our schools. Does anyone believe there are not significant enforcement costs in expanding our gun control laws? The first parents that I believe should rally behind the NRA’s proposal are those who have been forced for generations to send their children to dangerous urban schools with no recourse or protection - low income, minority parents.
I have argued for 25 years that poor parents should get vouchers so they can move their kids out of schools where they don’t learn and are not safe. But who would have thought that the tragic loss of innocent babes in Connecticut would open the door to force liberals and unions to finally address school safety?
Why are Gun-control advocates never challenged to answer on behalf of the most vulnerable how you take the gun from the underground, the criminal, a racist cop or tyrannical government?
Blacks of all people should know that taking arms from the law-abiding many puts too much power in the hands of a perhaps ill-intending few.
In polling done by the Pew Research Center in 2009, only 38 percent of blacks, compared to 69 percent of whites, expressed a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of “confidence in local police to treat blacks and whites equally.”
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in McDonald v. Chicago, that the 2nd Amendment, which articulates the “right to bear arms,” applies to the states. This overturned an appeals court decision, which upheld a local ordinance in Chicago prohibiting handgun ownership.
The man who filed the lawsuit, Otis McDonald, was a black man who wanted to protect himself in the deteriorating neighborhood where he lived where he felt unsafe because of gangs and drugs.
Why would the parents of children in urban schools that are out of control want what's best for their kids and yet vote more then 93% in favor of people that want them to to stay right where they are? It doesn't make sense.
Why, after decades of voting for progressive liberal socialist in mass, and in the face of huge unemployment numbers of better then 50% of black youth and 10% of adult blacks women, worse for adult black men, still believe that the progressive socialist liberal Democrats have their best interest at heart?
A good example is Mr Obama sends in kids to a private school, but publicly denied others in D.C. to have the same opportunity, mostly black and poor, to decide to send their kids to charter schools. Did anyone protest this? Where was the outrage from the black community? The press? Why no screaming headlines?
There has to be an answer for this that makes sense. As of today, no one has any idea of why blacks are convinced the progressive liberals are their best option for prosperty. Why does this happen? By the way, Star Parker is a black women.
Blacks Should Embrace NRA Gun Proposal
Star Parker (Town Hall)
What is the essence of freedom? Property and a gun. I never met my grandfather, but that's the lesson I took from his life. He was one generation out of slavery and bought property and guns.
It's so predictable that today's discussion on gun control is similar to the noise we hear from liberals every time there is a mass shooting. What is new this time is that the NRA, under the direction of Wayne LaPierre, David Keene and Asa Hutchinson, has put forth a concrete plan that most American parents should appreciate will keep children safer at school.
Why is it that liberals find it sensible to expand the reach of government each time a crisis arises, yet solutions that protect our freedoms and our ability to control our own lives they invariably find irrational?
Consider even the question of cost, which has been one point of contention regarding the NRA’s proposal to provide armed security for our schools. Does anyone believe there are not significant enforcement costs in expanding our gun control laws? The first parents that I believe should rally behind the NRA’s proposal are those who have been forced for generations to send their children to dangerous urban schools with no recourse or protection - low income, minority parents.
I have argued for 25 years that poor parents should get vouchers so they can move their kids out of schools where they don’t learn and are not safe. But who would have thought that the tragic loss of innocent babes in Connecticut would open the door to force liberals and unions to finally address school safety?
Why are Gun-control advocates never challenged to answer on behalf of the most vulnerable how you take the gun from the underground, the criminal, a racist cop or tyrannical government?
Blacks of all people should know that taking arms from the law-abiding many puts too much power in the hands of a perhaps ill-intending few.
In polling done by the Pew Research Center in 2009, only 38 percent of blacks, compared to 69 percent of whites, expressed a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of “confidence in local police to treat blacks and whites equally.”
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in McDonald v. Chicago, that the 2nd Amendment, which articulates the “right to bear arms,” applies to the states. This overturned an appeals court decision, which upheld a local ordinance in Chicago prohibiting handgun ownership.
The man who filed the lawsuit, Otis McDonald, was a black man who wanted to protect himself in the deteriorating neighborhood where he lived where he felt unsafe because of gangs and drugs.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Progressive Environmentalism As Religion
This is only a small portion of a larger article from Michael Crichton on the insanity of environmentalism and the people that sit in the front pew drinking the cool aide on a regular basis.
But without much difficulty, one can see there is little difference between the environmentalist and the progressive socialist liberal, and in many ways, they are the same.
Their intent is the same. Extract as much control from the population as they can on a sustaining basis using misinformation or out right lies to persuade an unsuspecting and poorly informed public into believing they are the problem that is destroying the planet. And the only way to solve this catastrophic problem is to give up all of their individual rights and freedoms to the control of those that know how to fix the problem.
Of course there is no problem to start with but no matter, believe there is one and all will be well as this will result in a solution. See how easy it is to make charges that are false and then have solutions that work but will take decades and billions of tax dollars.
The problem is the same with progressive socialist politics that is in control of our country. Serious charges are made as to why we have so many problems that go unsolved, but upon a closer look, most of the on going problems are made by the same people asserting the charges. So the only way to solve the problem is to transfer power to the government, i.e. income redistribution. Simple enough, right? Who knew it could be so easy.
Environmentalism as Religion
Michael Crichton
Commonwealth Club
San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003
This was not the first discussion of environmentalism as a religion, but
it caught on and was widely quoted. Michael explains why religious
approaches to the environment are inappropriate and cause damage to the
natural world they intent to protect.
I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important
challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest
challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from
fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a
challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it,
the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the
solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're
told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us
has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part
given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated
by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our
genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what
is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine,
and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or
generated by our own hopes and fears.
As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about
environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it
perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our
lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our
actions, including the consequences to other people, and the
consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in
ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will
always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has
genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also
think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely
difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to
know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is
discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts
often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and
face them squarely. And I think I know why.
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was
that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be
eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it
is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best
people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion.
But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of
mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another
form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in
something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the
world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is
environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice
for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the
beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact
a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs
and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with
nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result
of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions
there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners,
doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called
sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the
environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free
wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
But without much difficulty, one can see there is little difference between the environmentalist and the progressive socialist liberal, and in many ways, they are the same.
Their intent is the same. Extract as much control from the population as they can on a sustaining basis using misinformation or out right lies to persuade an unsuspecting and poorly informed public into believing they are the problem that is destroying the planet. And the only way to solve this catastrophic problem is to give up all of their individual rights and freedoms to the control of those that know how to fix the problem.
Of course there is no problem to start with but no matter, believe there is one and all will be well as this will result in a solution. See how easy it is to make charges that are false and then have solutions that work but will take decades and billions of tax dollars.
The problem is the same with progressive socialist politics that is in control of our country. Serious charges are made as to why we have so many problems that go unsolved, but upon a closer look, most of the on going problems are made by the same people asserting the charges. So the only way to solve the problem is to transfer power to the government, i.e. income redistribution. Simple enough, right? Who knew it could be so easy.
Environmentalism as Religion
Michael Crichton
Commonwealth Club
San Francisco, CA
September 15, 2003
This was not the first discussion of environmentalism as a religion, but
it caught on and was widely quoted. Michael explains why religious
approaches to the environment are inappropriate and cause damage to the
natural world they intent to protect.
I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important
challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest
challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from
fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a
challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it,
the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the
solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're
told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us
has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part
given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated
by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our
genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what
is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine,
and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or
generated by our own hopes and fears.
As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about
environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it
perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our
lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our
actions, including the consequences to other people, and the
consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in
ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will
always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has
genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also
think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely
difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to
know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is
discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts
often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and
face them squarely. And I think I know why.
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was
that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be
eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it
is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best
people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion.
But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of
mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another
form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in
something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the
world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is
environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice
for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the
beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact
a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs
and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with
nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result
of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions
there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners,
doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called
sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the
environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free
wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Progressive Socialists : Government Superseds All
I'm not sure who authored this but I am in full agreement with their conclusions.
'The leftist ideologue believes that the needs and rights of the
nation-state supersede the needs and rights of the individual. Through
legislative fiat and judicial activism, leftist ideology is forced upon
society.
The leftist believes that the Constitution is a stale document
created centuries ago by some old, crotchety men. The leftist believes
in a living, breathing Constitution that adapts to the leftist ideology,
which justifies the leftist's methods and outcomes. The leftist cannot
acknowledge the Constitution's original intent and meaning ,as it would
circumvent his ideology.
The leftist functions as though the country is
a democracy, where majority rules and laws of men prevail. Naturally,
the leftist ideologue fears the Constitution.'
supersedes
'The leftist ideologue believes that the needs and rights of the
nation-state supersede the needs and rights of the individual. Through
legislative fiat and judicial activism, leftist ideology is forced upon
society.
The leftist believes that the Constitution is a stale document
created centuries ago by some old, crotchety men. The leftist believes
in a living, breathing Constitution that adapts to the leftist ideology,
which justifies the leftist's methods and outcomes. The leftist cannot
acknowledge the Constitution's original intent and meaning ,as it would
circumvent his ideology.
The leftist functions as though the country is
a democracy, where majority rules and laws of men prevail. Naturally,
the leftist ideologue fears the Constitution.'
supersedes
ObamaCare AND New Taxes for 2013 : America's Decline
No one believed, given the track record of total failure on all fronts of Mr Obama, he could win the election, but wonders of wonders, he did. And now, believing he has a mandate from the voters, he has stepped up the pressure to drive the country further and further into unsustainable debt with reckless spending on worthless and useless projects that he knows will only end in wasting trillions of tax dollars.
I know it's a statement that has been used over and over, but who would willingly and knowingly vote for personal destruction? Why? What possible reason could they have to want to drive themselves into dependency and poverty?
So many questions but so few answers.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
'Low Information' Voters : What Did You Vote For?
I have been trumpeting this theme for months now and it still rings true here as Goodman clearly states our biggest problems are found in the 'low information' voter. They had no idea who they voted for or what he stands for or what he done in the last four years.
All they knew was that the other guy was new on the scene and wants to make changes to help the country survive, but didn't understand or didn't care what he was saying, the 'low information voter' would have had to stop texting for a few minutes and listen and process the information needed to make good decisions. Yikes! Didn't happen. That was asking why too much.
Is all lost for decades to come, maybe, but the fight is on for 2014 to take over the senate with a super majority. To fail on this task will surely spell hardship like this country has not known ever.
Voting For Liberals
John C. Goodman
If you are one of the folks who voted for Barack Obama in the last election, what did you vote for? More generally, if you voted for any liberal politician, what did you vote for?
Here are three things for starters: (1) no reform of the public schools, (2) no reform of the welfare system, and (3) no reform of labor market institutions that erect barriers between new entrants and good jobs.
How can I be so certain? Because the teachers unions, the welfare bureaucracy and all the other unions form the base of the Democratic Party. At least they are the base of the liberal wing of the party.
Here are three more things you voted for: (1) no reform of the tax system, (2) no reform of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements, and (3) no serious effort to deal with mounting deficit spending and ever-increasing national debt.
How do I know these three things? Because that is essentially the position of every liberal who has had anything to say about the Fiscal Cliff. It is also the position of liberal commentators — including Paul Krugman and the editorial pages of The New York Times.
As is patently obvious, the single biggest obstacles to school reform are the teachers unions. They view the school system as a jobs program more than a place where children learn. The unions have resisted virtually any and all reforms that would get bad teachers out of the classrooms, reward teachers based on merit and reward schools based on success. Most importantly, they are adamantly opposed to school choice: allowing poor students at failing schools to escape and go to better ones.
Almost a half century ago, southern racists politicians stood in the school house door and told black children they could not enter. Today, it is liberal politicians who are trying to keep poor children (often minority children) out of the schools their parents want them to attend. In fact, in Washington D.C., liberal politicians are trying to keep poor, minority children out of the very same schools they send their own children to!
Having fronted for the resistance to school improvement (the only long-term avenue to self-betterment), these same politicians are vigorous defenders of a welfare system that encourages and subsidizes dependency. In fact, most of them would like to undo the welfare reforms that President Clinton signed into law.
All they knew was that the other guy was new on the scene and wants to make changes to help the country survive, but didn't understand or didn't care what he was saying, the 'low information voter' would have had to stop texting for a few minutes and listen and process the information needed to make good decisions. Yikes! Didn't happen. That was asking why too much.
Is all lost for decades to come, maybe, but the fight is on for 2014 to take over the senate with a super majority. To fail on this task will surely spell hardship like this country has not known ever.
Voting For Liberals
John C. Goodman
If you are one of the folks who voted for Barack Obama in the last election, what did you vote for? More generally, if you voted for any liberal politician, what did you vote for?
Here are three things for starters: (1) no reform of the public schools, (2) no reform of the welfare system, and (3) no reform of labor market institutions that erect barriers between new entrants and good jobs.
How can I be so certain? Because the teachers unions, the welfare bureaucracy and all the other unions form the base of the Democratic Party. At least they are the base of the liberal wing of the party.
Here are three more things you voted for: (1) no reform of the tax system, (2) no reform of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements, and (3) no serious effort to deal with mounting deficit spending and ever-increasing national debt.
How do I know these three things? Because that is essentially the position of every liberal who has had anything to say about the Fiscal Cliff. It is also the position of liberal commentators — including Paul Krugman and the editorial pages of The New York Times.
As is patently obvious, the single biggest obstacles to school reform are the teachers unions. They view the school system as a jobs program more than a place where children learn. The unions have resisted virtually any and all reforms that would get bad teachers out of the classrooms, reward teachers based on merit and reward schools based on success. Most importantly, they are adamantly opposed to school choice: allowing poor students at failing schools to escape and go to better ones.
Almost a half century ago, southern racists politicians stood in the school house door and told black children they could not enter. Today, it is liberal politicians who are trying to keep poor children (often minority children) out of the schools their parents want them to attend. In fact, in Washington D.C., liberal politicians are trying to keep poor, minority children out of the very same schools they send their own children to!
Having fronted for the resistance to school improvement (the only long-term avenue to self-betterment), these same politicians are vigorous defenders of a welfare system that encourages and subsidizes dependency. In fact, most of them would like to undo the welfare reforms that President Clinton signed into law.
Ten Facts On Debt and Deficit : Th Heritage Foundation
Heritage spells out rather well what we face in the coming years with the newly resurrected Obama and his progressive socialist liberal minions. What they fail to tackle is who is responsible for reelecting the nightmare of the last four years and why.
Truly, this is the story of the year. Who are these people and why would they willing vote for a decline of our country? Why knowingly vote for dependency, sacristy and poverty? Where is the common sense?
Budget policy in 2012 was characterized by deficit spending, major increases in the national debt, and a heated debate over the “fiscal cliff.”
With just days left for President Obama and lawmakers in Congress to avert a major tax hike, sequestration, and other major policy changes, today we bring you a list of the top 10 facts on federal spending in 2012:
Truly, this is the story of the year. Who are these people and why would they willing vote for a decline of our country? Why knowingly vote for dependency, sacristy and poverty? Where is the common sense?
What are 10 Facts on the Fiscal Cliff, Debt, and Spending?
With just days left for President Obama and lawmakers in Congress to avert a major tax hike, sequestration, and other major policy changes, today we bring you a list of the top 10 facts on federal spending in 2012:
- Four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Fiscal year 2012 concluded with a $1.1 trillion deficit, marking the fourth year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Too much spending is the root cause of the federal government’s deep and sustained deficits. At 23 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2012 and on track to rise further, federal spending is growing at a dangerous pace.
- National debt hit $16 trillion. On September 4, the U.S. national debt hit the $16 trillion mark. We owe more on the national debt than the entire U.S. economy produced in goods and services in all of 2012. Sixteen trillion dollar bills stacked one on top of the other would measure more than 1 million miles high, which would reach to the moon and back more than twice.
- The debt limit was raised by $1.2 trillion. On January 30, the federal government raised its debt limit from a staggering $15.194 trillion to an even bigger $16.394 trillion. This increase was the last one of three granted in the Budget Control Act of 2011, a result of that summer’s debt ceiling negotiations, which allowed for a total debt limit increase of $2.1 trillion.
- The $650 billion fiscal cliff distracted from the $48 trillion looming fiscal crisis. Much of 2012 was spent arguing over tax rates in the fiscal cliff debate while lawmakers ignored the much more dangerous looming fiscal crisis. As large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they stand in the shadow of $48 trillion in long-term unfunded obligations in Social Security and Medicare. Even with President Obama’s originally proposed tax hikes in his budget, the federal debt would still rise by more than $7.7 trillion in the next 10 years.
- Social Security ran a deficit for the second year in a row. According to the 2012 trustees report, Social Security spent $45 billion more in benefits in 2011 than it took in from its payroll tax. This deficit is in addition to a $49 billion gap in 2010 and an expected average annual gap of about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018. Social Security’s deficits will balloon yet further. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $95 billion in 2020 and $318.7 billion in 2030 before the trust fund runs out in 2033 and a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut occurs.
- Three years of spend-as-you-go policies without a federal budget. The last time both chambers of Congress agreed on a budget was on April 29, 2009. Since then, Congress has operated on a spend-as-you-go basis, characterized by incoherent, ad hoc budget procedures. The House passed budget resolutions each of the past two years, but the Senate failed to do its part.
- The government spent nearly $30,000 per American household. The average American household’s share of federal spending in 2012 was $29,691, or roughly two-thirds of median household income. The government collected $20,293 per household in taxes in 2012, resulting in a budget deficit of $9,398 per household in 2012.
- Obamacare will spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years. After the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office did an update of its scoring of the law. The result: Obamacare will spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years on its coverage expansion provisions alone, including a massive expansion of Medicaid and federal subsidies for the new health insurance exchanges. This means that Obamacare will increase federal health spending by 15 percent.
- Social Security was the biggest federal spending program. In 1993, Social Security surpassed national defense as the largest federal spending category, and it remains first today. The top five biggest spending programs, in order, are 1) Social Security; 2) national defense; 3) Medicare; 4) Medicaid, CHIP, and other government health care; and 5) interest on the debt.
- More than 40 percent of Americans are on some government program. According to Census Bureau data and Heritage Foundation calculations, 128.8 million people in America depend on a government program for basic (or not so basic) needs, such as rent, prescription drugs, and higher education.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Krauthammer On GOP Civil War
Krauthammer is right that Obama is all about the war on the opposition and not about how it will effect the country and it's problems. Obama does not care about the countries problems as he and his minions have no clue how to fix them.
But what I can't agree with Krauthammer on is that Obama will be seen as a failed president. Even if the entire country is embroiled in civil war of one kind or the other, and many of the largest cities have been burned down or collapsed financially, it won't matter, the progressive left socialist liberals will write the history of Barack Obama, and it can be assured that he will come out smelling like a rose.
I wonder who they will find to blame for the failures of Mr Obama and the progressive socialists after 8 years of rule? Oh wait, no problem, it's that dam Bush and the Republicans. The problems were worse then they thought. Bush lied.
After all, historians are profoundly and historically liberal and are tenured professors at our great universities, which of course, are all very progressive liberal. History will be fair and truthfully? Right!
Krauthammer on Fox News : Civil War in GOP
Appearing on Fox News Thursday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said President Barack Obama has successfully broken the will of Republicans in the House and has created an “internal civil war” amidst “fiscal cliff” negotiations.
“He’s been using this, and I must say with great skill — and ruthless skill and success — to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition,” Krauthammer said. “His objective from the very beginning was to break the will of the Republicans in the House, and to create an internal civil war. And he’s done that.”
He said Obama has been pressuring Republicans to consider increasing tax rates ever since he got reelected because he knew it could create tension within the GOP. Krauthammer added that Obama would rather score a political victory than actually deal with the out-of-control national debt.
But all-in-all, he explained, Obama will be “remembered as a failed president.”
Watch the clip via Fox News/Mediaite below:
But what I can't agree with Krauthammer on is that Obama will be seen as a failed president. Even if the entire country is embroiled in civil war of one kind or the other, and many of the largest cities have been burned down or collapsed financially, it won't matter, the progressive left socialist liberals will write the history of Barack Obama, and it can be assured that he will come out smelling like a rose.
I wonder who they will find to blame for the failures of Mr Obama and the progressive socialists after 8 years of rule? Oh wait, no problem, it's that dam Bush and the Republicans. The problems were worse then they thought. Bush lied.
After all, historians are profoundly and historically liberal and are tenured professors at our great universities, which of course, are all very progressive liberal. History will be fair and truthfully? Right!
Krauthammer on Fox News : Civil War in GOP
Appearing on Fox News Thursday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said President Barack Obama has successfully broken the will of Republicans in the House and has created an “internal civil war” amidst “fiscal cliff” negotiations.
“He’s been using this, and I must say with great skill — and ruthless skill and success — to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition,” Krauthammer said. “His objective from the very beginning was to break the will of the Republicans in the House, and to create an internal civil war. And he’s done that.”
He said Obama has been pressuring Republicans to consider increasing tax rates ever since he got reelected because he knew it could create tension within the GOP. Krauthammer added that Obama would rather score a political victory than actually deal with the out-of-control national debt.
But all-in-all, he explained, Obama will be “remembered as a failed president.”
Watch the clip via Fox News/Mediaite below:
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Entitlements Driving Economic Cliff Dive
This is on point in that it is a spending problem we have not a revenue problem, but for the most of us that are awake and not sitting the front pew of the church of progressive socialism, know this already, it's not new stuff.
Still, anytime someone can bring to light the disaster that is coming for all of us, it can't hurt to keep repeating the cause and solution.
Entitlement and Interest Drive Fiscal Crisis
Romina Boccia
The end of 2012 was marked by lawmakers engaging in a distracting fiscal cliff debate over tax rates when the solution to the real fiscal crisis lies in an entirely different area of the budget.
Federal spending on entitlements and interest on the debt drives the federal budget crisis. Together the three major entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (including Obamacare), as well as net interest, make up more than half of all spending in the federal budget today. Their share of the budget will grow to over two-thirds of all spending in 10 years.
By 2025, the major entitlement programs and net interest together will eat up all tax revenues collected in that year. This implies that all other government spending, including for national defense, would have to be financed by borrowing.
This projection by the Congressional Budget Office assumes that historically low interest rates continue at least until 2015 and that inflation will be modest, inching up toward 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2017. Nevertheless, spending on interest on the debt would double before the end of the decade.
Should the Federal Reserve’s continued and prolonged quantitative easing lead to more severe inflation—a risk that is very real—the dangerous scenario painted in the chart of the year could come about even sooner.
One thing is clear: Lawmakers are playing a risky game for as long as they neglect to address the structural problems in the entitlement programs that are driving the nation deeper and deeper into debt. Reform is inevitable. The only question: Will lawmakers develop the political will before the real fiscal crisis hits or will they be forced into making changes in the midst of it?
Still, anytime someone can bring to light the disaster that is coming for all of us, it can't hurt to keep repeating the cause and solution.
Entitlement and Interest Drive Fiscal Crisis
Romina Boccia
The end of 2012 was marked by lawmakers engaging in a distracting fiscal cliff debate over tax rates when the solution to the real fiscal crisis lies in an entirely different area of the budget.
Federal spending on entitlements and interest on the debt drives the federal budget crisis. Together the three major entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (including Obamacare), as well as net interest, make up more than half of all spending in the federal budget today. Their share of the budget will grow to over two-thirds of all spending in 10 years.
By 2025, the major entitlement programs and net interest together will eat up all tax revenues collected in that year. This implies that all other government spending, including for national defense, would have to be financed by borrowing.
This projection by the Congressional Budget Office assumes that historically low interest rates continue at least until 2015 and that inflation will be modest, inching up toward 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2017. Nevertheless, spending on interest on the debt would double before the end of the decade.
Should the Federal Reserve’s continued and prolonged quantitative easing lead to more severe inflation—a risk that is very real—the dangerous scenario painted in the chart of the year could come about even sooner.
One thing is clear: Lawmakers are playing a risky game for as long as they neglect to address the structural problems in the entitlement programs that are driving the nation deeper and deeper into debt. Reform is inevitable. The only question: Will lawmakers develop the political will before the real fiscal crisis hits or will they be forced into making changes in the midst of it?
Posted in Entitlements, Taxes & Spending, Featured
Krauthammer on Obama's Over Regulations : A Video
As usual, if you have watched Krauthammer in the past, he is on task here defining the regulation nightmare that the Obama administration is setting forth to strangle small businesses and our entire country.
The question that I have is why? One would think he would want more revenue coming into Washington that he could spend on his friends and voter base. But with all of these new regulations, jobs will not be created as businesses will hunker down for the next four years to avoid all the increased cost to comply.
Charles Krauthammer on Over Regulation on Small Business
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/krauthammer-slams-obama-for-illegal-and-unconstitutional-regulatory-overreach/#ooid=11dm52NzpRQV3HqgQX-XYqldaOOcqYRg
During Wednesday’s broadcast of “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer criticized the Obama administration for something even President Barack Obama has admitted could be an obstacle to economic growth: the expansion of regulation through executive fiat
.
As the number of regulations from the federal government is continuously expanding, the comment period for regulations has been shortened from 60 days to 45 days, a move that Krauthammer said overwhelms small businesses.
“At so many levels, this is a problem,” Krauthammer replied. “First of all [is] the volume, as you indicate, which is sort of overwhelming. If you are a small business, you have no idea what’s going to happen with your health care costs, your taxes, and all the other regulations. The second is the sort of intrusiveness of all of this, and the fact that it really hurts small business who don’t have the lawyers and the accountants, and the sharp — the former legislators who can work your way around the regulations.”
“Then you’ve got the lack of being open about it. The administration has this short comment period, where you are supposed to have 60 days, by executive order, and you’re not getting it. Which means essentially, the executive runs this.”
Krauthammer also commented on the legality of the regulatory environment, one of which he said reflected an “arrogance.”
“And lastly, you get the arrogance of it,” he continued, “the administration essentially enacting legislation on its own through regulation, the way it did the DREAM Act and the way it did in stripping away the work requirement in a reform of welfare.”
“So all of these things happened unilaterally. A lot of them, I think, are actually illegal and unconstitutional. But even if they are constitutional, they are incredibly destructive of small business.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/krauthammer-slams-obama-for-illegal-and-unconstitutional-regulatory-overreach/#ixzz2GGdg9OlB
The question that I have is why? One would think he would want more revenue coming into Washington that he could spend on his friends and voter base. But with all of these new regulations, jobs will not be created as businesses will hunker down for the next four years to avoid all the increased cost to comply.
Charles Krauthammer on Over Regulation on Small Business
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/krauthammer-slams-obama-for-illegal-and-unconstitutional-regulatory-overreach/#ooid=11dm52NzpRQV3HqgQX-XYqldaOOcqYRg
During Wednesday’s broadcast of “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer criticized the Obama administration for something even President Barack Obama has admitted could be an obstacle to economic growth: the expansion of regulation through executive fiat
.As the number of regulations from the federal government is continuously expanding, the comment period for regulations has been shortened from 60 days to 45 days, a move that Krauthammer said overwhelms small businesses
.“At so many levels, this is a problem,” Krauthammer replied. “First of all [is] the volume, as you indicate, which is sort of overwhelming. If you are a small business
, you have no idea what’s going to happen with your health care costs, your taxes, and all the other regulations. The second is the sort of intrusiveness of all of this, and the fact that it really hurts small business who don’t have the lawyers and the accountants, and the sharp — the former legislators who can work your way around the regulations.”“Then you’ve got the lack of being open about it. The administration has this short comment period, where you are supposed to have 60 days, by executive order, and you’re not getting it. Which means essentially, the executive runs this.”
Krauthammer also commented on the legality of the regulatory environment
, one of which he said reflected an “arrogance.”“And lastly, you get the arrogance of it,” he continued, “the administration essentially enacting legislation on its own through regulation, the way it did the DREAM Act and the way it did in stripping away the work requirement in a reform of welfare.”
“So all of these things happened unilaterally. A lot of them, I think, are actually illegal and unconstitutional. But even if they are constitutional, they are incredibly destructive of small business.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/krauthammer-slams-obama-for-illegal-and-unconstitutional-regulatory-overreach/#ixzz2GGdg9OlB
Hillary Clinton Missing? In Hiding? Not New Stuff
Isn't this strange. History repeating itself? Just when we need her the most, she takes a hike back into the shadows; remember this is where she has been for the last four years.
When one stops and gives this some thought, what exactly has she done for the last four years? What crisis has she defused or what proclamations has she made to change the world? All I can remember of her exploits is pictures of her smiling and shaking hands with some statesman or underling.
Truly, Hillary slipping between one catastrophic event and another this is not all that strange in that it's just more politics from the progressive socialists Democrats. That four our citizens died, were murdered, and that she and Mr Obama had direct access to information that could have saved them isn't important. What's important is making sure none of this can be linked to Mrs Clinton.
Just to jog your memory a little, remember Vincent Foster and the Clintons? To go one step further, the Clintons had more then 22 lawless episodes during their tenure at the White House. That she is linked to complete negligence now is no big deal. After all, we're taking about the Clintons and progressive liberal socialists Democrats.
If it weren't for total lawlessness and complete moral degradation, we wouldn' be having this conversation.
Where IS Hillary?
DANIEL HALPER
On December 15, the day after the day after the shooting at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, State Department officials notified the press that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had fallen ill. "While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion," deputy assistant secretary Philippe Reines said in a statement to the press.
Since then, Clinton does not appear to have been sighted in public.
On December 19, Clinton missed the State Department holiday party. “I was going to congratulate her on her record-breaking travel,” President Obama said, noting her absence. “These are not frequent-flyer miles,” he joked. “She is tireless and extraordinary.”
On the same day as her office announced her illness, they also put out word that Clinton would be missing the Benghazi hearing scheduled for December 20 on Capitol Hill. Indeed, she did miss that hearing, and another one has not yet been scheduled.
And on December 21, Clinton missed President Obama's announcement that John Kerry would be nominated as the next secretary of state. "Hillary wanted very much to be here today, but she continues to recuperate. I had a chance to talk to her earlier today, and she is in good spirits and could not be more excited about the announcement that I’m making," Obama said at that event, again noting Clinton's absence.
Clinton's last trip, to the Czech Republic, Belgium, Ireland, and Northern Ireland, returned December 7.
When one stops and gives this some thought, what exactly has she done for the last four years? What crisis has she defused or what proclamations has she made to change the world? All I can remember of her exploits is pictures of her smiling and shaking hands with some statesman or underling.
Truly, Hillary slipping between one catastrophic event and another this is not all that strange in that it's just more politics from the progressive socialists Democrats. That four our citizens died, were murdered, and that she and Mr Obama had direct access to information that could have saved them isn't important. What's important is making sure none of this can be linked to Mrs Clinton.
Just to jog your memory a little, remember Vincent Foster and the Clintons? To go one step further, the Clintons had more then 22 lawless episodes during their tenure at the White House. That she is linked to complete negligence now is no big deal. After all, we're taking about the Clintons and progressive liberal socialists Democrats.
If it weren't for total lawlessness and complete moral degradation, we wouldn' be having this conversation.
Where IS Hillary?
DANIEL HALPER
On December 15, the day after the day after the shooting at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, State Department officials notified the press that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had fallen ill. "While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion," deputy assistant secretary Philippe Reines said in a statement to the press.
Since then, Clinton does not appear to have been sighted in public.
On December 19, Clinton missed the State Department holiday party. “I was going to congratulate her on her record-breaking travel,” President Obama said, noting her absence. “These are not frequent-flyer miles,” he joked. “She is tireless and extraordinary.”
On the same day as her office announced her illness, they also put out word that Clinton would be missing the Benghazi hearing scheduled for December 20 on Capitol Hill. Indeed, she did miss that hearing, and another one has not yet been scheduled.
And on December 21, Clinton missed President Obama's announcement that John Kerry would be nominated as the next secretary of state. "Hillary wanted very much to be here today, but she continues to recuperate. I had a chance to talk to her earlier today, and she is in good spirits and could not be more excited about the announcement that I’m making," Obama said at that event, again noting Clinton's absence.
Clinton's last trip, to the Czech Republic, Belgium, Ireland, and Northern Ireland, returned December 7.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Obama On A Roll : 4 More Years of Irresponsibility
Wind Power Is Always A Loser : Taxpayers Always Pay
This is just one more instance where the federal government has failed. This subject has been discussed over and over but the result is always the same, wind energy is a loser costing states and taxpayers billions for little or no realistic return.
By PHIL GRAMM
Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.
In addition, wind power benefits from federal mandates requiring the use of renewable energy by federal agencies along with preferential treatment by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Many states provide additional tax breaks, subsidies and mandates for wind power. The total value of these additional subsidies has never been calculated.
But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow.
Middle East On Fire - America In Decline : Why?
The irony of all this posturing by the progressive socialists on the Middle East moving to Democracy is just wishful thinking. The progressives believe all they have to do is give lip service to a situation and that's all that is needed to change outcomes. Really?
Has the media asked Mr Obama how his strategy has worked in Lydia, Syria or Egypt? For that matter how is siding with the tyrants in Iran against the uprising of the people brought about any kind of Democracy. By his refusal to support the people in the street demonstrating for freedom in Iran, in which one woman died, he assured the continued power of a mass killers that are now threatening the entire Middle East and the world with nuclear weapons.
Whose fault is it that we are in this situation of half of the world on fire and our own country in decline? That easy, Barack Obama and the progressive socialist left Democrats. Who voted for this nightmare? Who are these people and where do they live?
Middle East Democracy
Walter E. Williams
Here's the first paragraph of my last year's column "Democracy Is Impossible":
"After Moammar Gadhafi's downfall as Libya's tyrannical ruler, politicians and 'experts' in the U.S. and elsewhere, including French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, are saying that his death marked the end of 42 years of tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Libya. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Gadhafi's death represented an opportunity for Libya to make a peaceful and responsible transition to democracy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, 'Now it is time for Libya's Transitional National Council to show the world that it will respect the rights of all Libyans (and) guide the nation to democracy.' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that 'Libya must now quickly make further determined steps in the direction of democracy.'"
It's good to have hope, but if we're going to be realistic, there's little chance for Middle East emergence of what we in the West call democracy.
Almost a year ago, both Egyptians and Westerners welcomed and celebrated the downfall of three decades of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak's tyrannical rule. It was called an "Arab Spring." A year later, Egyptians are once again taking to the streets, this time protesting the tyrannical acts of President Mohamed Morsi, who represents the vision and ideological orientation of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal has always been to impose Shariah law. Egyptian tyranny hasn't been eliminated; its form has changed.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship is now being challenged by a hodgepodge of armed resistance groups nominally united as the Free Syrian Army. Speaking for our nation, last year President Obama said, "The United States has been inspired by the Syrian peoples' pursuit of a peaceful transition to democracy. They have braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government." Is al-Assad's downfall in any way more likely to produce democracy than Gadhafi's downfall or Mubarak's downfall? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is optimistic in saying the rebel protest shows "the strong desire of the Syrian people ... for a Syria that is democratic, just and inclusive."
Has the media asked Mr Obama how his strategy has worked in Lydia, Syria or Egypt? For that matter how is siding with the tyrants in Iran against the uprising of the people brought about any kind of Democracy. By his refusal to support the people in the street demonstrating for freedom in Iran, in which one woman died, he assured the continued power of a mass killers that are now threatening the entire Middle East and the world with nuclear weapons.
Whose fault is it that we are in this situation of half of the world on fire and our own country in decline? That easy, Barack Obama and the progressive socialist left Democrats. Who voted for this nightmare? Who are these people and where do they live?
Middle East Democracy
Walter E. Williams
Here's the first paragraph of my last year's column "Democracy Is Impossible":
"After Moammar Gadhafi's downfall as Libya's tyrannical ruler, politicians and 'experts' in the U.S. and elsewhere, including French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, are saying that his death marked the end of 42 years of tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Libya. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Gadhafi's death represented an opportunity for Libya to make a peaceful and responsible transition to democracy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, 'Now it is time for Libya's Transitional National Council to show the world that it will respect the rights of all Libyans (and) guide the nation to democracy.' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that 'Libya must now quickly make further determined steps in the direction of democracy.'"
It's good to have hope, but if we're going to be realistic, there's little chance for Middle East emergence of what we in the West call democracy.
Almost a year ago, both Egyptians and Westerners welcomed and celebrated the downfall of three decades of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak's tyrannical rule. It was called an "Arab Spring." A year later, Egyptians are once again taking to the streets, this time protesting the tyrannical acts of President Mohamed Morsi, who represents the vision and ideological orientation of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal has always been to impose Shariah law. Egyptian tyranny hasn't been eliminated; its form has changed.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship is now being challenged by a hodgepodge of armed resistance groups nominally united as the Free Syrian Army. Speaking for our nation, last year President Obama said, "The United States has been inspired by the Syrian peoples' pursuit of a peaceful transition to democracy. They have braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government." Is al-Assad's downfall in any way more likely to produce democracy than Gadhafi's downfall or Mubarak's downfall? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is optimistic in saying the rebel protest shows "the strong desire of the Syrian people ... for a Syria that is democratic, just and inclusive."
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Benghazi : Who's Responsible? Obama? Clinton? Both!
Give this some thought - and then try and decide what is going on in our government. Who is in charge and who has to take ultimate responsibility for all things government. Is it Obama and Clinton? Were they in charge on 9/11 or off that day?
Did the press let Bush off the hook for everything that went wrong? Hey, the press attacked Bush for even the things that went right.
MCCAIN, GRAHAM AND AYOTTE: Critical questions still unanswered on Benghazi - Washington Times
With U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s withdrawal from consideration for the position of secretary of state, some have assumed that Congress will now be less insistent on a full accounting of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
This is wrong, for one simple reason: The president of the United States is ultimately responsible for the safety of Americans serving our nation overseas. Regardless of whom the president nominates for national security positions in his administration, the American people deserve to know what happened three months ago in Benghazi - and why.
The release this week of the State Department's Accountability Review Board (ARB) shows widespread failure within Mr. Obama’s administration.
Contrary to Mrs. Rice’s assertion after the attack, the ARB found that security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “grossly inadequate” - the result of “systemic failures” of leadership and management. The report thoroughly discredits the administration’s narrative - pushed for two weeks after the attack - that the murder of four Americans was a result of a “spontaneous” protest to an offensive video.
While the ARB report sheds important light on some of the failings within the State Department, many important questions still remain unanswered, including:
Did the president’s national security staff make him aware of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that occurred in April and June of this year and the assassination attempt on the British ambassador in Benghazi around the same time? If the president was informed, why did he not take the lead, which is the president’s responsibility, to ensure that our consulate and our people were better protected?
What were the president’s and the secretary of state’s activities during the 7-hour time period that our consulate was under attack?
When did Secretary Hillary Clinton become aware of the previous attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and the deteriorating security situation in eastern Libya, and what steps did she take to protect State Department officials in Benghazi?
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history, after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests in Libya, and with rising insecurity in countries across the Middle East, why were American military units and assets in the region not ready, alert and positioned to respond in a timely fashion to what should have been a foreseeable emergency? After all, two of the four people we lost in the Benghazi attack were killed seven hours after the fighting began.
Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on Sept. 12 - eyewitnesses who knew there never was a demonstration outside the consulate - not immediately factored in to the judgments of our intelligence community? Does this failure reflect obstacles that still exist to the free sharing of information across executive branch agencies, which was a key concern of the 9/11 Commission?
Why do we still not have clear answers on the internal process that produced inaccurate talking points several days after the attack?
Perhaps most importantly: Why did the administration not do more to support and assist the new Libyan government that took power after the fall of Qaddafi as al-Qaeda, affiliated groups and local militias established sanctuaries in the ungoverned spaces of eastern Libya - a development that directly impacts U.S. national security interests, and which is the real explanation for why four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi?
This last is perhaps the most troubling question of all. The pattern of violent extremist activity in eastern Libya was well documented for months leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012, yet the administration did too little to support our Libyan partners. These partners were grateful for America’s help in their fight for liberation. They elected a pro-American government in July, and they sought greater U.S. assistance to treat their war wounded, train their national security forces, secure their borders, build their democratic institutions and expand the rule of law. Libyans do not want al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists and militias running amok in large parts of their country. Sadly, that is the reality they now face. This is the broader failure of the administration’s “light footprint” approach toward Libya.
Until answers are provided to the questions that still remain, we will continue to demand them, and the lessons that should be learned from them, to better protect our citizens in a dangerous world.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/22/critical-questions-still-unanswered-on-benghazi/#ixzz2G4hqBL7u
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Did the press let Bush off the hook for everything that went wrong? Hey, the press attacked Bush for even the things that went right.
MCCAIN, GRAHAM AND AYOTTE: Critical questions still unanswered on Benghazi - Washington Times
With U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s withdrawal from consideration for the position of secretary of state, some have assumed that Congress will now be less insistent on a full accounting of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
This is wrong, for one simple reason: The president of the United States is ultimately responsible for the safety of Americans serving our nation overseas. Regardless of whom the president nominates for national security positions in his administration, the American people deserve to know what happened three months ago in Benghazi - and why.
The release this week of the State Department's Accountability Review Board (ARB) shows widespread failure within Mr. Obama’s administration.
Contrary to Mrs. Rice’s assertion after the attack, the ARB found that security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “grossly inadequate” - the result of “systemic failures” of leadership and management. The report thoroughly discredits the administration’s narrative - pushed for two weeks after the attack - that the murder of four Americans was a result of a “spontaneous” protest to an offensive video.
While the ARB report sheds important light on some of the failings within the State Department, many important questions still remain unanswered, including:
Did the president’s national security staff make him aware of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that occurred in April and June of this year and the assassination attempt on the British ambassador in Benghazi around the same time? If the president was informed, why did he not take the lead, which is the president’s responsibility, to ensure that our consulate and our people were better protected?
What were the president’s and the secretary of state’s activities during the 7-hour time period that our consulate was under attack?
When did Secretary Hillary Clinton become aware of the previous attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and the deteriorating security situation in eastern Libya, and what steps did she take to protect State Department officials in Benghazi?
On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history, after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests in Libya, and with rising insecurity in countries across the Middle East, why were American military units and assets in the region not ready, alert and positioned to respond in a timely fashion to what should have been a foreseeable emergency? After all, two of the four people we lost in the Benghazi attack were killed seven hours after the fighting began.
Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on Sept. 12 - eyewitnesses who knew there never was a demonstration outside the consulate - not immediately factored in to the judgments of our intelligence community? Does this failure reflect obstacles that still exist to the free sharing of information across executive branch agencies, which was a key concern of the 9/11 Commission?
Why do we still not have clear answers on the internal process that produced inaccurate talking points several days after the attack?
Perhaps most importantly: Why did the administration not do more to support and assist the new Libyan government that took power after the fall of Qaddafi as al-Qaeda, affiliated groups and local militias established sanctuaries in the ungoverned spaces of eastern Libya - a development that directly impacts U.S. national security interests, and which is the real explanation for why four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi?
This last is perhaps the most troubling question of all. The pattern of violent extremist activity in eastern Libya was well documented for months leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2012, yet the administration did too little to support our Libyan partners. These partners were grateful for America’s help in their fight for liberation. They elected a pro-American government in July, and they sought greater U.S. assistance to treat their war wounded, train their national security forces, secure their borders, build their democratic institutions and expand the rule of law. Libyans do not want al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists and militias running amok in large parts of their country. Sadly, that is the reality they now face. This is the broader failure of the administration’s “light footprint” approach toward Libya.
Until answers are provided to the questions that still remain, we will continue to demand them, and the lessons that should be learned from them, to better protect our citizens in a dangerous world.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/22/critical-questions-still-unanswered-on-benghazi/#ixzz2G4hqBL7u
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Monday, December 24, 2012
Progressive's Agenda to Disarm Citizens : Step One
I believe to ignore your enemy is to accept defeat as a way of life. An armed population is a direct threat to the progressive socialist that seeks to bring the entire population under the control by disarming them and then by creating economic conditions that forces them into dependency.
To believe the progressive socialist wants what's best for all of us is a fatal error in thinking. In the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, to believe the progressive socialism will make us prosperous and safe is "a willing suspension of disbelief".
Firearms Refresher Course
| ||||
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s2PnoRYPy1Tc5FbdPBY_SI7nRkhB-GEYiQ5s53FMgofiL08K-FcrTpeD2pznV0WyIKVUhGEyWy8QJDtge8_olwE9bWhqH5PSY8IFV8hfSuscyh0ylJjLpkawJ9PLjr12dEJIZuZKtqeBYbp4tIN08j3aIN7Rtq0MmLGKief1FptcEoR3_djYPfIQ5q7zQCCA-iv5zgLA-grHb6a0JjHom52pIc0FN_odCiO40dgw=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tK2Hocq3Gl8KPMB3UcrLGS6EO71rutOn-_GsjkbW4lC_g6uG4rVYr5_ApCG70PFI0zcugr17SX-o4pF7HL5O3llOUkhrqSS_m7I1WV3LiaVgPHGpmmWISlHUteMv70-NhbaWqfRPphntdAaiICeUQd4ljFe6R86bbdvHhUZKLhUfMl0KiqtH78CX0EYOpTZkerYZ1APEiPAq31K2ufg2htwq7nib-wwpYH5TtzVg=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sgp1iJTmsyYW1rLZH_OORy592oHEEbAqPKjSo4ZeQqhyAvRLtd424IIG6R-GW0ntSzK7Wj8JbMy9NpotPOumZOd1xYPggVKBS3RXT7dIT3yCmw4HN6PLvWvtQ952FfLlOwGG9fToSouxNm83V04og9Gwnsbu2W9YkwEe1AHTGKwSWgMYAtVk7o7RdVjLrWI-LJ0UakythgMCvPUT8GSt6I9NwDfKDTilGBGRVmOg=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tTYVLfg-8BQOyHCnatiRK8NrOe-4K97L6jMyFQ44F7GBy19lG3Gntk0I5UnnxvF8soVr49Au0DZOhFF8lN-tuaxCXq76eD-WWnufIu3_MUs2sFAV038VOwp1rT0MgBfmEyMUuR3L7F1nq2EGL5yDJntNlfNL5lVhEKsZJGZBHL-GTWZlYsYKisuNfIXuZQUoAdW8h_LvC3Kr6Uk1UAAklM8iLQ1xYVVrLAdEY_Dw=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u8CnniLgghPqQtsZzHCSQiv8aifDBau_hFYRJ-JIejnlLyJWGIV7blJULpO7w4HCj7U_24aPLKAmGROIBhgjZC3p2YM712CWN_sju6QvO6x_93VZLeD22Vd6-WjF5MlEKu9PTlAOxv0Rt82TvsrQGJd-SxyeLj_7TSKdX-t-g1O_aQEDZUY1rH_a4culGwBYE8Uzthoe78yLEdeRmRDKZ2IA4NJdq7BxRp4CAgbw=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uIhdZmcHqF9Z8hReM2K34OTyQblhLD5V369LGoxvnkYtB7B9NcQLzJhF4Iy5gK49t7j_in0W65W4aYO3GQol_PswovgDKpjgVVNmMskpkSyYsCRBouWW8-_JcPOlZWXUw1IHzXEFsY7sfYFdnI0BPQskD_YFx_c-uiW4RImpPPCGkaI7gYlkKb84OhYhgfj_tgXwRmhubDGRjjgsWb9HIKRm25bkScm3kE917N0w=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tkmr6ykRoBsBDnbIkWAODLgGwhBFUfoy8dWp7zTDhnSoNPt5aVME4RJPoA5bmmshJr5fJpseXv1P9kUwDkm3nexJWbz8ScWMeu3RJyCuNnuMWJYhZ5EPDKMYzLvS8AsC1TVPnSRbCTAZ5dc9lKYOGD6mxsXNzhA7F8yyvVAhIOSPEvnSXAM5VPQq0W83-FIYr1WGkfRtAWAPEz9Debk1k3bXulCBZcXzR4lDFpWA=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sDTQlA8vWsY_pqQIS0565R5mCeFXMt_6FkImZH33g3KzZF8pe7gTYVFkOrAxTSWkNu6c0lnO9o6dSlRzPA1ZYSrSFO1qauOJPXKVubyFcij93Ohh5vuIVC6fZcvBsizj9ar6R_0FlUbWpgc038xQFLwZuvg0g250yoraU93vXCpeYDly71IQa5oDAyE8Jo8jvYzGgZKeZjGFIfhrPQEbdP1oSGv0nR3mkuoQxahQ=s0-d)
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_shMn2eTT0TJfIwM0F1DiD4wEtKDlr8-P4FDCFzt9dzKZHTfxNqaarcNolCiV3yIoCqr0aT5ue7US3-xTxPDBO91X8rYhYH5T8Div-gYWlmgtboUn0_3zJ1eSieVijXtvLqHOEyxccgzxKwoHUVZZetEh0L4Oj3d-AQDFeP5r8hvfZAV7WJ0iXdVANMDEC21zvV6wWAiEM5BArwHv2bDyYVgeU-n_FcpB4IOov1Jqk=s0-d)
Sunday, December 23, 2012
North Korea Has an EMP Device? Now?
North Korea and Iran will determine our future? It seems this is a possibility but at the same time our own president if helping to ensure we do not survive by deciding we are the problem in the world and must be punished. Interesting stuff to ponder.
The question remains, who voted for Mr Obama, given what he has done in the last four years and what he said he wants to do in the next four, and why would any think things will be different?
But the 'low information' voter or the progressive socialist liberal always has the fall back position, 'that dam Bush, it was worse then we thought'.
But the 'low information' voter or the progressive socialist liberal always has the fall back position, 'that dam Bush, it was worse then we thought'.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
In fact, North Korea is a mortal nuclear threat to the United States — right now.
North Korea has already successfully tested and developed nuclear weapons. It has also already miniaturized nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery and has armed missiles with nuclear warheads. In 2011, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. General Ronald Burgess, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that North Korea has weaponized its nuclear devices into warheads for ballistic missiles.
North Korea has labored for years and starved its people so it could develop an intercontinental missile capable of reaching the United States . Why? Because they have a special kind of nuclear weapon that could destroy the United States with a single blow.
In summer 2004, a delegation of Russian generals warned the Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission that secrets had leaked to North Korea for a decisive new nuclear weapon — a Super-EMP warhead.
Any nuclear weapon detonated above an altitude of 30 kilometers will generate an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy electronics and could collapse the electric power grid and other critical infrastructures — communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water — that sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans. All could be destroyed by a single nuclear weapon making an EMP attack.
A Super-EMP attack on the United States would cause much more and much deeper damage than a primitive nuclear weapon, and so would increase confidence that the catastrophic consequences will be irreversible. Such an attack would inflict maximum damage and be optimum for realizing a world without America .
Both North Korean nuclear tests look suspiciously like a Super-EMP weapon. A Super-EMP warhead would have a low yield, like the North Korean device, because it is not designed to create a big explosion, but to convert its energy into gamma rays, that generate the EMP effect. Reportedly South Korean military intelligence concluded, independent of the EMP Commission, that Russian scientists are in North Korea helping develop a Super-EMP warhead. In 2012, a military commentator for the People’s Republic of China stated that North Korea has Super-EMP nuclear warheads.
A Super-EMP warhead would not weigh much, and could probably be delivered by North Korea’s ICBM. The missile does not have to be accurate, as the EMP field is so large that detonating anywhere over the United States would have catastrophic consequences. The warhead does not even need a re-entry vehicle, as an EMP attack entails detonating the warhead at high-altitude, above the atmosphere.
So, as of Dec. 12, North Korea’s successful orbit of a satellite demonstrates its ability to make an EMP attack against the United States — right now.
The Congressional EMP Commission estimates that, given the nation’s current unpreparedness, within one year of an EMP attack, two-thirds of the U.S. population — 200 million Americans — would probably perish from starvation, disease and societal collapse.
Thus, North Korea now has an Assured Destruction capability against the United States . The consequences of this development are so extremely grave that U.S. and global security have, in effect, gone over the “strategic cliff” into free-fall. Where we will land, into what kind of future, is as yet unknown.
Nevertheless, some very bad developments are foreseeable. Iran will certainly be inspired by North Korea’s example to persist in the development of its own nuclear weapon and ICBM programs to pose a mortal threat to the United States . Indeed, North Korea and Iran have been collaborating all along.
If North Korea and Iran both acquire the capability to threaten America with EMP genocide, this will destroy the foundations of the existing world order, which has since 1945 halted the cycle of world wars and sustained the global advancement of freedom. North Korea and Iran being armed with Assured Destruction capability changes the whole strategic calculus of risk for the United States in upholding its superpower role, and will erode the confidence of U.S. allies — perhaps to the point where they will need to develop their own nuclear weapons.
Story Continues →
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/19/north-korea-emp-attack-could-destroy-us-now/#ixzz2FsZfmOhy
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Friday, December 21, 2012
Liberal Progressive Democrats Use Race As A Tool
That progressive socialist liberal Democrats are obsessed with race is nothing new, it's just that now the liberal insanity has come out of the shadows into the light with renewed vigor and vitriol. It appears that they are totally unhinged as they spew the hate for black people that they supposed proclaim to support.
The liberal support goes only so far, that is as a voter block, but beyond that blacks are just a tool to win election.
The sad part is this has gone on for decades but black people can't seem to see how this has degraded them. They voted over whelmingly for Obama, 93%, even thought Mr Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to help black people - ever!
Liberal Obsession with Race is Growing Old
Jonah Goldberg
When will liberals stop living in the past? Specifically, when will they accept that they aren't all that stands between a wonderful, tolerant America and Jim Crow?
I was in the room when, during the Democratic convention, civil rights hero John Lewis suggested that Republicans wanted to "go back" to the days when black men like him could be beaten in the street by the enforcers of Jim Crow. I thought it an outrageous and disgusting bit of demagoguery. The audience of Democratic delegates cheered in a riot of self-congratulation.
It's bizarre. I spend most of my time talking or listening to fellow conservatives, and I never hear anybody talk about wanting anything of the sort. But to listen to liberals, that's all we care about.
Toward the end of the presidential campaign, various liberal pundits -- a great many of them born after the signing of the Civil Rights Act -- thought it a brilliant and damning indictment to note that Mitt Romney ran strong in states that once comprised the Confederacy. When Barack Obama won, Jon Stewart conceded that at least Romney won "most of the Confederacy."
These states committed the obvious sin of voting Republican while the president was black.
Just this week, in an essay for the New York Times, Adolph Reed attacked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley -- the first female Indian American governor in America -- for appointing Rep. Tim Scott to retiring Sen. Jim DeMint's seat. Scott is a black man and a conservative Tea Party favorite.
So obviously, this is a very clever ploy to restore Jim Crow.
"Just as white Southern Democrats once used cynical manipulations -- poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests -- to get around the 15th Amendment," Reed writes, "so modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests."
That's it exactly. Indeed, that's what the Tea Party was always about: undermining black interests.
When Herman Cain -- another inconveniently black man -- was the overwhelming preference among Tea Party activists for the Republican presidential nomination, a historian writing in The New York Times suggested that Cain could be seen as proof the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan lives on.
You know you've been pounding a square peg into a round hole for too long when you find yourself insinuating that a black man from Georgia represents the KKK tradition in contemporary politics.
More recently, liberal writers apparently convinced themselves that Republican opposition to Susan Rice becoming the next secretary of state was payback for the Emancipation or something. http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2012/12/21/liberal-obsession-with-race-is-growing-old-n1471873/page/full/
The liberal support goes only so far, that is as a voter block, but beyond that blacks are just a tool to win election.
The sad part is this has gone on for decades but black people can't seem to see how this has degraded them. They voted over whelmingly for Obama, 93%, even thought Mr Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to help black people - ever!
Liberal Obsession with Race is Growing Old
Jonah Goldberg
When will liberals stop living in the past? Specifically, when will they accept that they aren't all that stands between a wonderful, tolerant America and Jim Crow?
I was in the room when, during the Democratic convention, civil rights hero John Lewis suggested that Republicans wanted to "go back" to the days when black men like him could be beaten in the street by the enforcers of Jim Crow. I thought it an outrageous and disgusting bit of demagoguery. The audience of Democratic delegates cheered in a riot of self-congratulation.
It's bizarre. I spend most of my time talking or listening to fellow conservatives, and I never hear anybody talk about wanting anything of the sort. But to listen to liberals, that's all we care about.
Toward the end of the presidential campaign, various liberal pundits -- a great many of them born after the signing of the Civil Rights Act -- thought it a brilliant and damning indictment to note that Mitt Romney ran strong in states that once comprised the Confederacy. When Barack Obama won, Jon Stewart conceded that at least Romney won "most of the Confederacy."
These states committed the obvious sin of voting Republican while the president was black.
Just this week, in an essay for the New York Times, Adolph Reed attacked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley -- the first female Indian American governor in America -- for appointing Rep. Tim Scott to retiring Sen. Jim DeMint's seat. Scott is a black man and a conservative Tea Party favorite.
So obviously, this is a very clever ploy to restore Jim Crow.
"Just as white Southern Democrats once used cynical manipulations -- poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests -- to get around the 15th Amendment," Reed writes, "so modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests."
That's it exactly. Indeed, that's what the Tea Party was always about: undermining black interests.
When Herman Cain -- another inconveniently black man -- was the overwhelming preference among Tea Party activists for the Republican presidential nomination, a historian writing in The New York Times suggested that Cain could be seen as proof the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan lives on.
You know you've been pounding a square peg into a round hole for too long when you find yourself insinuating that a black man from Georgia represents the KKK tradition in contemporary politics.
More recently, liberal writers apparently convinced themselves that Republican opposition to Susan Rice becoming the next secretary of state was payback for the Emancipation or something. http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2012/12/21/liberal-obsession-with-race-is-growing-old-n1471873/page/full/
Krauthammer On Obama : Self Righteous & Narcissistic
I can't add much to this from Krauthammer on how it seems the president is becoming more and more unhinged after what he thinks was a landslide in his reelection.
If this disability continues to get worse so even those sitting in the front pew in the church of Obamaism can see and understand that their man has gone over the cliff with the country, Mr Obama will have to find a new strategy to win over the hearts and minds of the 'low information voter' as Time Magazine has characterized his winning strategy.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the president invoking the massacre of children to essential say the Republicans need to accept his terms of surrender in the negotiations is not just a non sequitur, I think it's sacrilege. And it's of a piece with the whole tone of his news conference and this is the way he conducts them generally, which is he is excessively self-righteous. He talks about the other side of being unprincipled, not interested in the national interest, slaves of ideology which he says makes no sense. And as you mention, invested in opposing him to the point they are willing to let the country suffer.
So it's a combination of self-righteousness and narcissism. It's just a very unpleasant tone and there is no reason he can't either avoid that or give some credit to the other side for sincerity in just seeing a different way to approach the crisis the country has. I think that would be respectful but it's a lot to ask of Obama and he never delivers on that.
If this disability continues to get worse so even those sitting in the front pew in the church of Obamaism can see and understand that their man has gone over the cliff with the country, Mr Obama will have to find a new strategy to win over the hearts and minds of the 'low information voter' as Time Magazine has characterized his winning strategy.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the president invoking the massacre of children to essential say the Republicans need to accept his terms of surrender in the negotiations is not just a non sequitur, I think it's sacrilege. And it's of a piece with the whole tone of his news conference and this is the way he conducts them generally, which is he is excessively self-righteous. He talks about the other side of being unprincipled, not interested in the national interest, slaves of ideology which he says makes no sense. And as you mention, invested in opposing him to the point they are willing to let the country suffer.
So it's a combination of self-righteousness and narcissism. It's just a very unpleasant tone and there is no reason he can't either avoid that or give some credit to the other side for sincerity in just seeing a different way to approach the crisis the country has. I think that would be respectful but it's a lot to ask of Obama and he never delivers on that.
This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Progressive Obama Sells General Motors Stock : Taxpayers Lose Again
We knew this from the very beginning when Obama said the General Motors union would get the lions share of the stock and the bond holders got virtually nothing. Now the Obama administration has been reelected so he has decided to give the finger to the citizens who will have to take the loss of the sale of stock.
This is just one thing that makes the citizen wonder why they voted for four more years of a progressive socialist liberal Democrat. Who are the people that voted for him and why?
How Much Did We Lose On Auto Bailout?
You may recall that during the presidential election, the Treasury Department refused requests by General Motors to unload the government's stake in the giant automaker.
Taxpayers had sunk $50 billion into a union bailout in 2009 and were now proud owners of 26.5 percent of the struggling company. Reportedly, GM had growing concerns that the stigma of "Government Motors" was hurting sales in the United States. At the time, any transaction would have come at a steep loss to taxpayers and undermined the president's questionable campaign assertions that the auto union rescue had been a huge success.
Well, now that the election is over and the Treasury Department is freed of political considerations, it plans to sell its 500 million shares of stock over the next 12 to 15 months and ease its way out of the company. GM will buy around 200 million shares at $27.50 per share by the end of the year. GM's buy brings taxpayers back to around $5.5 billion of the $27 billion the company still owes. The special inspector general for TARP estimated in October that the Treasury would need to sell the remaining 500 million shares at $53.98 per share just to break even on its investment.
Once GM buys its 200 million shares, the taxpayer stake in the company will drop to 19 percent, but the price to break even on the remaining 300 million shares will be around $70 per -- or, in other words, probably never. As of this writing, GM shares are trading at around $27 per share. That, in the Obama era, is considered a successful transaction between the state and private industry. So successful that you'll also remember that during the campaign, Obama maintained that "what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America."
Taxpayer funds and unions for everyone.
Even if taxpayers recouped all of their money from the bailout, there are a slew of economic arguments against rescuing failing industries. But the more immediate problem is that we will never get our money back, anyway.
GM's labor costs, estimated at $56 an hour, still are higher than any of its competitors. Since the Obama administration cajoled the normal bankruptcy hearings and eradicated the pensions of nonunion workers to ensure union success, employees, like the ones at Delphi, the auto parts manufacturer and one-time GM subsidiary, took it on the chin while $26 billion of taxpayer funds were used to keep United Auto Workers in a secure position.
The Treasury Department has just revised its estimate upward to $25 billion in losses, and it will probably be more than that when it's all said and done. Taxpayers also suffered a $2.9 billion loss in Chrysler (the carmaker had received $12.5 billion through TARP programs) in 2011.
"This announcement is an important step in bringing closure to the successful auto industry rescue, it further removes the perception of government ownership of GM among customers, and it demonstrates confidence in GM's progress and our future," claimed GM Chairman and Chief Executive Dan Akerson in a press release. But really, the bailout exemplifies much of what's wrong with government. The cronyism. Wasted taxpayer money. The government's propensity to interfere with the marketplace and prop up losing propositions.
With news of the government getting out of the car business, we'll probably see a spike in the stock price. Maybe once Obama has completely dropped our "investment" it'll take off. But a success for taxpayers? Hardly.
This is just one thing that makes the citizen wonder why they voted for four more years of a progressive socialist liberal Democrat. Who are the people that voted for him and why?
How Much Did We Lose On Auto Bailout?
You may recall that during the presidential election, the Treasury Department refused requests by General Motors to unload the government's stake in the giant automaker.
Taxpayers had sunk $50 billion into a union bailout in 2009 and were now proud owners of 26.5 percent of the struggling company. Reportedly, GM had growing concerns that the stigma of "Government Motors" was hurting sales in the United States. At the time, any transaction would have come at a steep loss to taxpayers and undermined the president's questionable campaign assertions that the auto union rescue had been a huge success.
Once GM buys its 200 million shares, the taxpayer stake in the company will drop to 19 percent, but the price to break even on the remaining 300 million shares will be around $70 per -- or, in other words, probably never. As of this writing, GM shares are trading at around $27 per share. That, in the Obama era, is considered a successful transaction between the state and private industry. So successful that you'll also remember that during the campaign, Obama maintained that "what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America."
Taxpayer funds and unions for everyone.
Even if taxpayers recouped all of their money from the bailout, there are a slew of economic arguments against rescuing failing industries. But the more immediate problem is that we will never get our money back, anyway.
GM's labor costs, estimated at $56 an hour, still are higher than any of its competitors. Since the Obama administration cajoled the normal bankruptcy hearings and eradicated the pensions of nonunion workers to ensure union success, employees, like the ones at Delphi, the auto parts manufacturer and one-time GM subsidiary, took it on the chin while $26 billion of taxpayer funds were used to keep United Auto Workers in a secure position.
The Treasury Department has just revised its estimate upward to $25 billion in losses, and it will probably be more than that when it's all said and done. Taxpayers also suffered a $2.9 billion loss in Chrysler (the carmaker had received $12.5 billion through TARP programs) in 2011.
"This announcement is an important step in bringing closure to the successful auto industry rescue, it further removes the perception of government ownership of GM among customers, and it demonstrates confidence in GM's progress and our future," claimed GM Chairman and Chief Executive Dan Akerson in a press release. But really, the bailout exemplifies much of what's wrong with government. The cronyism. Wasted taxpayer money. The government's propensity to interfere with the marketplace and prop up losing propositions.
With news of the government getting out of the car business, we'll probably see a spike in the stock price. Maybe once Obama has completely dropped our "investment" it'll take off. But a success for taxpayers? Hardly.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Education in Chaos : Who Will Pay - Who Will Teach?
Education in the next four years will be a hot topic for the progressive socialists as this is the future of their movement. It's clear that most universities, and other institutions of higher learning, have already been co-opted into the liberal congregation, and many public schools systems now are dominated by progressive teachers unions bent on establishing a solid front to totally control who will teach the kids and what is taught.
Believe if parents don't become involved in how the public schools are run, the result will be a completely new breed of people that will take control of the seats of power for which we all will suffer. The evidence of this is taking place now in Washington.
What's Ahead for Education After Election of 2012
Source: Michael Q. McShane et al., "What's Ahead for Education after the 2012 Election," American Enterprise Institute, December 4, 2012.
December 18, 2012
Although education policy has seen much change and activity in the last four years, newly elected and veteran leaders will encounter three key trends following the 2012 election: the federal government's lack of K-12 funding now that the stimulus dollars of the last few years have dried up; a split in the Republican Party concerning education reform and statewide education reform initiatives; and the undaunted political power of teachers unions, which won several victories at the state level, say researchers with the American Enterprise Institute.
While the Obama administration's first term has focused on competitive grants and waivers, its second term will shift toward managing implementation and pushback while coping with staff shake-ups within the Department of Education.
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Congress will have to compete with other priorities, like the fiscal cliff, federal deficit and health care reform. State-level leaders will have to continue to navigate the ongoing influence of teachers unions and popular reform issues like charter schools. All of these changes add up to an uncertain outlook for education reform over the next four years.
Key points made by the authors:
Believe if parents don't become involved in how the public schools are run, the result will be a completely new breed of people that will take control of the seats of power for which we all will suffer. The evidence of this is taking place now in Washington.
What's Ahead for Education After Election of 2012
Source: Michael Q. McShane et al., "What's Ahead for Education after the 2012 Election," American Enterprise Institute, December 4, 2012.
December 18, 2012
Although education policy has seen much change and activity in the last four years, newly elected and veteran leaders will encounter three key trends following the 2012 election: the federal government's lack of K-12 funding now that the stimulus dollars of the last few years have dried up; a split in the Republican Party concerning education reform and statewide education reform initiatives; and the undaunted political power of teachers unions, which won several victories at the state level, say researchers with the American Enterprise Institute.
While the Obama administration's first term has focused on competitive grants and waivers, its second term will shift toward managing implementation and pushback while coping with staff shake-ups within the Department of Education.
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Congress will have to compete with other priorities, like the fiscal cliff, federal deficit and health care reform. State-level leaders will have to continue to navigate the ongoing influence of teachers unions and popular reform issues like charter schools. All of these changes add up to an uncertain outlook for education reform over the next four years.
Key points made by the authors:
- Following the 2012 election, the authors see three major trends in education reform: reduced federal funding for K-12, a growing divide over education reform within the GOP, and the staying power of teachers unions.
- The attention of the new Congress will likely be monopolized by economic issues and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, leaving it little time for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization or other significant education reforms.
- Issues surrounding ESEA waivers and higher education will likely be focal points at the federal level, with charter schooling, union and teacher evaluation issues dominating at the state level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
