Ben Stein goes for the throat on Obama's special interest package to the unions -
Very interesting - especially when Obama says there won't be any lobbyists allowed in his new crew - except for himself, of course.
Ben Stein: Half of Stimulus Goes to Unions
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Columnist Ben Stein has taken a close look at President Barack Obama's proposed $820 billion stimulus package, and made some eye-opening discoveries.
Writing for Spectator.com and NYPost.com, Stein calculates that:
The House of Representatives debated the bill for eight hours, or roughly $102 billion per hour.
Only 10 percent of the stimulus funds would be spent in 2009.
Almost half of the $820 billion would end up in the pockets of Democratic-controlled unions, such as the Service Employees International Union, and federal, state, and municipal employee unions.
At 680 pages long, neither Obama nor any member of the House had enough time to read the entire bill before the House voted.
The $820 billion would be enough to give every unemployed American $75,000.
Says Stein: "There has been pork-barrel politics since there has been politics, but the scale of this pork is beyond what had ever been imagined before -- and no one can be sure it will actually do much stimulation. ... This has been a punch in the solar plexus to the kind of responsible, far-seeing, mature government processes that are needed to protect America."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Daschle - Geithner - Richardson - Rangel ETC : Culture of Corruption
I think it will be almost impossible to fill the remaining slots in Obama's new "open and transparent" administration as it seems he can't find a Democrat that isn't a criminal. Even the ones that he has already appointed are suspect and some, Geithner, a tax cheat, is now part of the crew that will "save us" from our selves.
And what about Hillary? What a load of baggage she's beginning to the "fixers" administration. Bill Clinton? Do you think this guy won't have a hand in all this? Wait - what about Obama himself? His connection to ACORN, Bill Ayres, international terrorist, Tony Resco, Chicago criminal and all his other friends in his church and Chicago politics. Thugs - bigots - racists - tax cheats - avoid socialists - bag men - swindlers - influences peddlers - thieves - and even admitted terrorists. How can this be - worse - most people don't care - -
This has got to be a first for this country - the entire new administration's officials have a connection to some kind of criminal activity. But why would we think other wise, they are all liberal Democrats. I wonder why they couldn't find a spot for William Jefferson? Hey, Blogo has a great resume.
Keep the faith -
'Reformer' Daschle Had Big Paydays From Insurers
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Newsmax -
WASHINGTON – Tom Daschle collected nearly a quarter of a million dollars in fees in the last two years speaking to leaders of the industry President Barack Obama wants him to reform as the administration's health secretary.
That was just a portion of the more than $5.2 million the former South Dakota senator earned as he advised insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries — real estate, energy and telecommunications among them, according to a financial statement filed with the Office of Government Ethics.
Daschle's finances are drawing additional scrutiny because he failed to pay his taxes properly. Although he has made amends with the government, senators said Sunday they are awaiting guidance from the committee reviewing Daschle's nomination before deciding whether the tax problem could stall or even derail his confirmation.
Obama has said that no one in his administration who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can deal with the same subject matter. The president has already approved a few exceptions, one of them a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist picked to be chief of staff for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Daschle, however, is not a registered lobbyist.
Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Daschle, said the hundreds of thousands of dollars he earned in speaking fees from health care interests do not pose conflict for the health care reform Obama wants him to lead.
"He welcomed every opportunity to make his case to the American public at large and the health industry in particular that America can't afford to ignore the health care crisis any longer," she said.
Among the health care interest groups paying Daschle for speeches were America's Health Insurance Plans, $40,000 for two speeches, CSL Behring, $30,000, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, $16,000, and the Principal Life Insurance Co., $15,000.
Daschle said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services ethics office that if he's confirmed by the Senate, he will resign as a senior policy adviser at the Washington law firm of Alston and Bird LLP. He reported earnings of more than $2 million from that firm during the past two years.
Daschle also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. He said he also intends to resign from that firm upon his confirmation.
Among other earnings, Daschle reported $250,000 in director's fees from the energy company BP PLC. He was a paid director for four other companies and organizations, among them the Freedom Forum, a nonprofit group that advocates First Amendment rights and funds the Newseum, a Washington museum focused on the news media.
Daschle's financial disclosure report was released after he acknowledged that he had recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest. The amended returns reflect additional income for consulting work, the use of a car service and reduced deductions for charitable contributions.
Former Senate colleagues on Sunday described Daschle as a popular public servant knowledgeable in health issues, yet they wondered how he could find himself in a tax mess — and why the matter escaped Obama's team of background checkers.
Democrats expressed strong support for Daschle and credited him with coming forward and acknowledging a mistake. Republicans took some shots at the new administration now that a second Cabinet pick had run into tax problems and an earlier nominee withdrew amid a grand jury investigation.
The Senate Finance Committee planned to meet in executive session Monday to discuss the nomination.
"I'm going to wait until they give me their opinion," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The latest disclosure about a nominee's tax problems "does raise some questions about the vetting process," he said.
His deputy, Sen. Jon Kyl, who is on the committee, said members will question Daschle and try to understand his explanation. "I think it's too early to tell," said Kyl, R-Ariz. "Well, sure, you have to be troubled by it."
But a Democratic committee member, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, brushed aside concerns that Daschle's nomination was in jeopardy. "Not for me and I hope not for fair-minded and thoughtful people," he said.
"It's obviously a mistake. But I think it's an innocent mistake. I don't think it affects one iota his ability to do the job," Kerry said.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the problem could disqualify Daschle but that he wanted to learn more about the matter. "It's disheartening, obviously. People are struggling to pay taxes on a very small amount of income and he's got this huge amount," DeMint said.
Before Daschle's difficulties over back taxes, Geithner's confirmation as treasury secretary was delayed after it was revealed that he had failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes.
Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.
Kyl appeared on "Fox News Sunday," DeMint was on ABC's "This Week," Kerry spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," and McConnell was on CBS' "Face the Nation."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
And what about Hillary? What a load of baggage she's beginning to the "fixers" administration. Bill Clinton? Do you think this guy won't have a hand in all this? Wait - what about Obama himself? His connection to ACORN, Bill Ayres, international terrorist, Tony Resco, Chicago criminal and all his other friends in his church and Chicago politics. Thugs - bigots - racists - tax cheats - avoid socialists - bag men - swindlers - influences peddlers - thieves - and even admitted terrorists. How can this be - worse - most people don't care - -
This has got to be a first for this country - the entire new administration's officials have a connection to some kind of criminal activity. But why would we think other wise, they are all liberal Democrats. I wonder why they couldn't find a spot for William Jefferson? Hey, Blogo has a great resume.
Keep the faith -
'Reformer' Daschle Had Big Paydays From Insurers
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Newsmax -
WASHINGTON – Tom Daschle collected nearly a quarter of a million dollars in fees in the last two years speaking to leaders of the industry President Barack Obama wants him to reform as the administration's health secretary.
That was just a portion of the more than $5.2 million the former South Dakota senator earned as he advised insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries — real estate, energy and telecommunications among them, according to a financial statement filed with the Office of Government Ethics.
Daschle's finances are drawing additional scrutiny because he failed to pay his taxes properly. Although he has made amends with the government, senators said Sunday they are awaiting guidance from the committee reviewing Daschle's nomination before deciding whether the tax problem could stall or even derail his confirmation.
Obama has said that no one in his administration who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can deal with the same subject matter. The president has already approved a few exceptions, one of them a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist picked to be chief of staff for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Daschle, however, is not a registered lobbyist.
Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Daschle, said the hundreds of thousands of dollars he earned in speaking fees from health care interests do not pose conflict for the health care reform Obama wants him to lead.
"He welcomed every opportunity to make his case to the American public at large and the health industry in particular that America can't afford to ignore the health care crisis any longer," she said.
Among the health care interest groups paying Daschle for speeches were America's Health Insurance Plans, $40,000 for two speeches, CSL Behring, $30,000, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, $16,000, and the Principal Life Insurance Co., $15,000.
Daschle said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services ethics office that if he's confirmed by the Senate, he will resign as a senior policy adviser at the Washington law firm of Alston and Bird LLP. He reported earnings of more than $2 million from that firm during the past two years.
Daschle also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. He said he also intends to resign from that firm upon his confirmation.
Among other earnings, Daschle reported $250,000 in director's fees from the energy company BP PLC. He was a paid director for four other companies and organizations, among them the Freedom Forum, a nonprofit group that advocates First Amendment rights and funds the Newseum, a Washington museum focused on the news media.
Daschle's financial disclosure report was released after he acknowledged that he had recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest. The amended returns reflect additional income for consulting work, the use of a car service and reduced deductions for charitable contributions.
Former Senate colleagues on Sunday described Daschle as a popular public servant knowledgeable in health issues, yet they wondered how he could find himself in a tax mess — and why the matter escaped Obama's team of background checkers.
Democrats expressed strong support for Daschle and credited him with coming forward and acknowledging a mistake. Republicans took some shots at the new administration now that a second Cabinet pick had run into tax problems and an earlier nominee withdrew amid a grand jury investigation.
The Senate Finance Committee planned to meet in executive session Monday to discuss the nomination.
"I'm going to wait until they give me their opinion," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The latest disclosure about a nominee's tax problems "does raise some questions about the vetting process," he said.
His deputy, Sen. Jon Kyl, who is on the committee, said members will question Daschle and try to understand his explanation. "I think it's too early to tell," said Kyl, R-Ariz. "Well, sure, you have to be troubled by it."
But a Democratic committee member, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, brushed aside concerns that Daschle's nomination was in jeopardy. "Not for me and I hope not for fair-minded and thoughtful people," he said.
"It's obviously a mistake. But I think it's an innocent mistake. I don't think it affects one iota his ability to do the job," Kerry said.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the problem could disqualify Daschle but that he wanted to learn more about the matter. "It's disheartening, obviously. People are struggling to pay taxes on a very small amount of income and he's got this huge amount," DeMint said.
Before Daschle's difficulties over back taxes, Geithner's confirmation as treasury secretary was delayed after it was revealed that he had failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes.
Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.
Kyl appeared on "Fox News Sunday," DeMint was on ABC's "This Week," Kerry spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," and McConnell was on CBS' "Face the Nation."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Obama's Union Connection Targeting Businesses in New York State
We knew it would only be a matter of time before the unions would make their first move to control all means of production in the country. Given the amount of support that the unions gave Obama during the election process, it stands to reason that they will expect something in return, namely the "card check" proposal. This a blank check to the unions to organize anywhere and anybody.
As of now, union participation among workers in this country is at an all time low of less than 12% and falling. So with the card check proposal that Obama has promised the unions, the unions won't need a secret vote to organize any business they want. What a great way for the unions to get back into power.
How this works, when the union wants to organize an industry, they go to homes of workers and have them sign the card while several members of the union committee stand close to the kids and wife. This tactic was used in the old days to convince people to vote the right way in secret ballots.
Of course, in the old days they came right out and threatened the workers with violence and or their families if they didn't vote the right way. Union meetings today, I'm told, in many cases by members, were and are just throw backs to the old days. Different tactics maybe but looking for the same results. The threats and the intimidation are still there.
This is a total break down of Democracy - this is not how this country was founded. But then it's not about Democracy or freedom to chose, it's about getting and keeping power. Nothing else matters to these people - it's who they are and it's who Barack Obama is. This is Chicago politics on a national scale.
Keep the faith - the battle is joined.
VIGILANTE LABOR 'JUSTICE'
New York Post February 2, 2009
Gov. Paterson, distracted by the Caroline Kennedy debacle and other pressures, may not fully realize that his Labor Department is deputizing vigilantes to treat honest businessmen like horse thieves in the Old West. That is, to hang 'em high.
A new pilot program announced last week will effectively sign up activist unions and "community organizations" (think ACORN) to sniff out alleged violations of labor law by employers. One needn't have lived in New York very long to understand where /that/ presently will lead: kangaroo-court proceedings against companies that refuse to buckle under to activist pressure. And, probably, worse.
Under the program, dubbed New York Wage Watch, six groups in New York City and Long Island - including several union locals and an activist outfit called Make the Road New York - will get official sanction from the state to "educate" workers and employers about state labor law.They'll also have an expedited line to the Labor Department's enforcement arm to report any violations they encounter.
The department touts the program as a creative way to respond to violations that otherwise would have fallen into the cracks. It's /creative/, all right. No reasonable person objects to state efforts to fairly, fully enforce the law. But empowering interest groups between the state and the citizen can quickly distort the law's purpose. After all, the organizations the Labor Department has teamed up with are /hardly/ disinterested parties.
Indeed, the arrangement is an open invitation for the unions to use their semi-official stature to extra-legally extend their reach into targeted businesses. Assurances from the Labor Department that it will be responsive to complaints from businesses are hardly reassuring. After all, Make the Road New York is closely allied with community-organizing behemoth ACORN - which is notorious for shaking down banks, developers and other businesses that even gently resist its brand of "activism."
Imagine the pressure such groups could bring to bear on law-abiding businesses with simply a hint of calling down a full-fledged state investigation.Imagine the potential for old-fashioned cash-on-the-barrelhead corruption.The program is slated to last six months - after which, presumably, the department would look to bring even more groups on board.But there's no reason to wait.Gov. Paterson needs to put a stop to this foolishness /now/
As of now, union participation among workers in this country is at an all time low of less than 12% and falling. So with the card check proposal that Obama has promised the unions, the unions won't need a secret vote to organize any business they want. What a great way for the unions to get back into power.
How this works, when the union wants to organize an industry, they go to homes of workers and have them sign the card while several members of the union committee stand close to the kids and wife. This tactic was used in the old days to convince people to vote the right way in secret ballots.
Of course, in the old days they came right out and threatened the workers with violence and or their families if they didn't vote the right way. Union meetings today, I'm told, in many cases by members, were and are just throw backs to the old days. Different tactics maybe but looking for the same results. The threats and the intimidation are still there.
This is a total break down of Democracy - this is not how this country was founded. But then it's not about Democracy or freedom to chose, it's about getting and keeping power. Nothing else matters to these people - it's who they are and it's who Barack Obama is. This is Chicago politics on a national scale.
Keep the faith - the battle is joined.
VIGILANTE LABOR 'JUSTICE'
New York Post February 2, 2009
Gov. Paterson, distracted by the Caroline Kennedy debacle and other pressures, may not fully realize that his Labor Department is deputizing vigilantes to treat honest businessmen like horse thieves in the Old West. That is, to hang 'em high.
A new pilot program announced last week will effectively sign up activist unions and "community organizations" (think ACORN) to sniff out alleged violations of labor law by employers. One needn't have lived in New York very long to understand where /that/ presently will lead: kangaroo-court proceedings against companies that refuse to buckle under to activist pressure. And, probably, worse.
Under the program, dubbed New York Wage Watch, six groups in New York City and Long Island - including several union locals and an activist outfit called Make the Road New York - will get official sanction from the state to "educate" workers and employers about state labor law.They'll also have an expedited line to the Labor Department's enforcement arm to report any violations they encounter.
The department touts the program as a creative way to respond to violations that otherwise would have fallen into the cracks. It's /creative/, all right. No reasonable person objects to state efforts to fairly, fully enforce the law. But empowering interest groups between the state and the citizen can quickly distort the law's purpose. After all, the organizations the Labor Department has teamed up with are /hardly/ disinterested parties.
Indeed, the arrangement is an open invitation for the unions to use their semi-official stature to extra-legally extend their reach into targeted businesses. Assurances from the Labor Department that it will be responsive to complaints from businesses are hardly reassuring. After all, Make the Road New York is closely allied with community-organizing behemoth ACORN - which is notorious for shaking down banks, developers and other businesses that even gently resist its brand of "activism."
Imagine the pressure such groups could bring to bear on law-abiding businesses with simply a hint of calling down a full-fledged state investigation.Imagine the potential for old-fashioned cash-on-the-barrelhead corruption.The program is slated to last six months - after which, presumably, the department would look to bring even more groups on board.But there's no reason to wait.Gov. Paterson needs to put a stop to this foolishness /now/
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
America Headed to The Dumper : Judd Gregg Commerce Secretary
How much more bad news can we take this year - Gregg will be the last nail in America's coffin. With a bullet proof senate, the liberal Democrats can steal the American dream any time they want and they will.
Keep the faith -
Obama's Gregg Pick Worries GOP
Sunday, February 1, 2009
By: David A. Patten
GOP leaders are warning that President Barack Obama’s likely appointment of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg to serve as secretary of commerce could finally hand Democrats what they failed to win on Election Day: a 60-vote Senate majority that would render Republicans powerless to filibuster any legislation.
On Friday, reports surfaced that Gregg, of New Hampshire, is likely to be tapped by Obama this week for the job.
Gregg confirmed that he is under consideration for the post, describing himself as “honored.”
But the move has Republicans worried, as Gregg’s replacement will be made by New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, John Lynch.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., called Obama’s move “sneaky.” If a Democrat is appointed to fill Gregg’s slot, Republican senators will no longer have veto power over Democratic legislation.
This weekend, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., claimed that Gregg had negotiated a deal with Lynch that he “would be replaced by someone who would affiliate with other Republicans in the Senate.”
But The New York Times on Sunday had a starkly different take. The paper said that Gregg had only gotten a commitment from Lynch that he is “open to appointing a Republican to the seat.”
Gregg, 61, has received strong marks for his work on the Wall Street bailout package.
He is expected to face a costly battle to retain his Senate seat in 2010 if he decides to run for re-election. A three-term senator, he is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.
The appointment of Gregg would fit in with Obama’s bipartisan charm offensive, which the media has applauded. But others find Obama’s choice curious, noting that Obama was not particularly close to Gregg while they served in the Senate together.
But if Gregg leaves the Senate to serve in Obama’s Cabinet, the number of GOP senators would drop to 40, giving Democrats the filibuster-proof majority they have coveted.
GOP Sen. Norm Coleman’s court battle against Al Franken in Minnesota remains undecided.
If Lynch does appoint a Democrat, Obama’s image as a bipartisan healer would receive a boost at the same time his party gained unfettered control of the Senate.
GOP senators reacted coolly to the prospect Gregg’s nomination.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Politico that Gregg’s relocation to the Cabinet would be a “great loss” to the Senate. Asked by Politico what could be done to persuade Gregg, Cornyn responded: “I would say whatever it is, name it.”
If Lynch appoints a Republican to fill Gregg’s seat, he would likely chose a Republican caretaker – someone unlikely to run for the job in 2010, such as former GOP Sen. Warren Rudman.
That would make the seat a prime target for Democrats, further complicating the electoral math for Republicans in a year that already has seen several Republicans announce their impending retirements.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday no final decision has been made on the commerce secretary job.
Democrats, not surprisingly, think the nomination is a good idea.
“He’s one of my best friends in the Senate, and he’s competent in doing anything he wants to do,” gushed House Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The importance of Republicans’ role as the loyal opposition was recently highlighted in the battle over the trillion-dollar stimulus package, where not a single house Republican voted for it. Attention immediately focused on the Senate, where Democrats aim to persuade five to 10 Republicans to cross the aisle so they can maintain that the package received bipartisan political support.
Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., told CQPolitics that losing Gregg “would be a real blow” to Republicans.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Keep the faith -
Obama's Gregg Pick Worries GOP
Sunday, February 1, 2009
By: David A. Patten
GOP leaders are warning that President Barack Obama’s likely appointment of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg to serve as secretary of commerce could finally hand Democrats what they failed to win on Election Day: a 60-vote Senate majority that would render Republicans powerless to filibuster any legislation.
On Friday, reports surfaced that Gregg, of New Hampshire, is likely to be tapped by Obama this week for the job.
Gregg confirmed that he is under consideration for the post, describing himself as “honored.”
But the move has Republicans worried, as Gregg’s replacement will be made by New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, John Lynch.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., called Obama’s move “sneaky.” If a Democrat is appointed to fill Gregg’s slot, Republican senators will no longer have veto power over Democratic legislation.
This weekend, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., claimed that Gregg had negotiated a deal with Lynch that he “would be replaced by someone who would affiliate with other Republicans in the Senate.”
But The New York Times on Sunday had a starkly different take. The paper said that Gregg had only gotten a commitment from Lynch that he is “open to appointing a Republican to the seat.”
Gregg, 61, has received strong marks for his work on the Wall Street bailout package.
He is expected to face a costly battle to retain his Senate seat in 2010 if he decides to run for re-election. A three-term senator, he is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.
The appointment of Gregg would fit in with Obama’s bipartisan charm offensive, which the media has applauded. But others find Obama’s choice curious, noting that Obama was not particularly close to Gregg while they served in the Senate together.
But if Gregg leaves the Senate to serve in Obama’s Cabinet, the number of GOP senators would drop to 40, giving Democrats the filibuster-proof majority they have coveted.
GOP Sen. Norm Coleman’s court battle against Al Franken in Minnesota remains undecided.
If Lynch does appoint a Democrat, Obama’s image as a bipartisan healer would receive a boost at the same time his party gained unfettered control of the Senate.
GOP senators reacted coolly to the prospect Gregg’s nomination.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Politico that Gregg’s relocation to the Cabinet would be a “great loss” to the Senate. Asked by Politico what could be done to persuade Gregg, Cornyn responded: “I would say whatever it is, name it.”
If Lynch appoints a Republican to fill Gregg’s seat, he would likely chose a Republican caretaker – someone unlikely to run for the job in 2010, such as former GOP Sen. Warren Rudman.
That would make the seat a prime target for Democrats, further complicating the electoral math for Republicans in a year that already has seen several Republicans announce their impending retirements.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday no final decision has been made on the commerce secretary job.
Democrats, not surprisingly, think the nomination is a good idea.
“He’s one of my best friends in the Senate, and he’s competent in doing anything he wants to do,” gushed House Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The importance of Republicans’ role as the loyal opposition was recently highlighted in the battle over the trillion-dollar stimulus package, where not a single house Republican voted for it. Attention immediately focused on the Senate, where Democrats aim to persuade five to 10 Republicans to cross the aisle so they can maintain that the package received bipartisan political support.
Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., told CQPolitics that losing Gregg “would be a real blow” to Republicans.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Obama's Spending Fraud ( 1.17 Trillion) Is Stealing America's Future
This is no surprise as we have been watching this bill come apart at the seams - the following is more of the same, just in finer detail - something that we can expect more of in the days to come as well as this travesty comes up for a vote later in the week in the Senate.
After reading this and you still want to have your senator vote for this "porker", then you're part of the problem and not the solution. With all of the information that is available now, no one can claim ignorance, stupidity maybe, but not ignorance on how this will cripple the nation for generations to come.
Call now! Keep the faith
From Newsmax -
The Stimulus Shopping List: $1.17 Trillion in Pork Goodies
Thursday, January 29, 2009
By: David A. Patten
Having trouble putting down that cigarette? The stimulus bill has $75 million for programs to help people quit smoking. Only 42 percent of Americans now think the bill is a good idea, according to Rasmussen Reports, which had found 45 percent approval last week.
The $1.17 trillion stimulus bill passed by House Democrats on Wednesday bears little resemblance to the bill originally proposed by President Obama, with less than 5 percent of the funds now going to repair America’s deteriorating infrastructure.
GOP critics point out the bill is loaded with tens of billions for items ranging from Amtrak subsidies to sexually transmitted diseases to the National Endowment for the Arts -- much of which won’t actually flow into the economy until long after economists expect the current economic crisis to subside.
In late November, Obama promised: “It will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America, and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges,” modernizing schools and stimulating development of alternative forms of energy.
Even some Democrats are now objecting that the measure contains too few highway and mass transit projects. Moreover Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, says most of the infrastructure spending in the plan won’t occur until 2010 or later.
Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning:
$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.
$2 billion to help subsidize child care.
$400 million for research into global warming.
$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.
$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.
$2.25 billion for national parks.
This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill.
Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
$335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
$4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud.
Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle.
$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.
$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.
$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.
$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.
$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.
$10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.
$20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.
Republican leaders say the stimulus package will add 32 new government programs at a cost of $136 billion. They object that many of the programs, once established, are likely to continue indefinitely.
Most media outlets are reporting the cost of the package at $819 billion. As Newsmax revealed yesterday, however, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the interest on the debt generated by the bill’s spending will cost another $347.1 billion, making the total cost approximately $1.17 trillion.
Of course, the measure contains hundreds of billions in tax cuts and infrastructure projects that conservatives will find palatable. But as House Minority whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., told the media Wednesday, “This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
After reading this and you still want to have your senator vote for this "porker", then you're part of the problem and not the solution. With all of the information that is available now, no one can claim ignorance, stupidity maybe, but not ignorance on how this will cripple the nation for generations to come.
Call now! Keep the faith
From Newsmax -
The Stimulus Shopping List: $1.17 Trillion in Pork Goodies
Thursday, January 29, 2009
By: David A. Patten
Having trouble putting down that cigarette? The stimulus bill has $75 million for programs to help people quit smoking. Only 42 percent of Americans now think the bill is a good idea, according to Rasmussen Reports, which had found 45 percent approval last week.
The $1.17 trillion stimulus bill passed by House Democrats on Wednesday bears little resemblance to the bill originally proposed by President Obama, with less than 5 percent of the funds now going to repair America’s deteriorating infrastructure.
GOP critics point out the bill is loaded with tens of billions for items ranging from Amtrak subsidies to sexually transmitted diseases to the National Endowment for the Arts -- much of which won’t actually flow into the economy until long after economists expect the current economic crisis to subside.
In late November, Obama promised: “It will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America, and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges,” modernizing schools and stimulating development of alternative forms of energy.
Even some Democrats are now objecting that the measure contains too few highway and mass transit projects. Moreover Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, says most of the infrastructure spending in the plan won’t occur until 2010 or later.
Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning:
$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.
$2 billion to help subsidize child care.
$400 million for research into global warming.
$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.
$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.
$2.25 billion for national parks.
This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill.
Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
$335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
$4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud.
Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle.
$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.
$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.
$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.
$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.
$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.
$10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition.
$20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.
Republican leaders say the stimulus package will add 32 new government programs at a cost of $136 billion. They object that many of the programs, once established, are likely to continue indefinitely.
Most media outlets are reporting the cost of the package at $819 billion. As Newsmax revealed yesterday, however, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the interest on the debt generated by the bill’s spending will cost another $347.1 billion, making the total cost approximately $1.17 trillion.
Of course, the measure contains hundreds of billions in tax cuts and infrastructure projects that conservatives will find palatable. But as House Minority whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., told the media Wednesday, “This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Congressional Liberal Democrats Posied to Destroy American Dream
This is old news but with the Senate ready to vote this coming week we need to take another look at how the party of "change" will bankrupt our future and the future of generations to come.
Even the most ardent liberal has to see that this is legislation that will hamstring us from ever recovering from this financial nightmare. This is just more of the same agenda that wrecked this country under FDR only worse, much worse.
The troubling aspect of this bill is the liberals know it's bad but see it as way to take complete control of the population by plunging the country into absolute financial ruin.
The liberal Democrats caused this with the housing bubble and now they want to twist the knife in the heart of America by passing this legislation. Did Rep. Barny Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, both Democrats and members of the finance committee, know this would happen while they stood on the floor of congress and defending Fannie and Freddie for years as doing the right thing, even when Bush and McCain went to them on many occasions pleading for oversight? If they didn't, even after Franklin Reins and was removed as head of Fannie for fraud, cooking the books for higher bonuses, then they are not just ignorant but criminal.
Now these same two liberal Democrats that are responsible for our current financial crisis are still in charge and hailed as great thinkers - Bush is gone and McCain is reaching across the aisle - sigh
The Wall Street Journal does a great job as usual laying out the outrageous aspect of this stealing of our national treasure for purely political gain - the liberal Democrats does not care what happens to the country, ever!! It's always about power - getting it and keeping it - always.
Keep the faith and call your representatives now and demand this bill must be voted down in the Senate this coming week.
A 40-Year Wish List
January 28, 2009 WSJ
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."/So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart.
The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.[Review & Outlook]AP
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years;
$2 billion for child-care subsidies;
$50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts;
$400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects.
There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."[Review & Outlook] Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment.
Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all.
There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain.
Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did.
Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
Even the most ardent liberal has to see that this is legislation that will hamstring us from ever recovering from this financial nightmare. This is just more of the same agenda that wrecked this country under FDR only worse, much worse.
The troubling aspect of this bill is the liberals know it's bad but see it as way to take complete control of the population by plunging the country into absolute financial ruin.
The liberal Democrats caused this with the housing bubble and now they want to twist the knife in the heart of America by passing this legislation. Did Rep. Barny Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, both Democrats and members of the finance committee, know this would happen while they stood on the floor of congress and defending Fannie and Freddie for years as doing the right thing, even when Bush and McCain went to them on many occasions pleading for oversight? If they didn't, even after Franklin Reins and was removed as head of Fannie for fraud, cooking the books for higher bonuses, then they are not just ignorant but criminal.
Now these same two liberal Democrats that are responsible for our current financial crisis are still in charge and hailed as great thinkers - Bush is gone and McCain is reaching across the aisle - sigh
The Wall Street Journal does a great job as usual laying out the outrageous aspect of this stealing of our national treasure for purely political gain - the liberal Democrats does not care what happens to the country, ever!! It's always about power - getting it and keeping it - always.
Keep the faith and call your representatives now and demand this bill must be voted down in the Senate this coming week.
A 40-Year Wish List
January 28, 2009 WSJ
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."/So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart.
The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.[Review & Outlook]AP
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years;
$2 billion for child-care subsidies;
$50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts;
$400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects.
There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."[Review & Outlook] Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment.
Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all.
There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.
The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain.
Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did.
Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Sarah Palin Organizing for The Future
As much as the liberals would like for us believe that Sarah is a loser, we, down here in the trenches, know she is a winner and will destroy the liberals and their efforts to "change" America into a third world sump hole of fear and intimidation. Why else would the media and liberal Democrats continually attack her and her family? They are scared of her because they know she represents the people of this county. Liberal Democrats care nothing for such things.
The people of this country see her as one of us witch is just the opposite of the liberal agenda. The liberals are the elites, the power brokers, masters of the universe, all powerful rulers of all things necessary for the good life.
We, the people, are here only to serve.
With her efforts to position herself now for a run in the near future brings conservatives, and all other common sense people of all strips and political ideologies, some real "hope" for our county and the American way of life. Sarah has shown herself to be the real thing.
Go to her site and keep the faith - let the liberals know that the battle is only beginning.
Sarah Palin Unveils National 'SarahPAC' Organization
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
By: David A. Patten
In a major step closer to a future run for national office, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Tuesday established SarahPAC, a political action committee expected to play a key role in financing upcoming political endeavors.
“SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of a historic renaissance that will build a better future for all,” the SarahPAC.com Web site announced Tuesday. “Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals.”
The site, which invites donations, calls energy independence “a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves.”
NBC’s Norah O’Donnell characterized the creation of the fund-raising organization as “a sign Sarah Palin wants to continue to be a player on the national political stage.” O’Donnell added that the Virginia-based PAC “is modeled after HillPAC, Hillary Clinton’s former political committee. Palin’s committee allows her to raise money for other Republicans.”
The PAC Web site describes the organization as “Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.”
The Alaska governor’s popularity remains undiminished since the election. O’Donnell reports Sen. John MCain’s running mate has over 465,300 supporters on Facebook.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The people of this country see her as one of us witch is just the opposite of the liberal agenda. The liberals are the elites, the power brokers, masters of the universe, all powerful rulers of all things necessary for the good life.
We, the people, are here only to serve.
With her efforts to position herself now for a run in the near future brings conservatives, and all other common sense people of all strips and political ideologies, some real "hope" for our county and the American way of life. Sarah has shown herself to be the real thing.
Go to her site and keep the faith - let the liberals know that the battle is only beginning.
Sarah Palin Unveils National 'SarahPAC' Organization
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
By: David A. Patten
In a major step closer to a future run for national office, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Tuesday established SarahPAC, a political action committee expected to play a key role in financing upcoming political endeavors.
“SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of a historic renaissance that will build a better future for all,” the SarahPAC.com Web site announced Tuesday. “Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals.”
The site, which invites donations, calls energy independence “a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves.”
NBC’s Norah O’Donnell characterized the creation of the fund-raising organization as “a sign Sarah Palin wants to continue to be a player on the national political stage.” O’Donnell added that the Virginia-based PAC “is modeled after HillPAC, Hillary Clinton’s former political committee. Palin’s committee allows her to raise money for other Republicans.”
The PAC Web site describes the organization as “Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.”
The Alaska governor’s popularity remains undiminished since the election. O’Donnell reports Sen. John MCain’s running mate has over 465,300 supporters on Facebook.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Islamic Law Is Total Consumption of All Western Existence
Well, very interesting stuff on our Islamic enemy, and given how Obama is going to have a 'sit down' with these people and explain how they must "change" to join the world community, we all can expect a new and safer world. Right? Hey, the "savior of the world" has proclaimed it. How can we doubt the word of the "one".
Keep the faith - believers in freedom unite!
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's Book: "Slavery, Terrorism, And Islam The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamizing begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:France< -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings Any non -Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammad cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya-- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because every body is a Muslim, the Madrases are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos.
There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend Madrases. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all others . Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Keep the faith - believers in freedom unite!
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's Book: "Slavery, Terrorism, And Islam The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamizing begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:France< -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings Any non -Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammad cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya-- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because every body is a Muslim, the Madrases are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos.
There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend Madrases. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all others . Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
Lawrence Summers, Obama's Money Man, Just Profoundly Ignorant?
Please tell me this man isn't as ignorant as he sounds - or maybe he is just being what we all know to be true - he is just another liberal Democrat that has a taste for cool aide. They just can't seem to help them selves. They are stuck in a rut of a socialist agenda and no matter what happens they use the same play book to solve all problems.
Who are these people? Why don't they seem to have any common sense, none at all? Can these liberals be so hungry for power and control that they will sell their very souls, that is if they had any to start with, to gain a few rungs on the ladder of power?
History means nothing to these people - they don't care that FDR failed to stop the depression of the 1930's. Now they are going to go ahead and use the same failed agenda that FDR used only double or triple the effort. After 8 years, unemployment under FDR was still 14%!
Maybe it isn't ignorance after all, maybe they are just mentally incapable of rational thought. Maybe they are genetically different form the rest of us. After decades, generations, of hate and lusting for power, maybe they have become a separate species. Why not? Just listen to them and you decide.
Keep the faith - rational thought will win in the end to save the battle.
Summers: Bush Tax Cuts Won't Be Extended
Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:25 PMBy: Newsmax Wires
President Obama's senior economic advisor made clear Sunday that any idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, is a dead issue.
Lawrence H. Summers, a former Treasury secretary and head of the White House's National Economic Council, made clear to “Meet the Press” host David Gregory that Obama is committed to allowing the tax cuts to die.
Summers also left open the possibility that the administration may revoke the tax cuts early, an idea pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But he emphasized that the Obama administration is dead against extending the tax cuts, an idea favored by Republicans.
Asked if he was open to extending the cuts to 2013, Summers responded, "First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see."
During the presidential campaign last year, Obama had pledged he would rescind the Bush tax cuts early and redirect the new revenues to tax cuts for lower and middle class wage earners. But in September, Obama indicated he might delay rescinding the tax cuts if he faced a severe recession. At the time he also insisted he would allow the tax cuts to expire no later than 2010.
The Heritage Foundation has warned that if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, "taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers" with tax rates rising "substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points."
For example, top wage earners currently in the 35 percent tax bracket will see their tax rate increase to over 39 percent -- an increase of more than 10 percent in extra taxes they will have to pay.
Last year, the Bush White House claimed that allowing the tax cuts to expire would mean a family of four would have an additional tax burden of $1,900 annually. They also claimed 43 million families with children would see an increase of taxes over $2,000.
Summers' exchange with NBC's David Gregory follows:
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about tax cuts. About a third of his package is made up of tax cuts. Republicans want more. Specifically there's a question about the Bush tax cuts which, of course, expire next year. Does the president want to actually repeal those tax cuts this calendar year?
DR. SUMMERS: I don't think there's any question they have to be repealed. The country can't afford them for the long run.
MR. GREGORY: So repeal them this year? Because they expire next year.
DR. SUMMERS: What the timing -- what the -- they expire, expire at the end of next year, and they have to be allowed to expire. What the timing will be, that's something that's going to have to get worked out.
MR. GREGORY: Because the House speaker says do it this year.
DR. SUMMERS: That's something that's going to have to get worked out through the legislative process.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
DR. SUMMERS: There's no question that the president's been very emphatic about this, as he was very emphatic during his campaign, that they can't be part of...
MR. GREGORY: OK, but timing is important.
DR. SUMMERS: They can't be, they can't be part of the long-run budget picture.
MR. GREGORY: Well, understood. But...
DR. SUMMERS: And it's a timing--it's something that's going to be--that's something that's going to be worked out in the course of the...
MR. GREGORY: But what's his position, repeal them this year?
DR. SUMMERS: ...in the course of the legislative, legislative process. The president has made clear they--that the question of timing is one we're going to have to reach as we see how the economy unfolds...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
DR. SUMMERS: ...as Congress reaches its judgments. But they're not going to be with us for long.
MR. GREGORY: Why not? Why not? Conservatives make the argument, why would you want to raise taxes--if you repeal those tax cuts, taxes do go up on upper-income Americans, primarily. Why would you want to raise taxes right now? Why not put that expiration date off into, say, 2013? Why is that a bad idea?
DR. SUMMERS: Put the expiration date off into...
MR. GREGORY: 2013.
DR. SUMMERS: ...2013? First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see. We've got to spend money now while we have a recession, while we've got this serious economic crisis, but as soon as the economy recovers we are going to have to find ways of getting the government's finances under some kind of control. Second, we have to focus on, frankly, the parts of the economy that need help. If you look at what's happened over the last 10 years, the incomes of middle-income families have barely or kept up with inflation, or in many, many cases fallen behind inflation. The people who are the beneficiaries, the small minority, a little over 1 percent of the population that are the beneficiaries of those tax cuts have actually seen their incomes rise much more, much more rapidly. And so I think it's a pretty clear question of priority as to where the, where the assistance needs to be channeled.
MR. GREGORY: But you say...
DR. SUMMERS: But understand this, the president has vowed that there will be tax cuts for more than 95 percent of Americans, for all working families with incomes below $250,000. They will see their taxes cut, they will not see tax increases.
MR. GREGORY: Well, let me just press you on this point. You say we can't afford to let those Bush tax cuts expire later, but we can afford to, to spend up to $700 billion for the tax cut that you like?
DR. SUMMERS: We can--we--it's a good question. We certainly can afford to do what is necessary now to stimulate this economy, to put money--frankly, when you put money into the hands of middle-class families, history and experience suggest that they spend a substantial part of it, pushing the economy forward. When you put money into the hands of those with very high incomes, only a much smaller fraction of it is spent and so you derive much less benefit in terms of pushing the economy, in terms of pushing the economy forward.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Who are these people? Why don't they seem to have any common sense, none at all? Can these liberals be so hungry for power and control that they will sell their very souls, that is if they had any to start with, to gain a few rungs on the ladder of power?
History means nothing to these people - they don't care that FDR failed to stop the depression of the 1930's. Now they are going to go ahead and use the same failed agenda that FDR used only double or triple the effort. After 8 years, unemployment under FDR was still 14%!
Maybe it isn't ignorance after all, maybe they are just mentally incapable of rational thought. Maybe they are genetically different form the rest of us. After decades, generations, of hate and lusting for power, maybe they have become a separate species. Why not? Just listen to them and you decide.
Keep the faith - rational thought will win in the end to save the battle.
Summers: Bush Tax Cuts Won't Be Extended
Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:25 PMBy: Newsmax Wires
President Obama's senior economic advisor made clear Sunday that any idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, is a dead issue.
Lawrence H. Summers, a former Treasury secretary and head of the White House's National Economic Council, made clear to “Meet the Press” host David Gregory that Obama is committed to allowing the tax cuts to die.
Summers also left open the possibility that the administration may revoke the tax cuts early, an idea pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But he emphasized that the Obama administration is dead against extending the tax cuts, an idea favored by Republicans.
Asked if he was open to extending the cuts to 2013, Summers responded, "First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see."
During the presidential campaign last year, Obama had pledged he would rescind the Bush tax cuts early and redirect the new revenues to tax cuts for lower and middle class wage earners. But in September, Obama indicated he might delay rescinding the tax cuts if he faced a severe recession. At the time he also insisted he would allow the tax cuts to expire no later than 2010.
The Heritage Foundation has warned that if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, "taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers" with tax rates rising "substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points."
For example, top wage earners currently in the 35 percent tax bracket will see their tax rate increase to over 39 percent -- an increase of more than 10 percent in extra taxes they will have to pay.
Last year, the Bush White House claimed that allowing the tax cuts to expire would mean a family of four would have an additional tax burden of $1,900 annually. They also claimed 43 million families with children would see an increase of taxes over $2,000.
Summers' exchange with NBC's David Gregory follows:
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about tax cuts. About a third of his package is made up of tax cuts. Republicans want more. Specifically there's a question about the Bush tax cuts which, of course, expire next year. Does the president want to actually repeal those tax cuts this calendar year?
DR. SUMMERS: I don't think there's any question they have to be repealed. The country can't afford them for the long run.
MR. GREGORY: So repeal them this year? Because they expire next year.
DR. SUMMERS: What the timing -- what the -- they expire, expire at the end of next year, and they have to be allowed to expire. What the timing will be, that's something that's going to have to get worked out.
MR. GREGORY: Because the House speaker says do it this year.
DR. SUMMERS: That's something that's going to have to get worked out through the legislative process.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
DR. SUMMERS: There's no question that the president's been very emphatic about this, as he was very emphatic during his campaign, that they can't be part of...
MR. GREGORY: OK, but timing is important.
DR. SUMMERS: They can't be, they can't be part of the long-run budget picture.
MR. GREGORY: Well, understood. But...
DR. SUMMERS: And it's a timing--it's something that's going to be--that's something that's going to be worked out in the course of the...
MR. GREGORY: But what's his position, repeal them this year?
DR. SUMMERS: ...in the course of the legislative, legislative process. The president has made clear they--that the question of timing is one we're going to have to reach as we see how the economy unfolds...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
DR. SUMMERS: ...as Congress reaches its judgments. But they're not going to be with us for long.
MR. GREGORY: Why not? Why not? Conservatives make the argument, why would you want to raise taxes--if you repeal those tax cuts, taxes do go up on upper-income Americans, primarily. Why would you want to raise taxes right now? Why not put that expiration date off into, say, 2013? Why is that a bad idea?
DR. SUMMERS: Put the expiration date off into...
MR. GREGORY: 2013.
DR. SUMMERS: ...2013? First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see. We've got to spend money now while we have a recession, while we've got this serious economic crisis, but as soon as the economy recovers we are going to have to find ways of getting the government's finances under some kind of control. Second, we have to focus on, frankly, the parts of the economy that need help. If you look at what's happened over the last 10 years, the incomes of middle-income families have barely or kept up with inflation, or in many, many cases fallen behind inflation. The people who are the beneficiaries, the small minority, a little over 1 percent of the population that are the beneficiaries of those tax cuts have actually seen their incomes rise much more, much more rapidly. And so I think it's a pretty clear question of priority as to where the, where the assistance needs to be channeled.
MR. GREGORY: But you say...
DR. SUMMERS: But understand this, the president has vowed that there will be tax cuts for more than 95 percent of Americans, for all working families with incomes below $250,000. They will see their taxes cut, they will not see tax increases.
MR. GREGORY: Well, let me just press you on this point. You say we can't afford to let those Bush tax cuts expire later, but we can afford to, to spend up to $700 billion for the tax cut that you like?
DR. SUMMERS: We can--we--it's a good question. We certainly can afford to do what is necessary now to stimulate this economy, to put money--frankly, when you put money into the hands of middle-class families, history and experience suggest that they spend a substantial part of it, pushing the economy forward. When you put money into the hands of those with very high incomes, only a much smaller fraction of it is spent and so you derive much less benefit in terms of pushing the economy, in terms of pushing the economy forward.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Laws and Lawyers Dictate/Suffocat Freedom of Choice
What a great article on just what it means to have a "free choice" and how we are loosing it through suffocating laws and lawyers. We have a tendency to find this a little simplistic but given some thought, it describes most of how we live our lives. Just imagine how it would be without freedom of choice.
Think of how the DNR and the EPA alone have taken over so many choices that use to be ours - We have to wonder just how far this will go and how fast will this happen. Our new president seems to have plans for us that don't include freedom of choice - he feels government is all we need to make the "right" choices for everyone - It's not about Us, it's about Them. Is this the 'change' he was talking about? hmmmm
Keep the faith - and always remember "freedom means having nothing else to lose".
JANUARY 26, 2009 WSJ
By PHILIP K. HOWARD
Calling for a "new era of responsibility" in his inaugural address, President Barack Obama reminded us that there are no limits to "what free men and women can achieve." Indeed. America achieved greatness as the can-do society. This is, after all, the country of Thomas Paine and barn raisings, of Grange halls and Google. Other countries shared, at least in part, our political freedoms, but America had something different -- a belief in the power of each individual.
President Obama's clarion call of self-determination -- "Yes We Can" -- hearkens back to the core of our culture.[Commentary] David Klein But there's a threshold problem for our new president. Americans don't feel free to reach inside themselves and make a difference. The growth of litigation and regulation has injected a paralyzing uncertainty into everyday choices. All around us are warnings and legal risks. The modern credo is not "Yes We Can" but "No You Can't."
Our sense of powerlessness is pervasive. Those who deal with the public are the most discouraged. Most doctors say they wouldn't advise their children to go into medicine. Government service is seen as a bureaucratic morass, not a noble calling. Make a difference? You can't even show basic human kindness for fear of legal action. Teachers across America are instructed never to put an arm around a crying child.
The idea of freedom as personal power got pushed aside in recent decades by a new idea of freedom -- where the focus is on the rights of whoever might disagree. Daily life in America has been transformed. Ordinary choices -- by teachers, doctors, officials, managers, even volunteers -- are paralyzed by legal self-consciousness. Did you check the rules? Who will be responsible if there's an accident? A pediatrician in North Carolina noted that "I don't deal with patients the same way any more. You wouldn't want to say something off the cuff that might be used against you."
Here we stand, facing the worst economy since the Great Depression, and Americans no longer feel free to do anything about it. We have lost the idea, at every level of social life, that people can grab hold of a problem and fix it. Defensiveness has swept across the country like a cold wave. We have become a culture of rule followers, trained to frame every solution in terms of existing law or possible legal risk. The person of responsibility is replaced by the person of caution. When in doubt, don't.
The Opinion Journal Widget Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
All this law, we're told, is just the price of making sure society is in working order. But society is not working. Disorder disrupts learning all day long in many public schools -- the result in part, studies by NYU Professor Richard Arum found, of the rise of student rights.
Health care is like a nervous breakdown in slow motion. Costs are out of control, yet the incentive for doctors is to order whatever tests the insurance will pay for. Taking risks is no longer the badge of courage, but reason enough to get sued. There's an epidemic of child obesity, but kids aren't allowed to take the normal risks of childhood. Broward County, Fla., has even banned running at recess.The flaw, and the cure, lie in our conception of freedom.
We think of freedom as political freedom. We're certainly free to live and work where we want, and to pull the lever in the ballot box. But freedom should also include the power of personal conviction and the authority to use your common sense. Analyzing the American character, Alexis de Tocqueville, considered "freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones. . . . Subjection in minor affairs does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to sacrifice their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated."
This is not an ideological point. Freedom in daily choices is essential for practical reasons -- necessary for government officials and judges as well as for teachers, doctors and entrepreneurs. The new legal order doesn't honor the individuality of human accomplishment. People accomplish things by focusing on the goal, and letting their instincts, mainly subconscious, try to get them there.
"Amazingly few people," management guru Peter Drucker observed, "know how they get things done." Most things happen, the philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote, through "the usual process of trial and error by which we feel our way to success." Thomas Edison put it this way: "Nothing that's any good works by itself. You got to make the damn thing work." Modern law pulls the rug out from under all those human powers and substitutes instead a debilitating self-consciousness.
Teachers lose their authority, Prof. Arum found, because the overhang of law causes "hesitation, doubt and weakening of conviction." Skyrocketing health-care costs are impossible to contain as long as doctors go through the day thinking about how they will defend themselves if a sick person sues.
The overlay of law on daily choices destroys the human instinct needed to get things done. Bureaucracy can't teach. Rules don't make things happen. Accomplishment is personal. Anyone who has felt the pride of a job well done knows this.
How do we restore Americans' freedom in daily choices? Freedom is notoriously malleable towards self-interest. "We all declare for liberty," Abraham Lincoln observed, "but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing."Freedom, however, is not just a shoving match.
Freedom has a formal structure. It has two components:1) Law sets boundaries that proscribe what we must do or can't do -- you must not steal, you must pay taxes.2) Those same legal boundaries protect an open field of free choice in all other matters.The forgotten idea is the second component -- that law must affirmatively define an area free from legal interference.
Law must provide "frontiers, not artificially drawn," as philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, "within which men should be inviolable."This idea has been lost to our age. When advancing the cause of freedom, law today is all proscription and no protection. There are no boundaries, just a moving mudbank comprised of accumulating bureaucracy and whatever claims people unilaterally choose to assert.
People wade through law all day long. Any disagreement in the workplace, any accident, any incidental touching of a child, any sick person who gets sicker, any bad grade in school -- you name it. Law has poured into daily life.The solution is not just to start paring back all the law -- that would take 10 lifetimes, like trying to prune the jungle. We need to abandon the idea that freedom is a legal maze, where each daily choice is like picking the right answer on a multiple-choice test. We need to set a new goal for law -- to define an open area of free choice. This requires judges and legislatures to affirmatively assert social norms of what's reasonable and what's not.
"The first requirement of a sound body of law," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, "is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community."The profile of authority structures needed to defend daily freedoms is not hard to imagine. Judges would aspire to keep lawsuits reasonable, understanding that what people sue for ends up defining the boundaries of free interaction. Schools would be run by the instincts and values of the humans in charge -- not by bureaucratic micromanagement -- and be held accountable for how they do.
Government officials would have flexibility to meet public goals, also with accountability. Public choices would aspire to balance for the common good, not, generally, to appease someone's rights.
Reviving the can-do spirit that made America great requires a legal overhaul of historic dimension. We must scrape away decades of accumulated legal sediment and replace it with coherent legal goals and authority mechanisms, designed to affirmatively protect individual freedom in daily choices.
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing," Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, "and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical . . . ." The goal is not to change our public goals. The goal is make it possible for free citizens to achieve them.
Mr. Howard, a lawyer, is chair of Common Good (www.commongood.org), and author of the new book "Life Without Lawyers," published this month by W.W. Norton & Co.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
