Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Left Wing Attack Machine-Tries to mute Freedom of Speech
Left-Wing Attack Machine Targets Glenn Beck's Advertisers
By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
August 4, 2009 - 15:05 ET
His show has usually been Fox News third-highest show, behind Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. And since Fox News host Glenn Beck has come on the scene, he has been a thorn in the side of the left-wing machine.
But his July 28 "Fox & Friends" criticism of President Barack Obama's comments on the racially-charged Cambridge, Mass. incident in which a local policeman arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. has sent the liberal nutroots over the edge. After left-wing storefronts drew attention to Beck's analysis, groups want to viewers to boycott his sponsors.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
"Beck's wildly offensive charge, spurred by the recent controversy over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was the latest low in a longstanding conservative narrative that ludicrously paints white men as the victims of ‘reverse racism' and oppression by minorities. Beck's egregious attack has prompted Color of Change to launch a campaign urging Beck's advertisers - which include GEICO and Proctor & Gamble - to stop sponsoring the shock jock's divisive hate-mongering," Tana Ganeva wrote for the liberal Web site Alternet on Aug. 3. "It's about time."
Good luck with that. Beck's latest book, "Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine," has dominated The New York Times bestsellers list for seven weeks now. He has a wildly popular TV show and a top-5 radio talk show. Boycotting Beck's advertisers will be easier said than done. In fact, it could backfire and solidify fan support for him.
But the campaign launched by Color of Change, a non-profit organization that "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice" isn't an actual boycott, but a plea for people to fill-out a Web form that is set up to send an e-mail to Beck's advertisers.
The left has made efforts to boycott other conservative pundits in the past, including, repeatedly, Rush Limbaugh. Those were so successful that Limbaugh signed a deal reportedly worth $400 million last year.
By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
August 4, 2009 - 15:05 ET
His show has usually been Fox News third-highest show, behind Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. And since Fox News host Glenn Beck has come on the scene, he has been a thorn in the side of the left-wing machine.
But his July 28 "Fox & Friends" criticism of President Barack Obama's comments on the racially-charged Cambridge, Mass. incident in which a local policeman arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. has sent the liberal nutroots over the edge. After left-wing storefronts drew attention to Beck's analysis, groups want to viewers to boycott his sponsors.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
"Beck's wildly offensive charge, spurred by the recent controversy over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was the latest low in a longstanding conservative narrative that ludicrously paints white men as the victims of ‘reverse racism' and oppression by minorities. Beck's egregious attack has prompted Color of Change to launch a campaign urging Beck's advertisers - which include GEICO and Proctor & Gamble - to stop sponsoring the shock jock's divisive hate-mongering," Tana Ganeva wrote for the liberal Web site Alternet on Aug. 3. "It's about time."
Good luck with that. Beck's latest book, "Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine," has dominated The New York Times bestsellers list for seven weeks now. He has a wildly popular TV show and a top-5 radio talk show. Boycotting Beck's advertisers will be easier said than done. In fact, it could backfire and solidify fan support for him.
But the campaign launched by Color of Change, a non-profit organization that "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice" isn't an actual boycott, but a plea for people to fill-out a Web form that is set up to send an e-mail to Beck's advertisers.
The left has made efforts to boycott other conservative pundits in the past, including, repeatedly, Rush Limbaugh. Those were so successful that Limbaugh signed a deal reportedly worth $400 million last year.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Chains that Bind-Liberal Uncle Tom Menality
Has slavery really been eradicated? I mean has African Americans become a free people?.In the context of our society you could say,that many Americans died to make all people free.Brother against brother fighting each for what they thought was the right.But did that great war with the heaviest casualties ever amassed in American History,really eradicate the true definition of slavery?I really don't believe it did.
As to date 13 million black babies since 1973 in this Country-Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.
This is genocide,perpetrated against a minority group -one that was under the understanding that they were a free people. But their offspring is being eradicated by a group founded by a racist Margaret Sanger.This woman would give speeches to the klu klux klan and she believed in Eugenics a system of ridding society of the "unfit" an "undesirable".
This was a technique also employed by Adolf Hitler and his "extermination" of the Jews. While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
Does this sound like freedom-It sounds like that if you put a different face on the same evil, it becomes good?No way-This is a lie that just keeps getting more and more credible.While all the time, all it can be called is "incredible".This is acceptable?I really hope it isn't!The lie has to be exposed.The fact that genocide is happening and seemingly the Party-Democrats ,don't care!Why is that?They tell the minorities "we are in there fighting for you,getting you what you deserve"and all the time their babies are not given value or purpose.The liberals make the minorities think they are have to have them to succeed or not succeed.It is a vicious cycle that has to be stopped.
The Marriage rate for African Americans has dropped since the 1960's around the same time the Democratic Party convinced this demographic that they were in their corner.The broken families that have resulted since this period is astronomical. In the 1940'a African American divorce rate was about the same as whites.Around 22%.Liberal agenda involves destroying the traditional family structure. One,Planned parenthood.Had and does promote promiscuity,no value to life.Two trying to obscure the lines of what constitutes a family structure,ie-gay,homosexual,agenda for an acceptable marriage arrangement and environmental family.
First, African Americans are told "we don't value your offspring" and that we are going to use your enormous struggle in this Country "slavery" "civil rights" to piggyback our other agendas by saying that being gay is like being black!!Are you serious? I am personally disturbed that there is not more of an outrage in the Black Community.Can I say it is an Uncle Tom mentality?Well that is how I feel about it .
The majority of the African American Community feel they are "beholden" to the Uncle Tom's ie- Liberals for bringing them so far!What? They didn't do anything that Martin Luther King Jr. didn't do. He wanted "Civil Rights" and he wanted it 'clean'.Not the dirty way it has arrived!! There was no beholden when it came to Martin Luther King jr. He knew that his dream would be realized!But it was tainted,because he was taken! The Liberals got credit for what wasn't theirs.History warped and distorted the facts,and now we stand with African Americans being enslaved once again,by the same Party that didn't want the Civil Rights Amendment passed.Democrats.Robert Byrd WV.Head of the klu klux klan. It is a joke that isn't funny.
The slavery that exists today in our Country is not one that can be seen by chains that shackle the legs,but in the chains that Liberals keep tightening with the control that they wield and the fear that they instill.It is one of cruelty and shame.It is of unthinkable misery.They actual promote the lie that Democrats are going to get blacks jobs by "leveling the playing"field.Wait red lights- translation "We don't value enough so we have to make the system ,so..you can compete" How demeaning is that? ..and it is the truth.They degrade in every action and it is praised.Or the lie that says "will will subsidize housing and you can get a boost up" Oh yeah this one has worked out horribly.The "projects" how they are referred, are full of fear from crime,drugs and poor living conditions.Oh that boost up is really a boost out.Not valuing a person is telling them that can't compete or succeed without giving them a handout,a handout that is proven to kill the spirit and discourage the soul!
The vote is a powerful tool and if the Liberal can control this massive demographic with lies,and deceit their larger agenda can be accomplished.It hurts the heart to think that a group in America can wield such dangerous power of our African American citizens and if we speak of such things, we are told we are racist.
How is it racist to stop the killing of over eighteen hundred black babies aday?How is it racist to tell someone that your are of equal value with every other human being?You can do anything you work hard and put your mind too.That you don't need me or any other group to propel you anywhere,you can do anything in America.How is it racist to say that being a homosexual does not come to the level at all,of the Civil Rights Movement?How is it racist to want African American fathers to stay at home and raise their children?How is it racist to understand and admire the work of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.,because he said to judge a man on the content of his character?How is it racist to fight against the injustice that is what the Democratic Party is leveling on the minorities in this Country?
This is America and it is so sad to see a Country that lost 620,000 men died by 1865 to free a people from the slave masters that controlled their destinies.
Why do we taint that blood that spilled for such a noble cause,to sit and watch a second enslavement and sit in silence.I will not sit in silence and hope every good and fair minded America will not bow down to the Liberal Agenda!!They hurt in the guise of help.Their lies must be exposed, the division that they wield as something they want to rid the World of,is in reality their ticket to anything they want.As that division widens they blame the conservatives.
In fact, they wield the sword of division proudly-it is their power.They can say "look they want to hold you back ,we want to help you" the Liberals words drip with deciet and pure evil.They speak of themselves,they want to hold back, and their help is guised in dependence.
NO American is beholden to anyone,and if you are and the "beholder" does not realease you from that thought-they are slavemasters, that don't value your worth as a human being!!
As to date 13 million black babies since 1973 in this Country-Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.
This is genocide,perpetrated against a minority group -one that was under the understanding that they were a free people. But their offspring is being eradicated by a group founded by a racist Margaret Sanger.This woman would give speeches to the klu klux klan and she believed in Eugenics a system of ridding society of the "unfit" an "undesirable".
This was a technique also employed by Adolf Hitler and his "extermination" of the Jews. While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
Does this sound like freedom-It sounds like that if you put a different face on the same evil, it becomes good?No way-This is a lie that just keeps getting more and more credible.While all the time, all it can be called is "incredible".This is acceptable?I really hope it isn't!The lie has to be exposed.The fact that genocide is happening and seemingly the Party-Democrats ,don't care!Why is that?They tell the minorities "we are in there fighting for you,getting you what you deserve"and all the time their babies are not given value or purpose.The liberals make the minorities think they are have to have them to succeed or not succeed.It is a vicious cycle that has to be stopped.
The Marriage rate for African Americans has dropped since the 1960's around the same time the Democratic Party convinced this demographic that they were in their corner.The broken families that have resulted since this period is astronomical. In the 1940'a African American divorce rate was about the same as whites.Around 22%.Liberal agenda involves destroying the traditional family structure. One,Planned parenthood.Had and does promote promiscuity,no value to life.Two trying to obscure the lines of what constitutes a family structure,ie-gay,homosexual,agenda for an acceptable marriage arrangement and environmental family.
First, African Americans are told "we don't value your offspring" and that we are going to use your enormous struggle in this Country "slavery" "civil rights" to piggyback our other agendas by saying that being gay is like being black!!Are you serious? I am personally disturbed that there is not more of an outrage in the Black Community.Can I say it is an Uncle Tom mentality?Well that is how I feel about it .
The majority of the African American Community feel they are "beholden" to the Uncle Tom's ie- Liberals for bringing them so far!What? They didn't do anything that Martin Luther King Jr. didn't do. He wanted "Civil Rights" and he wanted it 'clean'.Not the dirty way it has arrived!! There was no beholden when it came to Martin Luther King jr. He knew that his dream would be realized!But it was tainted,because he was taken! The Liberals got credit for what wasn't theirs.History warped and distorted the facts,and now we stand with African Americans being enslaved once again,by the same Party that didn't want the Civil Rights Amendment passed.Democrats.Robert Byrd WV.Head of the klu klux klan. It is a joke that isn't funny.
The slavery that exists today in our Country is not one that can be seen by chains that shackle the legs,but in the chains that Liberals keep tightening with the control that they wield and the fear that they instill.It is one of cruelty and shame.It is of unthinkable misery.They actual promote the lie that Democrats are going to get blacks jobs by "leveling the playing"field.Wait red lights- translation "We don't value enough so we have to make the system ,so..you can compete" How demeaning is that? ..and it is the truth.They degrade in every action and it is praised.Or the lie that says "will will subsidize housing and you can get a boost up" Oh yeah this one has worked out horribly.The "projects" how they are referred, are full of fear from crime,drugs and poor living conditions.Oh that boost up is really a boost out.Not valuing a person is telling them that can't compete or succeed without giving them a handout,a handout that is proven to kill the spirit and discourage the soul!
The vote is a powerful tool and if the Liberal can control this massive demographic with lies,and deceit their larger agenda can be accomplished.It hurts the heart to think that a group in America can wield such dangerous power of our African American citizens and if we speak of such things, we are told we are racist.
How is it racist to stop the killing of over eighteen hundred black babies aday?How is it racist to tell someone that your are of equal value with every other human being?You can do anything you work hard and put your mind too.That you don't need me or any other group to propel you anywhere,you can do anything in America.How is it racist to say that being a homosexual does not come to the level at all,of the Civil Rights Movement?How is it racist to want African American fathers to stay at home and raise their children?How is it racist to understand and admire the work of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.,because he said to judge a man on the content of his character?How is it racist to fight against the injustice that is what the Democratic Party is leveling on the minorities in this Country?
This is America and it is so sad to see a Country that lost 620,000 men died by 1865 to free a people from the slave masters that controlled their destinies.
Why do we taint that blood that spilled for such a noble cause,to sit and watch a second enslavement and sit in silence.I will not sit in silence and hope every good and fair minded America will not bow down to the Liberal Agenda!!They hurt in the guise of help.Their lies must be exposed, the division that they wield as something they want to rid the World of,is in reality their ticket to anything they want.As that division widens they blame the conservatives.
In fact, they wield the sword of division proudly-it is their power.They can say "look they want to hold you back ,we want to help you" the Liberals words drip with deciet and pure evil.They speak of themselves,they want to hold back, and their help is guised in dependence.
NO American is beholden to anyone,and if you are and the "beholder" does not realease you from that thought-they are slavemasters, that don't value your worth as a human being!!
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
America Better Wake-Up
Today in the Jerusalem Post it is reporting that the US is saying to "premature"for them to impose sanctions on Israel.What is going on here?Is this the bully administration of America attacking a little Country (Israel)when they all ready sit amongst ravenous wolves!!This is so incredible,America when will you wake up out of your messiah induced haze and see where this Administation is taking us.Israel has been our biggest ally in the Middle East.The only real ally really!!Now our President of "change" wants to flip the world on it's ear and favor the Arabs!!Who attacked us on 9/11? It was not Jews,it was muslims.Our Government acts as if they don't know what is taught out of the Koran.They know.Jihad is taught and hate againts Jews and non-muslims.That is why you must be informed.Read the Koran.Tell your friends to read it.Your eyes will be opened.This is truly a sad day in American History!
Really need to go out and buy Saul Alinskys book "Rules for Radicals" and see the playbook that this Administration is using.This is Israel of the Bible.Israel that God gave this land to.There wasn't even a Palestian State until very recent.The UN gave this land back to a battered people and this is how the USA repays these people of God!!I am disheartened for America, then I know that God is Sovereign and he will have the last word.In our infinite wisdom (which is very limited by God's measure) we cannot know what lies ahead.
We are praying for America and Israel and know that we cannot support our Government in these attacks on Israel!!
P.S In Deerborn Michigan last week,the Islamic Festival was held.Christians were not allowed to come near them with litature and if they tried they were hit and ran off.This is America this is not Islam.Read it-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534301,00.html- The Sharia Law is all ready being ignored!!They call that tolerance-but watch the video tolerance is a one way street!!
Really need to go out and buy Saul Alinskys book "Rules for Radicals" and see the playbook that this Administration is using.This is Israel of the Bible.Israel that God gave this land to.There wasn't even a Palestian State until very recent.The UN gave this land back to a battered people and this is how the USA repays these people of God!!I am disheartened for America, then I know that God is Sovereign and he will have the last word.In our infinite wisdom (which is very limited by God's measure) we cannot know what lies ahead.
We are praying for America and Israel and know that we cannot support our Government in these attacks on Israel!!
P.S In Deerborn Michigan last week,the Islamic Festival was held.Christians were not allowed to come near them with litature and if they tried they were hit and ran off.This is America this is not Islam.Read it-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534301,00.html- The Sharia Law is all ready being ignored!!They call that tolerance-but watch the video tolerance is a one way street!!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The worldwide economic collapse...is not here yet!
J. James Estrada has been commenting on all the right things in politics since joining the Republican party during the years of the Reagan Administration.
The worldwide economic collapse...is not here yet!
July 14, 11:18 AM
Barney FrankBernie Madoff begins his federal prison sentence today. That’s good. Madoff ripped off a multitude of investors to the tune of $50 billion. He was found guilty of his crimes in court and he will now pay by spending the rest of his life behind cold steel bars. Again, that’s good. And what’s good for Madoff should be good for the perpetrators of the sub-prime lending mess. So why are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd still in Congress?
Back in the 1990’s, Frank, Dodd, and a host of others within the Clinton administration, set off this ticking time-bomb by forcing banks to make loans to those they would not ordinarily loan. That is, to those who could not pay the loans back. The politicians, through their experiment in social engineering, rolled a moneymaker down Wall Street and the money guys went along for the big bucks. Well, the buck has stopped here.
With the election of President Obama, America was set to punish those who caused this financial crisis. However, instead, America has set a knife to the neck of its wounded body, not realizing that they have empowered the enablers.
Al Queda tried to place the country in this peril with the 9/11 attacks. But the Bush tax cuts caused a swift recovery to occur. Remember that the Dow reached over 14,000 in Bush’s second term? True, Bush was duped in 2008 with “bailout” fever, but the genesis of the economic landslide began during the heady days under Clinton.
As Bush proved, as did Reagan before him, the remedy to economic malaise is government getting out of the way of American ingenuity. Obama, though, is not getting government out of the way. He is setting government squarely in the way and building a dam to hold back recovery. In this way, he is not “wasting a good crisis,” and is moving to reshape America into a socialist’s paradise. But America will not be held back. A flood is coming that will smash the hopes of the comrades building this foolish bridge to the old Soviet Union.
If the flood does not come, then you will see a real worldwide economic collapse.
The worldwide economic collapse...is not here yet!
July 14, 11:18 AM
Barney FrankBernie Madoff begins his federal prison sentence today. That’s good. Madoff ripped off a multitude of investors to the tune of $50 billion. He was found guilty of his crimes in court and he will now pay by spending the rest of his life behind cold steel bars. Again, that’s good. And what’s good for Madoff should be good for the perpetrators of the sub-prime lending mess. So why are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd still in Congress?
Back in the 1990’s, Frank, Dodd, and a host of others within the Clinton administration, set off this ticking time-bomb by forcing banks to make loans to those they would not ordinarily loan. That is, to those who could not pay the loans back. The politicians, through their experiment in social engineering, rolled a moneymaker down Wall Street and the money guys went along for the big bucks. Well, the buck has stopped here.
With the election of President Obama, America was set to punish those who caused this financial crisis. However, instead, America has set a knife to the neck of its wounded body, not realizing that they have empowered the enablers.
Al Queda tried to place the country in this peril with the 9/11 attacks. But the Bush tax cuts caused a swift recovery to occur. Remember that the Dow reached over 14,000 in Bush’s second term? True, Bush was duped in 2008 with “bailout” fever, but the genesis of the economic landslide began during the heady days under Clinton.
As Bush proved, as did Reagan before him, the remedy to economic malaise is government getting out of the way of American ingenuity. Obama, though, is not getting government out of the way. He is setting government squarely in the way and building a dam to hold back recovery. In this way, he is not “wasting a good crisis,” and is moving to reshape America into a socialist’s paradise. But America will not be held back. A flood is coming that will smash the hopes of the comrades building this foolish bridge to the old Soviet Union.
If the flood does not come, then you will see a real worldwide economic collapse.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Ever Present Media Bias
The Ever Present (Liberal) Media Bias
June 16, 3:22 PM Patrick McMahon
One of the most complex topics in American politics today is media bias. Yes it does exist on widespread level. Now being a political commentator or expressing your opinion, like I am doing right now, is not what I am referring to. I am talking about the “objective” news organizations that are supposed to report the news in an unbiased way, or just present the facts. The truth is that the vast majority of them do not do that anymore and that is resulting in a soaring number of people either being fed biased information or they are turning to more unconventional means of getting their news.
Most people know that the bias in news overwhelmingly is in favor of the Democratic Party, as it has been for many years now. That is not to say that there is not a Republican bias at all, but it is heavily outnumbered by the many liberal leaning news outlets. With the exception of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the political commentators in talk radio being sympathetic to the Republican Party; the rest appear to be favorable of the Democratic Party. The worst examples of this are the New York Times, the Washington Post, and MSNBC. They have been completely over the top in their support for President Obama and Democrats in Congress. CNN has a slight Democratic tilt, but no where near what it has been on MS-Obama…. I mean MSNBC. Liberal bias has not been working as was hoped, since the Democratic leaning news outlets are absolutely hemorrhaging viewers and readers. MSNBC is so far behind Fox News in the ratings it is pitiful. Not to mention the New York Times is facing a financial meltdown because their circulation has been steadily dropping. A horrible instance of media bias is just today ABC News announced that they were giving President Obama an entire evening of free programming to explain his healthcare plan and to make the case for it. There are two BIG problems with this. One, it is not being paid and two, Republicans and opponents of the plan are not being included. Does anyone actually think the media would have done the same for a Republican? I think not.
It is high time for media bias to go away. Both sides should have their points fairly heard by the audience, which are the voters. They should be allowed to make up their minds about what issues they agree with or disagree with. The press has often treated the public as sheep that need to be herded around and told what to think. Well, Americans are smarter than that and are able to form their own opinions without having a loud mouth television reporter tell a twisted lie in order for people to support a program. If this trend does not stop soon, people will keep turning to other methods of receiving objectionable news instead of being shoveled the same old thing.
June 16, 3:22 PM Patrick McMahon
One of the most complex topics in American politics today is media bias. Yes it does exist on widespread level. Now being a political commentator or expressing your opinion, like I am doing right now, is not what I am referring to. I am talking about the “objective” news organizations that are supposed to report the news in an unbiased way, or just present the facts. The truth is that the vast majority of them do not do that anymore and that is resulting in a soaring number of people either being fed biased information or they are turning to more unconventional means of getting their news.
Most people know that the bias in news overwhelmingly is in favor of the Democratic Party, as it has been for many years now. That is not to say that there is not a Republican bias at all, but it is heavily outnumbered by the many liberal leaning news outlets. With the exception of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the political commentators in talk radio being sympathetic to the Republican Party; the rest appear to be favorable of the Democratic Party. The worst examples of this are the New York Times, the Washington Post, and MSNBC. They have been completely over the top in their support for President Obama and Democrats in Congress. CNN has a slight Democratic tilt, but no where near what it has been on MS-Obama…. I mean MSNBC. Liberal bias has not been working as was hoped, since the Democratic leaning news outlets are absolutely hemorrhaging viewers and readers. MSNBC is so far behind Fox News in the ratings it is pitiful. Not to mention the New York Times is facing a financial meltdown because their circulation has been steadily dropping. A horrible instance of media bias is just today ABC News announced that they were giving President Obama an entire evening of free programming to explain his healthcare plan and to make the case for it. There are two BIG problems with this. One, it is not being paid and two, Republicans and opponents of the plan are not being included. Does anyone actually think the media would have done the same for a Republican? I think not.
It is high time for media bias to go away. Both sides should have their points fairly heard by the audience, which are the voters. They should be allowed to make up their minds about what issues they agree with or disagree with. The press has often treated the public as sheep that need to be herded around and told what to think. Well, Americans are smarter than that and are able to form their own opinions without having a loud mouth television reporter tell a twisted lie in order for people to support a program. If this trend does not stop soon, people will keep turning to other methods of receiving objectionable news instead of being shoveled the same old thing.
Friday, July 03, 2009
God and Country organizers: Pentagon denied flyover
God and Country organizers: Pentagon denied flyover
Bryan Dooley
bdooley@idahopress.com
NAMPA - Organizers of the God and Country Family Festival say the Pentagon denied a military flyover, which the celebration has featured for 42 years, because of the event's emphasis on Christianity.
"Basically, we applied to have a military flyover," Director Patti Syme told the Idaho Press-Tribune Thursday. "We were given (Federal Aviation Administration) approval, and then had to apply through the Pentagon. When we applied they denied our request because, as the gentlemen stated, our Web site specifically stated that this is a Christian event."
The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment submitted to its media office Thursday evening.
Organizers don't deny the explicitly Christian nature of the annual patriotic rally.
"Yes, it's about as Christian as you can get - we believe in promoting Christianity," Syme said. "And we have no plans to change that."
But Canyon County Commissioner David Ferdinand, the festival board's media contact, said that's not all there is to it.
"It's God and country, and that's the military and all of that," Ferdinand stressed. "You do the flyover to honor the military and the freedoms that they stand for. To me, we're honoring the military when we do that flyover, and that's why we do it. I think they made a bad decision."
Organizers will push to bring the flyover back next year, Ferdinand said.
"The military and the families who have sacrificed their loved ones for this country and for those freedoms deserve to have that flyover," he said.
Ferdinand said it was unclear why, after 42 years, the Pentagon did not approve the flyover this year.
"It's like the guy got on our Web site for a minute and just looked at that one thing," he said.
He said Syme told him the Pentagon representative she spoke with was very understanding and said the military would love to participate but could not do so because of the explicit endorsements of Christianity.
Syme's husband Scott Syme, a veteran of the U.S. Army Reserve who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, ran for U.S. Senate in 2008.
Christian activist Brandi Swindell sent a text message about the lack of the flyover from Wednesday night's event at the Idaho Center amphitheater. She followed up with another message Thursday.
"This is unbelievable and deeply troubling," Swindell wrote. "The Pentagon does not have the authority to discriminate against Christian groups or events. This type of religious bigotry is unconstitutional. How sad to see this lack of respect and level of blatant bias surrounding the 4th of July celebration."
Pam Baldwin, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Idaho, said there's no basis for the assertion that the denial amounted to federal government discrimination against Christians.
"Everything is not about whether folks are Jews or Christians or Muslims," she said. "If people are saying that, they're probably looking for media attention or looking to disparage other faiths."
Baldwin questioned whether a flyover of the event would have been a prudent use of public resources, especially in light of the deep recession.
Bryan Dooley
bdooley@idahopress.com
NAMPA - Organizers of the God and Country Family Festival say the Pentagon denied a military flyover, which the celebration has featured for 42 years, because of the event's emphasis on Christianity.
"Basically, we applied to have a military flyover," Director Patti Syme told the Idaho Press-Tribune Thursday. "We were given (Federal Aviation Administration) approval, and then had to apply through the Pentagon. When we applied they denied our request because, as the gentlemen stated, our Web site specifically stated that this is a Christian event."
The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment submitted to its media office Thursday evening.
Organizers don't deny the explicitly Christian nature of the annual patriotic rally.
"Yes, it's about as Christian as you can get - we believe in promoting Christianity," Syme said. "And we have no plans to change that."
But Canyon County Commissioner David Ferdinand, the festival board's media contact, said that's not all there is to it.
"It's God and country, and that's the military and all of that," Ferdinand stressed. "You do the flyover to honor the military and the freedoms that they stand for. To me, we're honoring the military when we do that flyover, and that's why we do it. I think they made a bad decision."
Organizers will push to bring the flyover back next year, Ferdinand said.
"The military and the families who have sacrificed their loved ones for this country and for those freedoms deserve to have that flyover," he said.
Ferdinand said it was unclear why, after 42 years, the Pentagon did not approve the flyover this year.
"It's like the guy got on our Web site for a minute and just looked at that one thing," he said.
He said Syme told him the Pentagon representative she spoke with was very understanding and said the military would love to participate but could not do so because of the explicit endorsements of Christianity.
Syme's husband Scott Syme, a veteran of the U.S. Army Reserve who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, ran for U.S. Senate in 2008.
Christian activist Brandi Swindell sent a text message about the lack of the flyover from Wednesday night's event at the Idaho Center amphitheater. She followed up with another message Thursday.
"This is unbelievable and deeply troubling," Swindell wrote. "The Pentagon does not have the authority to discriminate against Christian groups or events. This type of religious bigotry is unconstitutional. How sad to see this lack of respect and level of blatant bias surrounding the 4th of July celebration."
Pam Baldwin, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Idaho, said there's no basis for the assertion that the denial amounted to federal government discrimination against Christians.
"Everything is not about whether folks are Jews or Christians or Muslims," she said. "If people are saying that, they're probably looking for media attention or looking to disparage other faiths."
Baldwin questioned whether a flyover of the event would have been a prudent use of public resources, especially in light of the deep recession.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Jewish Paper-"We're launching a Campaign against anti-Semitic Obama
i
Last update - 22:53 03/06/2009
'We're launching a campaign against anti-Semitic Obama'
By Raphael Ahren, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Sevice
Tags: Israel news, Obama, Jerusalem
Some 130 protesters gathered in front of the American Consulate in Jerusalem Wednesday afternoon to rally against U.S. President Barack Obama, who had just launched his Middle East tour, during which he is expected to reach out in friendship to the Muslim world.
As more than a dozen local and international journalists looked on, the protesters chanted "No, You Can't" and waved posters saying "20 new 'settlements' by 2010 - Yes We Can!"
Far right activist Itamar Ben-Gvir, who attended the protest, told Channel 10 that "it appears that we've arrived at a red line, which has already been crossed by the most anti-Semitic American president."
Advertisement
"We are launching a campaign against Barack Hussein Obama. He is bad for the people of Israel and for the state of Israel and his policies could bring about disaster. We expect our prime minister to say 'no' to anyone who tries to harm us," Ben-Gvir added.
National Union MKs Aryeh Eldad and Michael Ben Ari addressed the crowd, largely made up of native-English speaking Israelis.
"I'm here to tell Obama that Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish people," said Scottish-born Edith Ognall, who drove to the capital from her hometown of Netanya to attend the event. "What right does anybody have to tell us to stop building in the land that was given to us by God? I'm not going to stand by and let Obama, or anybody else, tell me where I can live and where I can't live."
Nadia Matar, the Belgian-born co-chair of Women in Green, which organized the event, made a point of repeatedly mentioning Obama' middle name, Hussein, because "we have to remind ourselves that he received an Islamic education in Indonesia."
"We are connected to our land like a mother is connected to her children," the well-known activist told reporters. "And I want to warn you: Don't mess with a Jewish mother who feels her children or her homeland are in danger. Every part and parcel and hilltop and stone in the Land of Israel is like one of our children. And we'e going to protect it like lionesses."
Last update - 22:53 03/06/2009
'We're launching a campaign against anti-Semitic Obama'
By Raphael Ahren, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Sevice
Tags: Israel news, Obama, Jerusalem
Some 130 protesters gathered in front of the American Consulate in Jerusalem Wednesday afternoon to rally against U.S. President Barack Obama, who had just launched his Middle East tour, during which he is expected to reach out in friendship to the Muslim world.
As more than a dozen local and international journalists looked on, the protesters chanted "No, You Can't" and waved posters saying "20 new 'settlements' by 2010 - Yes We Can!"
Far right activist Itamar Ben-Gvir, who attended the protest, told Channel 10 that "it appears that we've arrived at a red line, which has already been crossed by the most anti-Semitic American president."
Advertisement
"We are launching a campaign against Barack Hussein Obama. He is bad for the people of Israel and for the state of Israel and his policies could bring about disaster. We expect our prime minister to say 'no' to anyone who tries to harm us," Ben-Gvir added.
National Union MKs Aryeh Eldad and Michael Ben Ari addressed the crowd, largely made up of native-English speaking Israelis.
"I'm here to tell Obama that Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish people," said Scottish-born Edith Ognall, who drove to the capital from her hometown of Netanya to attend the event. "What right does anybody have to tell us to stop building in the land that was given to us by God? I'm not going to stand by and let Obama, or anybody else, tell me where I can live and where I can't live."
Nadia Matar, the Belgian-born co-chair of Women in Green, which organized the event, made a point of repeatedly mentioning Obama' middle name, Hussein, because "we have to remind ourselves that he received an Islamic education in Indonesia."
"We are connected to our land like a mother is connected to her children," the well-known activist told reporters. "And I want to warn you: Don't mess with a Jewish mother who feels her children or her homeland are in danger. Every part and parcel and hilltop and stone in the Land of Israel is like one of our children. And we'e going to protect it like lionesses."
Friday, June 12, 2009
Parker: Obama fast tracking the nanny state
Submitted by SHNS on Fri, 06/12/2009 - 12:29. By STAR PARKER, Scripps Howard News Service editorials and opinion
President Obama wants health care reform this year.
He said at a town hall meeting the other day that he won't tolerate "endless delay" and that we probably won't reform health care if we don't do it this year.
Now why is that Mr. President? Will Congress be on vacation for the remaining three years of your term?
Consider that it's not unusual to take a full session of congress -- two years -- to pass legislation a fraction of the size and consequence of health care reform. Yet our president is demanding that a bill to overhaul a $2.5 trillion sector of our economy -- one sixth of it -- be considered and passed in a few short weeks.
It ought to be clear that this is not about taking an honest and sincere look at how to make this a better country and how to do a better job at delivering health care to Americans. It's impossible to look at something this massive and deal with it in such a short time frame.
This is about raw politics. When Mr. Obama says that if we don't get "it" done this year we probably won't get "it" done, he doesn't mean reforming health care. He means reforming it the way he and Ted Kennedy want to do it. Government run, nanny state health care.
To pull it off, they have to move fast.
First, the White House knows that Mr. Obama's honeymoon won't last forever. While his personal approval ratings remain high at 60 percent, his disapproval rating now at 33% is almost twice where is stood last February. And, in latest Gallup polling, the majority now disapprove of how Obama is handling government spending. So the White House wants action now on health care while their man is still popular.
Second, the White House knows that next year is an election year. It will be far more difficult to get Senators and Congressmen to play ball.
Third, they know that the big reason that Hillary Care failed in 1993 was that the American people were given an opportunity to look at it and consider it. They don't want to make the same mistake of giving voters a chance to actually understand what is about to happen to them. They know that the more Americans have an opportunity to take a look at the bureaucrat run, nanny state health care freight train, the more likely they will jump of the track.
Breathlessness is a great political technique. Telling voters that the world will end if we don't get X passed now.
This is how the $800 billion dollar "stimulus" bill got passed earlier this year. We were flashed images of the Great Depression of the 1930's and told our only hope is the stimulus bill.
Now, three months later, it's clear that our current economy bears no resemblance to the 1930's, that signs of recovery are emerging, and thus far only 6 percent of the $800 billion "stimulus" pot of political lard has been spent.
The trillions in new debt have been piled up at such a dizzying pace in the last few months Americans are numb. The federal government take from our economy has jumped from one fifth of it to one fourth.
Now, Mr. Obama and his Democrat colleagues want to layer on a new government health care plan to "compete" with private plans. "Compete" means raising taxes a few trillion dollars to provide subsidized insurance, and in some cases, free insurance, through a government plan in which all Americans will eventually wind up. And putting federal bureaucrats in charge of approving what health care procedures we are permitted.
The health care nanny state freight train is moving. Will we wake up before it's too late?
(Star Parker an author and president of CURE, Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org). She can be reached at parker@urbancure.org.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
COLUMN
President Obama wants health care reform this year.
He said at a town hall meeting the other day that he won't tolerate "endless delay" and that we probably won't reform health care if we don't do it this year.
Now why is that Mr. President? Will Congress be on vacation for the remaining three years of your term?
Consider that it's not unusual to take a full session of congress -- two years -- to pass legislation a fraction of the size and consequence of health care reform. Yet our president is demanding that a bill to overhaul a $2.5 trillion sector of our economy -- one sixth of it -- be considered and passed in a few short weeks.
It ought to be clear that this is not about taking an honest and sincere look at how to make this a better country and how to do a better job at delivering health care to Americans. It's impossible to look at something this massive and deal with it in such a short time frame.
This is about raw politics. When Mr. Obama says that if we don't get "it" done this year we probably won't get "it" done, he doesn't mean reforming health care. He means reforming it the way he and Ted Kennedy want to do it. Government run, nanny state health care.
To pull it off, they have to move fast.
First, the White House knows that Mr. Obama's honeymoon won't last forever. While his personal approval ratings remain high at 60 percent, his disapproval rating now at 33% is almost twice where is stood last February. And, in latest Gallup polling, the majority now disapprove of how Obama is handling government spending. So the White House wants action now on health care while their man is still popular.
Second, the White House knows that next year is an election year. It will be far more difficult to get Senators and Congressmen to play ball.
Third, they know that the big reason that Hillary Care failed in 1993 was that the American people were given an opportunity to look at it and consider it. They don't want to make the same mistake of giving voters a chance to actually understand what is about to happen to them. They know that the more Americans have an opportunity to take a look at the bureaucrat run, nanny state health care freight train, the more likely they will jump of the track.
Breathlessness is a great political technique. Telling voters that the world will end if we don't get X passed now.
This is how the $800 billion dollar "stimulus" bill got passed earlier this year. We were flashed images of the Great Depression of the 1930's and told our only hope is the stimulus bill.
Now, three months later, it's clear that our current economy bears no resemblance to the 1930's, that signs of recovery are emerging, and thus far only 6 percent of the $800 billion "stimulus" pot of political lard has been spent.
The trillions in new debt have been piled up at such a dizzying pace in the last few months Americans are numb. The federal government take from our economy has jumped from one fifth of it to one fourth.
Now, Mr. Obama and his Democrat colleagues want to layer on a new government health care plan to "compete" with private plans. "Compete" means raising taxes a few trillion dollars to provide subsidized insurance, and in some cases, free insurance, through a government plan in which all Americans will eventually wind up. And putting federal bureaucrats in charge of approving what health care procedures we are permitted.
The health care nanny state freight train is moving. Will we wake up before it's too late?
(Star Parker an author and president of CURE, Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org). She can be reached at parker@urbancure.org.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
COLUMN
They Done Us Wrong: Spending Our Way Into Greater Depression
by Michael S. Rozeff
If you like economic depression, Obama is your man. The stock market is shouting this message loudly and clearly. The S & P 500 (measured by the security SPY) made a little high at 100.41 on November 4, 2008. The election was the next day. It has been downhill ever since. The close on March 2, 2009 was 70.60. This 30 percent decline qualifies as what used to be an ordinary bear market!
Congress and the President could not construct better measures, proposed and enacted, to deepen this depression if they tried. Congressional Democrats intend to ensconce Democrats as the majority party for the next 25 years or so. Their chosen method is wasteful pork sold as rational investment. But by gilding the nests of their chosen constituencies and supporters with huge taxpayer-funded giveaways, they will deepen and lengthen the depression.
The stock market tells us this, but it is easy for stimulus supporters to explain away the stock market�s drop in other ways. Obama supporters are likely to extol the good things that his program is doing to revive spending in the economy, and to regard the stock market as an aberrant den of gamblers and thieves who deserve their Bush-induced fate.
Very few men on the street, including my doctor, understand that spending, whether private or government, does not get rid of economic depression; and the lack of spending does not cause it. They do not fathom that government spending, borrowing, and taxing will further gash the sinking economy below the water line and send it to its watery grave. They are more inclined to believe, along with prominent economists, that government spending should be increased by trillions more. There cannot be too much of a good thing.
People automatically think that if everyone does not spend, then how can businesses keep going and hire people? How can the economy work? Then they think, if people only have money, then they can spend. If the government spending will only put that money into their hands, this will cause people to spend. It will jump start the economy, restore business confidence, and all will be well.
This story has a firm hold on the public imagination, but things don�t work that way. People in the aggregate can only earn money to spend by working productively. Money still doesn�t grow on trees.
The government doesn�t have a money tree either. Without resorting to inflation, it can only shift money around. America�s federal government is a group of Americans who are empowered to tax the rest of us and borrow from anyone in the world. This money is collected from you, me, and others. We then have less to spend. Shifting money from the left pocket to the right pocket doesn�t enhance the total amount.
Americans are not unwise enough to accept government money that is rolled off a printing press with absolutely nothing to back it up. Our government does not do things so crudely. Its money is printed up for it only after it issues government bonds that promise to pay interest. For all practical purposes, these bonds are perpetuities on which the promise is made to pay interest forever. There is no government money tree in this process because the government taxes Americans to pay the interest. If the government borrows from us and spends more now, we have less to spend now. The money goes from one pocket to another with no aggregate gain.
The government has another way to borrow. The central bank (the FED) can take the bonds and credit the government�s bank account. This exchanges one credit for another credit. The taxpayer must still pay interest. The credit created for the government has not directly diminished the taxpayer�s wealth on his personal account. There has been no money transferred from taxpayer to government. The taxpayers have a new liability, nonetheless. They will be made to pay the present value of the interest payments, which is the value of the bonds. This may or may not crimp their spending. It probably will not. They are unlikely at first to realize that they owe this money. As time goes on and they have to pay higher taxes, they might realize it. When the government relieves many people of direct taxes, it hides this burden of the debt for as long as it can.
So what do we have? The government can get money from the FED and spend it. It will seem to many people like money that grows on trees because they do not see the eventual taxes or the current hidden taxes. The government can spend this money. It will stimulate people into working at various government-selected projects. There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch. If people do not value these projects (which is usually the case) or the projects lose money (which they usually do), the welfare of people does not go up. It goes down, for they are paying for useless work. Furthermore, the government spending raises costs and prices by bidding labor and materials away from others. And this prevents those prices from adjusting to levels that make it profitable for businesses to employ people in making stuff that people really want.
There are those who contest the notion that government spending is largely waste. They imagine brand new bridges, newly-paved roads, and intercity rail transport. Even if these projects paid off, they are a tiny fraction of all government spending. And most of these do not pay off. Government spending only creates wealth if it spends money on things whose return exceeds the cost of the capital used. The government�s own operating costs are so high that, viewed as a business, it gets a return on its investments that falls far short of its capital costs. In other words, the government is like a gigantic money-losing business. One reason for this is that interest groups get the money. The image of public-minded officials dispersing the money efficiently is unreal.
Everyone who has spent any time at all looking into the matter of government spending, all regular readers of LRC, all readers of Ideas in Liberty, all readers of the publications of the Independent Institute, etc., and all those who have not looked into it, but have merely had experience with government, take it for granted that every $1 spent by government costs the taxpayer $1.25 or more. Governments routinely destroy wealth. The case is so overwhelming that anyone who believes otherwise can only be willfully ignorant or blinding himself. One scholar (Martin J. Bailey), who was far from a radical anti-government person, but who spent many years studying government and trying to write an improved Constitution to mitigate problems with representative government, wrote as follows:
"The leader, if truly well-informed, will know about several barriers to sound government. We may summarize these as follows. In existing nations the clash of interests often has powerfully wasteful and detrimental effects, among other reasons because elected professional politicians with almost unlimited authority to enact and administer laws are subject to enormous rent-seeking pressures. Indeed, they seek out groups that have been unable to solve their own organizational free rider problems and solve them through legislation � e.g., for labor in the 1930s through the National Labor Relations Act and more recently for the poor and the �homeless.� Political discourse in all venues is routinely filled with fraudulent claims, slander and other misrepresentations. Even if they might wish to enact perfectly constructive, statesmanlike legislation, politicians have no reliable conduit with which to collect valid information about the preferences and values of their constituents. A fundamental reason for these symptoms is that citizens have no incentive to seek out the truth on public issues, but instead choose rational ignorance and, often, rational non-participation. See Downs (1957: 238�274). From this core problem emanate others that permeate government. Finding a corrective mechanism for this core problem is a necessary condition for overall improvement."
It helps the cause of liberty when polite and well-mannered experts, people who have studied the matter for years and speak in restrained tones, inform us that politicians cater to interest groups and not the public welfare, that they routinely lie, that they organize interest groups and shake them down, that even if they wanted to, they could not serve the public interest, and that our representative government is wildly dysfunctional.
The image of government restoring confidence by raising and spending money could not be more mistaken. This is the fantasy of Keynes. It is the rhetoric of FDR ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"). If business confidence depended on government spending, there would not have occurred any of the last 5 recessions in the U.S., for government spending rose both before and during these recessions. And there would have been a recession during the Clinton years when government spending moderated. The confidence of a businessman depends on the anticipated demand for his goods and services. He does not invest in plant and hire labor on the basis that the government is spending money on its favorite interest groups.
There are unemployed resources in a depression. Doesn�t the government improve matters by putting these to work? There is a large vacant building for lease in a nearby commercial strip. It used to be a shoe store. At the same time, there are unemployed men and women in the area. So far, no business has seen fit to rent the building. Does the government have a viable business in view? This is highly doubtful. It is not how the government operates. If it directly hires the building, the chances are that it will hire people to do make-work. The operation will run a loss, paid for by taxpayers. Why should they be taxed to pay the unemployed and lose money in the process? Nothing is accomplished but a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the unemployed and an additional loss. Meanwhile, when business recovers and seeks to satisfy needs of consumers, it finds that its costs are higher because the government has rented the building and hired labor. The government�s actions inhibit recovery. Why should wealth be taken from taxpayers? If they would have spent the money on goods, they no longer can. If they would have invested it, that too is no longer possible.
Meanwhile, there is another effect of government borrowing from the FED. When the FED credits the government, it creates bank reserves. This typically sets off a multiple credit expansion among banks. This stimulates business, but it is a process of credit inflation that leads to a recession or worse. Ordinarily, business demand for labor and materials is constrained and rationed by the supply of savings. The FED�s credit creation, however, causes a lowering of the interest rate. That relaxes the constraint. The stimulation causes economic distortions and imbalances and eventual recession.
Imagine that IBM is induced to borrow and to produce a new supercomputer because it thinks that its cost of capital is lower. It hires people, builds a new production line, and starts churning out new supercomputers. Other businesses do the same. But their planned selling prices and costs are predicated on spending, saving, and hiring patterns that no longer exist � the credit inflation changes all of that. The business activity that comes into the economy affects particular people first and not others, and their spending and saving behavior is not what would have occurred had they not been employed and paid in this new activity. Furthermore, people change their economic behavior when they observe the activities of others and experience price changes.
The result is that somewhere along the way, some businesses find that their costs are rising beyond what they planned and expected. Some businesses also find that people are not buying the newly-produced items in the anticipated volume. The costs are rising because IBM is competing with Apple and many others to hire factors of production. Some products are not selling because the stimulus is uneven or not neutral in its effects. To sell their products, some firms have to lower their prices. Since they still have to pay their debts, they find themselves caught in a squeeze. This leads to cutbacks. This affects other firms. A recession or depression starts.
Government credit inflation is not a free lunch. The Obamaniacs are not overtly promising more depression via increased government spending, but that is inherent in their program. If they borrow from the public, it has no net stimulating effect. If they borrow from the FED, it produces temporary stimulation and inflation and then further depression. Credit creation through the central bank ultimately sends the economy on a downward course.
The stimulus story is that if people only can get money, they can spend and the economy will rise. People only can earn money by working. They earn money by providing something of value to others, like their labor or a good or service. The money they get entitles them to cash in on the value of their service by choosing to buy the goods or assets that others make available.
The image of money making the wheels of commerce turn is misleading. The money is a counter, a ticket that allows one to buy an array of goods. Money is a chit or a voucher. Money is a credit that can be cashed in against society�s goods and services; it is a credit that you can use up as you choose. When you make money, that money measures something else that is more basic, which is that you have supplied a valuable service or good. The money is an option to get goods in return at a later time and place of your choosing.
Money is not the problem. We do not have a depression for lack of money. The official M1 money supply at this time is almost $1.6 trillion. It was $1.4 trillion when the depression began. The problem is much more subtle. It has to do with prices and the price system. It has to do with overcoming problems caused by bad credits that arose when the price system was distorted by inflation. We have a depression because of the distortions and imbalances in the economy that arose over many years when too many people were induced by the FED to borrow too many credits and use them to buy and produce goods and services.
The image of government spending putting money into people�s hands is misleading. When the federal government spends money on windmills, it has to get that money from taxes or borrowing. When it borrows from the public, it has to raise taxes to pay the costs of the debt. So we may as well say that all the federal spending is paid for with taxes. This takes money out of the hands of those who might otherwise spend it or invest it. The government isn�t jump-starting anything.
If people want to trade goods and do not have enough money to carry out their exchanges, they can always create more. Money itself is not the problem, as the spending and stimulus story suggests. What you spend is what you produce. You can only spend what you produce. (If you borrow and spend, you must eventually pay that back with your production.) If Iowa corn farmers want to buy Chinese pots and pans, they have to produce corn. If the Chinese want to buy Iowa corn, they have to produce pots and pans. They don�t want our dollars to eat anymore than we want their yuan to cook with; these currencies are only media of exchange. We can always arrange means of paying each other. The real problem is that the production of goods has been dis-arranged and that many firms have to restructure. Many will go bankrupt and liquidate. Many will lay off workers. The adjustments take time. This is not now a problem of money and credit, although it was brought about by central banking�s excessive money and credit. It is now a problem of real production being interrupted because it is not geared to producing what people want to and can buy at current prices. When a lot of us do not have the means to spend, it is because we are not producing enough product that others want at prices they are willing to pay. That happens because inflation has distorted the price system and production.
In this situation, government spending does not restore the production system to one that caters to people�s wants and demands. Government spending does the opposite. It induces men and materials into work that is not in demand. This lengthens the period of adjustment back to normal production. It causes even more distortion by bidding labor and materials away from businesses and into lines of work promoted by government. It creates a new inflation and price distortions that must cause more depression. Furthermore, as we know, the government spending itself is on wasteful activities.
The government spending under Bush and Obama is piling up immense new liabilities and debts. Americans are trying to save more. The data on their private account show this clearly. The personal savings rate in January of this year is 5 percent. From 2005 to April of 2008, it averaged just under 0.5 percent. Meanwhile their government is frustrating their actions by incurring immense new debts.
Sadly, spending is not the end of the story of the Obama administration. Its tax and regulatory policies are equally destructive. It is certain that higher capital gains taxes, estate taxes, income taxes, and carbon taxes will provide new depressing effects on the American economy. The federal government�s projects now include a growing array of wealth-destroying investments that include AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the auto industry, and other major banks.
Since the Democrat victory in November, the stock market has been discounting these negatives. It will continue to do so as long as these negatives continue and worsen. At present, the Obama administration is still serving up a daily diet of negative shocks to the economy and the stock market. It is frustrating the recuperative powers of Americans, just as it is frustrating their attempts to save and put the American house in order. If this is not an example of the evils of our federal government and of our form of representative constitutional government, I don�t know what is.
If you like economic depression, Obama is your man. The stock market is shouting this message loudly and clearly. The S & P 500 (measured by the security SPY) made a little high at 100.41 on November 4, 2008. The election was the next day. It has been downhill ever since. The close on March 2, 2009 was 70.60. This 30 percent decline qualifies as what used to be an ordinary bear market!
Congress and the President could not construct better measures, proposed and enacted, to deepen this depression if they tried. Congressional Democrats intend to ensconce Democrats as the majority party for the next 25 years or so. Their chosen method is wasteful pork sold as rational investment. But by gilding the nests of their chosen constituencies and supporters with huge taxpayer-funded giveaways, they will deepen and lengthen the depression.
The stock market tells us this, but it is easy for stimulus supporters to explain away the stock market�s drop in other ways. Obama supporters are likely to extol the good things that his program is doing to revive spending in the economy, and to regard the stock market as an aberrant den of gamblers and thieves who deserve their Bush-induced fate.
Very few men on the street, including my doctor, understand that spending, whether private or government, does not get rid of economic depression; and the lack of spending does not cause it. They do not fathom that government spending, borrowing, and taxing will further gash the sinking economy below the water line and send it to its watery grave. They are more inclined to believe, along with prominent economists, that government spending should be increased by trillions more. There cannot be too much of a good thing.
People automatically think that if everyone does not spend, then how can businesses keep going and hire people? How can the economy work? Then they think, if people only have money, then they can spend. If the government spending will only put that money into their hands, this will cause people to spend. It will jump start the economy, restore business confidence, and all will be well.
This story has a firm hold on the public imagination, but things don�t work that way. People in the aggregate can only earn money to spend by working productively. Money still doesn�t grow on trees.
The government doesn�t have a money tree either. Without resorting to inflation, it can only shift money around. America�s federal government is a group of Americans who are empowered to tax the rest of us and borrow from anyone in the world. This money is collected from you, me, and others. We then have less to spend. Shifting money from the left pocket to the right pocket doesn�t enhance the total amount.
Americans are not unwise enough to accept government money that is rolled off a printing press with absolutely nothing to back it up. Our government does not do things so crudely. Its money is printed up for it only after it issues government bonds that promise to pay interest. For all practical purposes, these bonds are perpetuities on which the promise is made to pay interest forever. There is no government money tree in this process because the government taxes Americans to pay the interest. If the government borrows from us and spends more now, we have less to spend now. The money goes from one pocket to another with no aggregate gain.
The government has another way to borrow. The central bank (the FED) can take the bonds and credit the government�s bank account. This exchanges one credit for another credit. The taxpayer must still pay interest. The credit created for the government has not directly diminished the taxpayer�s wealth on his personal account. There has been no money transferred from taxpayer to government. The taxpayers have a new liability, nonetheless. They will be made to pay the present value of the interest payments, which is the value of the bonds. This may or may not crimp their spending. It probably will not. They are unlikely at first to realize that they owe this money. As time goes on and they have to pay higher taxes, they might realize it. When the government relieves many people of direct taxes, it hides this burden of the debt for as long as it can.
So what do we have? The government can get money from the FED and spend it. It will seem to many people like money that grows on trees because they do not see the eventual taxes or the current hidden taxes. The government can spend this money. It will stimulate people into working at various government-selected projects. There is, however, no such thing as a free lunch. If people do not value these projects (which is usually the case) or the projects lose money (which they usually do), the welfare of people does not go up. It goes down, for they are paying for useless work. Furthermore, the government spending raises costs and prices by bidding labor and materials away from others. And this prevents those prices from adjusting to levels that make it profitable for businesses to employ people in making stuff that people really want.
There are those who contest the notion that government spending is largely waste. They imagine brand new bridges, newly-paved roads, and intercity rail transport. Even if these projects paid off, they are a tiny fraction of all government spending. And most of these do not pay off. Government spending only creates wealth if it spends money on things whose return exceeds the cost of the capital used. The government�s own operating costs are so high that, viewed as a business, it gets a return on its investments that falls far short of its capital costs. In other words, the government is like a gigantic money-losing business. One reason for this is that interest groups get the money. The image of public-minded officials dispersing the money efficiently is unreal.
Everyone who has spent any time at all looking into the matter of government spending, all regular readers of LRC, all readers of Ideas in Liberty, all readers of the publications of the Independent Institute, etc., and all those who have not looked into it, but have merely had experience with government, take it for granted that every $1 spent by government costs the taxpayer $1.25 or more. Governments routinely destroy wealth. The case is so overwhelming that anyone who believes otherwise can only be willfully ignorant or blinding himself. One scholar (Martin J. Bailey), who was far from a radical anti-government person, but who spent many years studying government and trying to write an improved Constitution to mitigate problems with representative government, wrote as follows:
"The leader, if truly well-informed, will know about several barriers to sound government. We may summarize these as follows. In existing nations the clash of interests often has powerfully wasteful and detrimental effects, among other reasons because elected professional politicians with almost unlimited authority to enact and administer laws are subject to enormous rent-seeking pressures. Indeed, they seek out groups that have been unable to solve their own organizational free rider problems and solve them through legislation � e.g., for labor in the 1930s through the National Labor Relations Act and more recently for the poor and the �homeless.� Political discourse in all venues is routinely filled with fraudulent claims, slander and other misrepresentations. Even if they might wish to enact perfectly constructive, statesmanlike legislation, politicians have no reliable conduit with which to collect valid information about the preferences and values of their constituents. A fundamental reason for these symptoms is that citizens have no incentive to seek out the truth on public issues, but instead choose rational ignorance and, often, rational non-participation. See Downs (1957: 238�274). From this core problem emanate others that permeate government. Finding a corrective mechanism for this core problem is a necessary condition for overall improvement."
It helps the cause of liberty when polite and well-mannered experts, people who have studied the matter for years and speak in restrained tones, inform us that politicians cater to interest groups and not the public welfare, that they routinely lie, that they organize interest groups and shake them down, that even if they wanted to, they could not serve the public interest, and that our representative government is wildly dysfunctional.
The image of government restoring confidence by raising and spending money could not be more mistaken. This is the fantasy of Keynes. It is the rhetoric of FDR ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"). If business confidence depended on government spending, there would not have occurred any of the last 5 recessions in the U.S., for government spending rose both before and during these recessions. And there would have been a recession during the Clinton years when government spending moderated. The confidence of a businessman depends on the anticipated demand for his goods and services. He does not invest in plant and hire labor on the basis that the government is spending money on its favorite interest groups.
There are unemployed resources in a depression. Doesn�t the government improve matters by putting these to work? There is a large vacant building for lease in a nearby commercial strip. It used to be a shoe store. At the same time, there are unemployed men and women in the area. So far, no business has seen fit to rent the building. Does the government have a viable business in view? This is highly doubtful. It is not how the government operates. If it directly hires the building, the chances are that it will hire people to do make-work. The operation will run a loss, paid for by taxpayers. Why should they be taxed to pay the unemployed and lose money in the process? Nothing is accomplished but a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the unemployed and an additional loss. Meanwhile, when business recovers and seeks to satisfy needs of consumers, it finds that its costs are higher because the government has rented the building and hired labor. The government�s actions inhibit recovery. Why should wealth be taken from taxpayers? If they would have spent the money on goods, they no longer can. If they would have invested it, that too is no longer possible.
Meanwhile, there is another effect of government borrowing from the FED. When the FED credits the government, it creates bank reserves. This typically sets off a multiple credit expansion among banks. This stimulates business, but it is a process of credit inflation that leads to a recession or worse. Ordinarily, business demand for labor and materials is constrained and rationed by the supply of savings. The FED�s credit creation, however, causes a lowering of the interest rate. That relaxes the constraint. The stimulation causes economic distortions and imbalances and eventual recession.
Imagine that IBM is induced to borrow and to produce a new supercomputer because it thinks that its cost of capital is lower. It hires people, builds a new production line, and starts churning out new supercomputers. Other businesses do the same. But their planned selling prices and costs are predicated on spending, saving, and hiring patterns that no longer exist � the credit inflation changes all of that. The business activity that comes into the economy affects particular people first and not others, and their spending and saving behavior is not what would have occurred had they not been employed and paid in this new activity. Furthermore, people change their economic behavior when they observe the activities of others and experience price changes.
The result is that somewhere along the way, some businesses find that their costs are rising beyond what they planned and expected. Some businesses also find that people are not buying the newly-produced items in the anticipated volume. The costs are rising because IBM is competing with Apple and many others to hire factors of production. Some products are not selling because the stimulus is uneven or not neutral in its effects. To sell their products, some firms have to lower their prices. Since they still have to pay their debts, they find themselves caught in a squeeze. This leads to cutbacks. This affects other firms. A recession or depression starts.
Government credit inflation is not a free lunch. The Obamaniacs are not overtly promising more depression via increased government spending, but that is inherent in their program. If they borrow from the public, it has no net stimulating effect. If they borrow from the FED, it produces temporary stimulation and inflation and then further depression. Credit creation through the central bank ultimately sends the economy on a downward course.
The stimulus story is that if people only can get money, they can spend and the economy will rise. People only can earn money by working. They earn money by providing something of value to others, like their labor or a good or service. The money they get entitles them to cash in on the value of their service by choosing to buy the goods or assets that others make available.
The image of money making the wheels of commerce turn is misleading. The money is a counter, a ticket that allows one to buy an array of goods. Money is a chit or a voucher. Money is a credit that can be cashed in against society�s goods and services; it is a credit that you can use up as you choose. When you make money, that money measures something else that is more basic, which is that you have supplied a valuable service or good. The money is an option to get goods in return at a later time and place of your choosing.
Money is not the problem. We do not have a depression for lack of money. The official M1 money supply at this time is almost $1.6 trillion. It was $1.4 trillion when the depression began. The problem is much more subtle. It has to do with prices and the price system. It has to do with overcoming problems caused by bad credits that arose when the price system was distorted by inflation. We have a depression because of the distortions and imbalances in the economy that arose over many years when too many people were induced by the FED to borrow too many credits and use them to buy and produce goods and services.
The image of government spending putting money into people�s hands is misleading. When the federal government spends money on windmills, it has to get that money from taxes or borrowing. When it borrows from the public, it has to raise taxes to pay the costs of the debt. So we may as well say that all the federal spending is paid for with taxes. This takes money out of the hands of those who might otherwise spend it or invest it. The government isn�t jump-starting anything.
If people want to trade goods and do not have enough money to carry out their exchanges, they can always create more. Money itself is not the problem, as the spending and stimulus story suggests. What you spend is what you produce. You can only spend what you produce. (If you borrow and spend, you must eventually pay that back with your production.) If Iowa corn farmers want to buy Chinese pots and pans, they have to produce corn. If the Chinese want to buy Iowa corn, they have to produce pots and pans. They don�t want our dollars to eat anymore than we want their yuan to cook with; these currencies are only media of exchange. We can always arrange means of paying each other. The real problem is that the production of goods has been dis-arranged and that many firms have to restructure. Many will go bankrupt and liquidate. Many will lay off workers. The adjustments take time. This is not now a problem of money and credit, although it was brought about by central banking�s excessive money and credit. It is now a problem of real production being interrupted because it is not geared to producing what people want to and can buy at current prices. When a lot of us do not have the means to spend, it is because we are not producing enough product that others want at prices they are willing to pay. That happens because inflation has distorted the price system and production.
In this situation, government spending does not restore the production system to one that caters to people�s wants and demands. Government spending does the opposite. It induces men and materials into work that is not in demand. This lengthens the period of adjustment back to normal production. It causes even more distortion by bidding labor and materials away from businesses and into lines of work promoted by government. It creates a new inflation and price distortions that must cause more depression. Furthermore, as we know, the government spending itself is on wasteful activities.
The government spending under Bush and Obama is piling up immense new liabilities and debts. Americans are trying to save more. The data on their private account show this clearly. The personal savings rate in January of this year is 5 percent. From 2005 to April of 2008, it averaged just under 0.5 percent. Meanwhile their government is frustrating their actions by incurring immense new debts.
Sadly, spending is not the end of the story of the Obama administration. Its tax and regulatory policies are equally destructive. It is certain that higher capital gains taxes, estate taxes, income taxes, and carbon taxes will provide new depressing effects on the American economy. The federal government�s projects now include a growing array of wealth-destroying investments that include AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the auto industry, and other major banks.
Since the Democrat victory in November, the stock market has been discounting these negatives. It will continue to do so as long as these negatives continue and worsen. At present, the Obama administration is still serving up a daily diet of negative shocks to the economy and the stock market. It is frustrating the recuperative powers of Americans, just as it is frustrating their attempts to save and put the American house in order. If this is not an example of the evils of our federal government and of our form of representative constitutional government, I don�t know what is.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Distinct Differences Obama Comments on Terror
Each of the following statements were made after murderous events.Notice the difference in his statements and the Politics that surround them.THINK-
Following the murder of Private Long, in front of Recruting Station in Little Rock Ark.
“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”
Following the murder of Dr.Tiller-Late Term Abortionist
I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.
This Statement following the shooting at Holocaust Museum
“I am shocked and saddened by today’s shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms. No American institution is more important to this effort than the Holocaust Museum, and no act of violence will diminish our determination to honor those who were lost by building a more peaceful and tolerant world.
“Today, we have lost a courageous security guard who stood watch at this place of solemn remembrance. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends in this painful time.”
Do you see what outrages him and what saddens him?Do you see the priorities here?This is very disturbing-it is incredible!!We had a Radical Muslim shoot a Private-didn't call it Terriosim. Which it clearly was!!His outrage is sorely misplaced and can give you a window into the mind of Radical Liberalism!!Is this Empathy?
Following the murder of Private Long, in front of Recruting Station in Little Rock Ark.
“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”
Following the murder of Dr.Tiller-Late Term Abortionist
I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.
This Statement following the shooting at Holocaust Museum
“I am shocked and saddened by today’s shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms. No American institution is more important to this effort than the Holocaust Museum, and no act of violence will diminish our determination to honor those who were lost by building a more peaceful and tolerant world.
“Today, we have lost a courageous security guard who stood watch at this place of solemn remembrance. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends in this painful time.”
Do you see what outrages him and what saddens him?Do you see the priorities here?This is very disturbing-it is incredible!!We had a Radical Muslim shoot a Private-didn't call it Terriosim. Which it clearly was!!His outrage is sorely misplaced and can give you a window into the mind of Radical Liberalism!!Is this Empathy?
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Barney Frank "Car Czar Award"
Barney Frank gets "Car Czar" award
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
06/08/09 5:51 PM EDT
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., took to the Senate floor today to sarcastically issue a "car czar award" to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., for blocking an automotive warehouse from closing in in is district.
Frank said he was just working on behalf of his constituents, as any representative would, according to the Wall Street Journal, but Frank is no ordinary lawmaker. He's chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which is playing a key role in the restructuring of the automotive industry. The Journal reports that Frank's efforts to keep the General Motors distribution center from closing at the end of the year were successful, and it saved 90 jobs. The Journal reports that Frank put in a call to GM CEO Fritz Henderson and the paper labeled him a "car czar" in a June 5 editorial.
Alexander says he is picking up from where the Journal left off.
"This is the first in a series of Car Czar awards to be conferred upon Washington meddlers who distinguish themselves by making it harder for the auto companies your government owns to compete in the world marketplace," Alexander said.
Alexander is apparently serious about bestowing more awards in the future and is seeking public suggestions for who should be honored.
"Please e-mail me at CarAward@Alexander.Senate.gov, and I will give you full credit in my regular Car Czar reports here on the floor of the United States Senate," Alexander said.
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
06/08/09 5:51 PM EDT
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., took to the Senate floor today to sarcastically issue a "car czar award" to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., for blocking an automotive warehouse from closing in in is district.
Frank said he was just working on behalf of his constituents, as any representative would, according to the Wall Street Journal, but Frank is no ordinary lawmaker. He's chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which is playing a key role in the restructuring of the automotive industry. The Journal reports that Frank's efforts to keep the General Motors distribution center from closing at the end of the year were successful, and it saved 90 jobs. The Journal reports that Frank put in a call to GM CEO Fritz Henderson and the paper labeled him a "car czar" in a June 5 editorial.
Alexander says he is picking up from where the Journal left off.
"This is the first in a series of Car Czar awards to be conferred upon Washington meddlers who distinguish themselves by making it harder for the auto companies your government owns to compete in the world marketplace," Alexander said.
Alexander is apparently serious about bestowing more awards in the future and is seeking public suggestions for who should be honored.
"Please e-mail me at CarAward@Alexander.Senate.gov, and I will give you full credit in my regular Car Czar reports here on the floor of the United States Senate," Alexander said.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Daily Kos-GARBAGE
The Daily Kos thinks it is a legitimate conversation forum!! But that is only because they only look through the Prism of Left Wing Extremism!!!They Applaud the President in his "Bully Pulpit" or teleprompter.Who was associated with some of the most extremist people in this Country. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and so many more...And then they will call the people who want to get back to the Values this Country was founded on...dumb!! These people employ a classic Goebble technique(he was the propaganda guy for Hitler) where if they repeat a lie enough it will be believed as the truth.
First of all, the Murder of the Abortion Doctor-Tiller.Horrible,unthinkable and not Representative of anti-Abortionist everywhere.But this is a tag that the Kos and other hateful, despicable groups will try to do, in an effort to drown out the effectiveness of the Pro-life movement,reflected in recent polls!!
Why would level headed people with a true conviction not to take innocent human life condone such a horrible act?They wouldn't! And I will add that the man that killed him needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!! Do not in the least agree with what that man was doing,but we are not God and we do not make such decisions.Just as we believe to fight for the innocent unborn, they have not be tried and convicted of any Crime but they still die everyday!!We do see the madness-just as Dr.Tillers heart was stopped in the terrible crime by murder, every time a baby is aborted their hearts are stopped!! So why is it that we may justify the stopping of one heart and not the other!!Prayer has been said for the Tiller family and upset when we hear of senseless murder.And Prayer has been said for up to 4000 babies that will have their hearts stop today,also!! God is not a respecter of persons young,old,rich,poor, life is precious -
First of all, the Murder of the Abortion Doctor-Tiller.Horrible,unthinkable and not Representative of anti-Abortionist everywhere.But this is a tag that the Kos and other hateful, despicable groups will try to do, in an effort to drown out the effectiveness of the Pro-life movement,reflected in recent polls!!
Why would level headed people with a true conviction not to take innocent human life condone such a horrible act?They wouldn't! And I will add that the man that killed him needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!! Do not in the least agree with what that man was doing,but we are not God and we do not make such decisions.Just as we believe to fight for the innocent unborn, they have not be tried and convicted of any Crime but they still die everyday!!We do see the madness-just as Dr.Tillers heart was stopped in the terrible crime by murder, every time a baby is aborted their hearts are stopped!! So why is it that we may justify the stopping of one heart and not the other!!Prayer has been said for the Tiller family and upset when we hear of senseless murder.And Prayer has been said for up to 4000 babies that will have their hearts stop today,also!! God is not a respecter of persons young,old,rich,poor, life is precious -
Saturday, May 30, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM WND'S JERSALEM, BUREAU
Obama promises Arabs Jerusalem will be theirs
Official: President said Palestinian state with holy city capital 'in American interest'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2009
5:39 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Jerusalem
JERUSALEM – President Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.
"The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA," said Nimer Hamad, Abbas' senior political adviser.
"Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest," Hamad said.
Read the groundbreaking work that exposes the threats to Israel from within and without in Aaron Klein's "The Late, Great State of Israel" from WND Books.
Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND today that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "get in the way" of normalizing U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.
"We were told from this new administration they will not allow a Netanyahu government to hurt their efforts of rehabilitating U.S. relations with the Arab and Islamic world, which is a high priority of Obama," the official said, speaking during a visit to Cairo.
(Story continues below)
Also in Cairo today, Abbas met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where the Palestinian leader briefed Egypt's president on his recent trip to Washington, saying the U.S. was committed to bringing about an end to Israeli construction in the West Bank.
Hamad's comments about Jerusalem today come as controversy abounded regarding the U.S. position on Israel's capital city.
Last week, the State Department refuted a speech in which Netanyahu said Jerusalem never will be divided.
"Jerusalem is Israel's capital," Netanyahu said at an event marking Jerusalem's reunification. "Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."
In response, the State Department released a statement that Jerusalem "is a final status issue."
"Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues," the statement said.
Also last week, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed in a WND interview that the Obama administration told the PA that Jerusalem will never be united under Israeli sovereignty.
"Americans said an open Jerusalem – yes. But a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty – no," Hatem Abdel Khader, the PA's minister for Jerusalem affairs, said in comments to both WND and Israel's Ynetnews website.
"(The Obama administration) has made clear that Jerusalem must be accessible to everyone – but not united under Israel's rule," Khader said.
Khader claimed the U.S. is cooperating with the PA to "thwart Israel's plans in Jerusalem."
"When they collaborate with us in Israeli courts against home demolitions or the confiscation of land we see their attitude," he said.
Khader told WND, "The Americans are very present on the ground, and they are making pressure over Israeli authorities and even municipalities."
"They are acting according to the concept that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. national security interests – and without Jerusalem there is no Palestinian state," he said.
U.S. helps Palestinians live illegally near Temple Mount
Khader's claim the U.S. is helping the Palestinians gain a foothold in Jerusalem is accurate. In April, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinian homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.
The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem's Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community's Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.
Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures' legal demolition.
But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.
"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map," she said. "It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."
The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.
WND learned that in the weeks since Clinton's visit here, the U.S. mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel's prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.
Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.
According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu's administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain intact.
The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing – which has not yet been announced – to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.
Said one source in Netanyahu's administration, "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"
While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.
The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.
The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem's Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.
Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War.
The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.
FROM WND'S JERSALEM, BUREAU
Obama promises Arabs Jerusalem will be theirs
Official: President said Palestinian state with holy city capital 'in American interest'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2009
5:39 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Jerusalem
JERUSALEM – President Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.
"The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA," said Nimer Hamad, Abbas' senior political adviser.
"Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest," Hamad said.
Read the groundbreaking work that exposes the threats to Israel from within and without in Aaron Klein's "The Late, Great State of Israel" from WND Books.
Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND today that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "get in the way" of normalizing U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.
"We were told from this new administration they will not allow a Netanyahu government to hurt their efforts of rehabilitating U.S. relations with the Arab and Islamic world, which is a high priority of Obama," the official said, speaking during a visit to Cairo.
(Story continues below)
Also in Cairo today, Abbas met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where the Palestinian leader briefed Egypt's president on his recent trip to Washington, saying the U.S. was committed to bringing about an end to Israeli construction in the West Bank.
Hamad's comments about Jerusalem today come as controversy abounded regarding the U.S. position on Israel's capital city.
Last week, the State Department refuted a speech in which Netanyahu said Jerusalem never will be divided.
"Jerusalem is Israel's capital," Netanyahu said at an event marking Jerusalem's reunification. "Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."
In response, the State Department released a statement that Jerusalem "is a final status issue."
"Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues," the statement said.
Also last week, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed in a WND interview that the Obama administration told the PA that Jerusalem will never be united under Israeli sovereignty.
"Americans said an open Jerusalem – yes. But a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty – no," Hatem Abdel Khader, the PA's minister for Jerusalem affairs, said in comments to both WND and Israel's Ynetnews website.
"(The Obama administration) has made clear that Jerusalem must be accessible to everyone – but not united under Israel's rule," Khader said.
Khader claimed the U.S. is cooperating with the PA to "thwart Israel's plans in Jerusalem."
"When they collaborate with us in Israeli courts against home demolitions or the confiscation of land we see their attitude," he said.
Khader told WND, "The Americans are very present on the ground, and they are making pressure over Israeli authorities and even municipalities."
"They are acting according to the concept that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. national security interests – and without Jerusalem there is no Palestinian state," he said.
U.S. helps Palestinians live illegally near Temple Mount
Khader's claim the U.S. is helping the Palestinians gain a foothold in Jerusalem is accurate. In April, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinian homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.
The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem's Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community's Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.
Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures' legal demolition.
But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.
"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map," she said. "It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."
The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.
WND learned that in the weeks since Clinton's visit here, the U.S. mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel's prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.
Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.
According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu's administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain intact.
The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing – which has not yet been announced – to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.
Said one source in Netanyahu's administration, "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"
While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.
The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.
The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem's Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.
Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War.
The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
Three men were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
Members of the New Black Panthers attend a rally outside the Lamar County Courthouse in Paris, Texas November 17, 2008.
Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.
Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.
Click to watch the incident on YouTube.
The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.
A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."
He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
FOX News' Eric Shawn contributed to this report.
Three men were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
Members of the New Black Panthers attend a rally outside the Lamar County Courthouse in Paris, Texas November 17, 2008.
Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.
Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.
Click to watch the incident on YouTube.
The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.
A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."
He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
FOX News' Eric Shawn contributed to this report.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Alinsky Administration
May 14, 2009, 4:00 a.m.
Today, reading Rules for Radicals is illuminating and worrisome.
By Jim Geraghty
Barack Obama never met Saul Alinsky, but the radical organizer’s thought helps explain a great deal about how the president operates.
Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was 11 years old. But three of Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first “community organizers.” Ryan Lizza wrote a 6,500-word piece on Alinsky’s influence on Obama for The New Republic, noting, “On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,’ an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.”
In a letter to the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son wrote that “the Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style. . . . Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.”
As a tool for understanding the thinking of Obama, Alinsky’s most famous book, Rules for Radicals, is simultaneously edifying and worrisome. Some passages make Machiavelli’s Prince read like a Sesame Street picture book on manners.
After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought.
Obama’s defenders would no doubt insist this is a reflection of his pragmatism, his willingness to eschew ideology to focus on what solutions work best. This view assumes that nominating Bill Richardson as commerce secretary, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit, approving the AIG bonuses, signing 9,000 earmarks into law, adopting Senator McCain’s idea of taxing health benefits, and giving U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don’t work in Britain constitute “what works best.” Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power.
One of Alinsky’s first lessons is: “Radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.” Setting aside the Right’s habitual complaint about the pliant liberal media, Obama has dominated the news by unveiling a new initiative or giving a major speech on almost every weekday of his presidency. There has been a steady stream of lighter stories as well — the puppy, Michelle Obama’s fashion sense, the White House swing set, the president and vice president’s burger lunch.
The constant parade of events large and small ensures that whenever unpleasant news arises and overtakes the desired message — think of Tom Daschle’s withdrawal, the Air Force One photo op, or North Korea’s missile launch — it leads the news for only a day. For contrast, consider what happened when the photos of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse appeared: As American Journalism Review reports, they “dominated the headlines for a month. Day after day, top national newspapers brought to light new aspects of the debacle on their front pages.”
When Obama announced a paltry $100 million in budget cuts, and insisted this was part of a budget-trimming process that would add up to “real money,” he clearly understood that the public processes these numbers very differently from the way budget wonks do. Alinsky wrote: “The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested, because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion.”
Obama insists that he doesn’t want the government to run car companies, but he has fired CEOs, demonized bondholders, ensured the UAW gets the sweetest deal, and guaranteed warrantees. He insists that he doesn’t want to run banks, but his Treasury Department hesitates to take back some of the TARP funds that give them influence over bank policies. He’s critical of Wall Street, but he signed off on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s remarkably generous plan to give hedge funds and private investors a low-risk, high-reward option on toxic assets.
Much of this is explained by Alinsky’s epigram, “In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”
During the campaign, Obama’s critics laughed and marveled at how quickly the candidate threw inconvenient friends, allies, and supporters under the bus once they became political liabilities. Over on the Campaign Spot, it’s been easy to compile a list of quickly forgotten promises. But it is unlikely that Obama would consider any of this a character flaw; instead, it is evidence of his adaptability and gift for seeing the big picture.
Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.
Lizza’s profile offered an example of how Obama isn’t quite as cynical as Alinsky’s power-at-all-costs mentality would suggest:
Moreover, when Obama’s ideals clash with reality, he has been able to find compromises that don’t put him at a political disadvantage. For instance, no Democrat can win the general election while adhering to the public financing system if the Republican nominee doesn’t do the same. Clinton and John Edwards have simply conceded that the public financing system is dead and are ignoring fund-raising restrictions that would be triggered if either ends up playing within the public financing scheme. Facing the same situation, Obama — a longtime champion of campaign finance reform in general and public financing in particular — asked the Federal Election Commission if he could raise the potentially restricted money now (the world as it is) but then give it back if he wins the nomination and convinces his Republican opponent to stick with public financing (the world as we would like it to be).
But Obama quickly ignored that pledge when Senator McCain indicated he was willing to restrict himself to the public-financing system. Obama audaciously claimed that his donors had created a “parallel public-financing system” and announced his changed position at a fundraising dinner.
Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.
As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it — including invite Rick Warren to give the benediction at his inauguration, dine with conservative columnists, and dismiss an appointee at the White House Military Office to ensure the perception of accountability.
Alinsky’s influence goes well beyond Obama, obviously. There are many wonderful Democrats in this world, but evidence suggests that rising in that party’s political hierarchy requires some adoption of a variation of the Alinsky philosophy: Power comes first. Few Democrats are expressing outrage over Nancy Pelosi’s ever-shifting explanation of what she knew about waterboarding. Those who screamed bloody murder about Jack Abramoff’s crimes avert their eyes from John Murtha. The anti-war movement that opposed the surge in Iraq remains silent about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Obama will never get as much grief for his gay-marriage views as Miss California.
It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.
— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.
Today, reading Rules for Radicals is illuminating and worrisome.
By Jim Geraghty
Barack Obama never met Saul Alinsky, but the radical organizer’s thought helps explain a great deal about how the president operates.
Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was 11 years old. But three of Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first “community organizers.” Ryan Lizza wrote a 6,500-word piece on Alinsky’s influence on Obama for The New Republic, noting, “On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,’ an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.”
In a letter to the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son wrote that “the Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style. . . . Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.”
As a tool for understanding the thinking of Obama, Alinsky’s most famous book, Rules for Radicals, is simultaneously edifying and worrisome. Some passages make Machiavelli’s Prince read like a Sesame Street picture book on manners.
After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought.
Obama’s defenders would no doubt insist this is a reflection of his pragmatism, his willingness to eschew ideology to focus on what solutions work best. This view assumes that nominating Bill Richardson as commerce secretary, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit, approving the AIG bonuses, signing 9,000 earmarks into law, adopting Senator McCain’s idea of taxing health benefits, and giving U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don’t work in Britain constitute “what works best.” Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power.
One of Alinsky’s first lessons is: “Radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.” Setting aside the Right’s habitual complaint about the pliant liberal media, Obama has dominated the news by unveiling a new initiative or giving a major speech on almost every weekday of his presidency. There has been a steady stream of lighter stories as well — the puppy, Michelle Obama’s fashion sense, the White House swing set, the president and vice president’s burger lunch.
The constant parade of events large and small ensures that whenever unpleasant news arises and overtakes the desired message — think of Tom Daschle’s withdrawal, the Air Force One photo op, or North Korea’s missile launch — it leads the news for only a day. For contrast, consider what happened when the photos of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse appeared: As American Journalism Review reports, they “dominated the headlines for a month. Day after day, top national newspapers brought to light new aspects of the debacle on their front pages.”
When Obama announced a paltry $100 million in budget cuts, and insisted this was part of a budget-trimming process that would add up to “real money,” he clearly understood that the public processes these numbers very differently from the way budget wonks do. Alinsky wrote: “The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested, because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion.”
Obama insists that he doesn’t want the government to run car companies, but he has fired CEOs, demonized bondholders, ensured the UAW gets the sweetest deal, and guaranteed warrantees. He insists that he doesn’t want to run banks, but his Treasury Department hesitates to take back some of the TARP funds that give them influence over bank policies. He’s critical of Wall Street, but he signed off on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s remarkably generous plan to give hedge funds and private investors a low-risk, high-reward option on toxic assets.
Much of this is explained by Alinsky’s epigram, “In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”
During the campaign, Obama’s critics laughed and marveled at how quickly the candidate threw inconvenient friends, allies, and supporters under the bus once they became political liabilities. Over on the Campaign Spot, it’s been easy to compile a list of quickly forgotten promises. But it is unlikely that Obama would consider any of this a character flaw; instead, it is evidence of his adaptability and gift for seeing the big picture.
Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.
Lizza’s profile offered an example of how Obama isn’t quite as cynical as Alinsky’s power-at-all-costs mentality would suggest:
Moreover, when Obama’s ideals clash with reality, he has been able to find compromises that don’t put him at a political disadvantage. For instance, no Democrat can win the general election while adhering to the public financing system if the Republican nominee doesn’t do the same. Clinton and John Edwards have simply conceded that the public financing system is dead and are ignoring fund-raising restrictions that would be triggered if either ends up playing within the public financing scheme. Facing the same situation, Obama — a longtime champion of campaign finance reform in general and public financing in particular — asked the Federal Election Commission if he could raise the potentially restricted money now (the world as it is) but then give it back if he wins the nomination and convinces his Republican opponent to stick with public financing (the world as we would like it to be).
But Obama quickly ignored that pledge when Senator McCain indicated he was willing to restrict himself to the public-financing system. Obama audaciously claimed that his donors had created a “parallel public-financing system” and announced his changed position at a fundraising dinner.
Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power.
As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it — including invite Rick Warren to give the benediction at his inauguration, dine with conservative columnists, and dismiss an appointee at the White House Military Office to ensure the perception of accountability.
Alinsky’s influence goes well beyond Obama, obviously. There are many wonderful Democrats in this world, but evidence suggests that rising in that party’s political hierarchy requires some adoption of a variation of the Alinsky philosophy: Power comes first. Few Democrats are expressing outrage over Nancy Pelosi’s ever-shifting explanation of what she knew about waterboarding. Those who screamed bloody murder about Jack Abramoff’s crimes avert their eyes from John Murtha. The anti-war movement that opposed the surge in Iraq remains silent about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Obama will never get as much grief for his gay-marriage views as Miss California.
It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.
— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Obama’s plan stimulates the deficit, not the economy
Obama’s plan stimulates the deficit, not the economy
By: Examiner Editorial
-
05/19/09 12:05 AM EDT President Obama’s much-ballyhooed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – the economic stimulus plan - isn’t stimulating much of anything except federal employment, despite having been rammed through Congress as emergency legislation in February. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from the most recent Labor Department unemployment figures. Since the $787 billion spending measure was approved, 1.2 million Americans have lost their jobs and unemployment has ratcheted up to 8.9 percent – the highest it’s been since 1983. Unemployment is beyond even what President Barack Obama’s own economic advisors predicted it would be with no recovery plan – and definitely not what Americans were told to expect.
Meanwhile, spending touted as “timely, temporary and targeted” that was supposed to be flooding the economy is barely trickling out of the federal bureaucracy. Less than $29 billion – a mere four percent of the stimulus package– has been spent so far. So much for the “timely” part of the Obama mantra. Let’s not forget here that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were so hell-bent to get the bill through Congress that they refused to allow members sufficient time to read the massive 1,079-page spending bill before voting on it. One consequence was that the bill was stuffed with spending that is anything but temporary. So we can all wave goodbye to that part of the mantra.
Obama said on national television not long ago that the stimulus bill had “saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” But how can that be when joblessness increased a full percentage point after his stimulus package was passed? And there’s that uncomfortable fact uncovered by an Associated Press study that found that states hit hardest by the recession are getting the least amount of stimulus spending. There goes the targeted part of the mantra.
The failure of the stimulus bill to boost the economy as promised is further exacerbated by the president’s budget, which explodes the 2010 federal deficit to $1.8 trillion, and the bailouts of two of Detroit’s Big Three automakers. George Mason economist Tyler Cowen predicted such dismal results when he pointed out that “it is very hard to find [historical] examples of successful fiscal stimulus driving an economic recovery. Ever.” In other words, the stimulus package was passed without any evidence that it would work. “It is becoming increasingly clear that the long-term fiscal strategy of the White House is based on large doses of wishful thinking,” concludes Harvard economist and former Bush administration advisor Greg Mankiw. But when you insist on ignoring basic economic principles, wishful thinking is all that's left.
By: Examiner Editorial
-
05/19/09 12:05 AM EDT President Obama’s much-ballyhooed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – the economic stimulus plan - isn’t stimulating much of anything except federal employment, despite having been rammed through Congress as emergency legislation in February. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from the most recent Labor Department unemployment figures. Since the $787 billion spending measure was approved, 1.2 million Americans have lost their jobs and unemployment has ratcheted up to 8.9 percent – the highest it’s been since 1983. Unemployment is beyond even what President Barack Obama’s own economic advisors predicted it would be with no recovery plan – and definitely not what Americans were told to expect.
Meanwhile, spending touted as “timely, temporary and targeted” that was supposed to be flooding the economy is barely trickling out of the federal bureaucracy. Less than $29 billion – a mere four percent of the stimulus package– has been spent so far. So much for the “timely” part of the Obama mantra. Let’s not forget here that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were so hell-bent to get the bill through Congress that they refused to allow members sufficient time to read the massive 1,079-page spending bill before voting on it. One consequence was that the bill was stuffed with spending that is anything but temporary. So we can all wave goodbye to that part of the mantra.
Obama said on national television not long ago that the stimulus bill had “saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” But how can that be when joblessness increased a full percentage point after his stimulus package was passed? And there’s that uncomfortable fact uncovered by an Associated Press study that found that states hit hardest by the recession are getting the least amount of stimulus spending. There goes the targeted part of the mantra.
The failure of the stimulus bill to boost the economy as promised is further exacerbated by the president’s budget, which explodes the 2010 federal deficit to $1.8 trillion, and the bailouts of two of Detroit’s Big Three automakers. George Mason economist Tyler Cowen predicted such dismal results when he pointed out that “it is very hard to find [historical] examples of successful fiscal stimulus driving an economic recovery. Ever.” In other words, the stimulus package was passed without any evidence that it would work. “It is becoming increasingly clear that the long-term fiscal strategy of the White House is based on large doses of wishful thinking,” concludes Harvard economist and former Bush administration advisor Greg Mankiw. But when you insist on ignoring basic economic principles, wishful thinking is all that's left.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
More Acorn Voter Fraud Comes to Light
By JOHN FUND
Democrats are split on how to deal with Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that deployed thousands of get-out-the-vote workers last election. State and city Democratic officials -- who've been contending with its many scandals -- are moving against it. Washington Democrats are still sweeping Acorn abuses under a rug.
On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn's forms "are clearly fraudulent." On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.
Acorn spokesman Scott Levenson calls the Nevada criminal complaint "political grandstanding" and says that any problems were the actions of an unnamed "bad employee." But Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's Democratic Attorney General, told the Las Vegas Sun that Acorn itself is named in the criminal complaint. She says that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and . . . require illegal acts," such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep their jobs.
Other Democrats on the ground have complaints. Fred Voight, deputy election commissioner in Philadelphia, protested after Acorn (according to the registrar of voters and his own investigation) submitted at least 1,500 fraudulent registrations last fall. "This has been going on for a number of years," he told CNN in October. St. Louis Democrat Matthew Potter, the city's deputy elections director, had similar complaints.
Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution. In the 2008 election, Acorn's practices led to investigations, some ongoing, in 14 other states.
The stink is bad enough that some congressional Democrats have taken notice. At a March 19 hearing on election problems, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed New York Rep. Gerald Nadler, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to hold a hearing on Acorn. He called the charges against it "serious." Mr. Nadler agreed to consider the request.
Mr. Nadler's office now says there will be no hearing on Acorn because Mr. Conyers has changed his mind. Mr. Conyers's office released a statement on Monday saying that after reviewing "the complaints against Acorn, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." A Democratic staffer told me he believes the House leadership put pressure on Mr. Conyers to back down. Mr. Conyers's office says it is "unaware" of any contacts with House leaders.
Then there's Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Last month, he voted for a committee amendment (to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act) by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R., Minn.) to block groups indicted for voter fraud from receiving federal housing or legal assistance grants. Identical language was passed into law in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Mr. Frank now says he "had not read [the amendment] carefully" before backing it. He gutted the amendment on Thursday, claiming that the language Congress passed just last year is "a violation of the basic principles of due process."
A lot of money is at stake. In the stimulus bill passed by Congress, Acorn is eligible -- along with other activist groups -- to apply for $2 billion in funds to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes. Meanwhile, public records show that last spring the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn, most of which concerned employee withholding.
All of this infuriates Marcel Reid, who, along with seven other national Acorn board members, was removed last year after demanding an audit of the group's books. "Acorn has been hijacked by a power-hungry clique that has its own political and personal agendas," she told me. "We are fighting to take back the group."
Bertha Lewis, the head of Acorn, told me last year before their ouster that the "Acorn Eight" were "obsessed" and "confused." But Anita MonCrief, an Acorn whistleblower, says the problems run deep. Ms. MonCrief worked at Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate, in late 2007. She says its development director, Karen Gillette, told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and also told her to call Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate but who could contribute to Acorn. Project Vote calls her charges "absolutely false." (Ms. Gillette has declined comment.)
Acorn's relationship to the Obama campaign is a matter of public record. Last year, Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group controlling Acorn, was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting them after reporters from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.
Mr. Obama distanced himself from the group's scandals last year, saying "We don't need Acorn's help." Nevertheless, he got his start as a community organizer at Acorn's side. In 1992, he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the new Motor Voter Act -- the very law whose mandated postcard registration system Acorn workers use to flood election offices with bogus registrations.
But Acorn's registration tricks may soon be unnecessary. Congressional Democrats are backing a bill to mandate a nationwide data base to automatically register driver's license holders or recipients of government benefits.
This "would create an engraved invitation for voter fraud," says Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member, who points out that these lists are filled with felons and noncitizens who are ineligible to vote. Ironically, in light of its troubles with the law, Acorn was selected in March to assist the U.S. Census in reaching out to minority communities and recruiting census enumerators for the count next year.
As for the Nevada indictment, Acorn isn't worried. "We've had bad publicity before, and all it does is inform the community that we're here working for the community," Bonnie Greathouse, Acorn's head organizer in Nevada, assured the Las Vegas Review-Journal this week. "People always come forward to our defense. We're just community organizers, just like the president used to be."
Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com .
Democrats are split on how to deal with Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that deployed thousands of get-out-the-vote workers last election. State and city Democratic officials -- who've been contending with its many scandals -- are moving against it. Washington Democrats are still sweeping Acorn abuses under a rug.
On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn's forms "are clearly fraudulent." On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.
Acorn spokesman Scott Levenson calls the Nevada criminal complaint "political grandstanding" and says that any problems were the actions of an unnamed "bad employee." But Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's Democratic Attorney General, told the Las Vegas Sun that Acorn itself is named in the criminal complaint. She says that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and . . . require illegal acts," such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep their jobs.
Other Democrats on the ground have complaints. Fred Voight, deputy election commissioner in Philadelphia, protested after Acorn (according to the registrar of voters and his own investigation) submitted at least 1,500 fraudulent registrations last fall. "This has been going on for a number of years," he told CNN in October. St. Louis Democrat Matthew Potter, the city's deputy elections director, had similar complaints.
Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution. In the 2008 election, Acorn's practices led to investigations, some ongoing, in 14 other states.
The stink is bad enough that some congressional Democrats have taken notice. At a March 19 hearing on election problems, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed New York Rep. Gerald Nadler, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to hold a hearing on Acorn. He called the charges against it "serious." Mr. Nadler agreed to consider the request.
Mr. Nadler's office now says there will be no hearing on Acorn because Mr. Conyers has changed his mind. Mr. Conyers's office released a statement on Monday saying that after reviewing "the complaints against Acorn, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." A Democratic staffer told me he believes the House leadership put pressure on Mr. Conyers to back down. Mr. Conyers's office says it is "unaware" of any contacts with House leaders.
Then there's Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Last month, he voted for a committee amendment (to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act) by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R., Minn.) to block groups indicted for voter fraud from receiving federal housing or legal assistance grants. Identical language was passed into law in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Mr. Frank now says he "had not read [the amendment] carefully" before backing it. He gutted the amendment on Thursday, claiming that the language Congress passed just last year is "a violation of the basic principles of due process."
A lot of money is at stake. In the stimulus bill passed by Congress, Acorn is eligible -- along with other activist groups -- to apply for $2 billion in funds to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes. Meanwhile, public records show that last spring the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn, most of which concerned employee withholding.
All of this infuriates Marcel Reid, who, along with seven other national Acorn board members, was removed last year after demanding an audit of the group's books. "Acorn has been hijacked by a power-hungry clique that has its own political and personal agendas," she told me. "We are fighting to take back the group."
Bertha Lewis, the head of Acorn, told me last year before their ouster that the "Acorn Eight" were "obsessed" and "confused." But Anita MonCrief, an Acorn whistleblower, says the problems run deep. Ms. MonCrief worked at Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate, in late 2007. She says its development director, Karen Gillette, told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and also told her to call Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate but who could contribute to Acorn. Project Vote calls her charges "absolutely false." (Ms. Gillette has declined comment.)
Acorn's relationship to the Obama campaign is a matter of public record. Last year, Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group controlling Acorn, was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting them after reporters from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.
Mr. Obama distanced himself from the group's scandals last year, saying "We don't need Acorn's help." Nevertheless, he got his start as a community organizer at Acorn's side. In 1992, he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the new Motor Voter Act -- the very law whose mandated postcard registration system Acorn workers use to flood election offices with bogus registrations.
But Acorn's registration tricks may soon be unnecessary. Congressional Democrats are backing a bill to mandate a nationwide data base to automatically register driver's license holders or recipients of government benefits.
This "would create an engraved invitation for voter fraud," says Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member, who points out that these lists are filled with felons and noncitizens who are ineligible to vote. Ironically, in light of its troubles with the law, Acorn was selected in March to assist the U.S. Census in reaching out to minority communities and recruiting census enumerators for the count next year.
As for the Nevada indictment, Acorn isn't worried. "We've had bad publicity before, and all it does is inform the community that we're here working for the community," Bonnie Greathouse, Acorn's head organizer in Nevada, assured the Las Vegas Review-Journal this week. "People always come forward to our defense. We're just community organizers, just like the president used to be."
Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
