More evidence keeps pouring in regarding the corrupt, inept Obama administration. While other countries are cutting spending, we increase spending. While other countries are drilling for more oil, Obama takes 78 days to respond to the BP disaster and then has the gall to place a moratorium on more drilling in the gulf. While other countries are making their government shrink (Canada and Australia), our government threatens to gobble all of us up and spit us back out. Our only way out of the nightmare of Obama's leadership is the November elections.
The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth. READ "Why Obamanomics Has Failed" Uncertainty about future taxes and regulations is enemy No. 1 of economic growth- The Wall Street Jr.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
America Continues Dithering While Iran Goes Nuke
With all our other problems being made worse by our incompetent White House, now we have to hear that Mr. Panetta's agency reported falsely way back in 2007 that Iran had halted work on their nukes. Did you believe it at the time? So thugs are going to have the capability to nuke us and we sit and dither...it's unbelievable.
...Mr. Panetta buried for good the discredited and politically motivated 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003. Now the agency, which helped put together that report, believes the Iranians are close to acquiring multiple bombs.
"We think they have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons," Mr. Panetta said. "They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable." He said Iran also continues to develop missiles and warheads.
The Obama Administration spent its first year extending a hand to Tehran. Rebuffed, this spring Washington went to its weapon of apparent last resort, sanctions. The U.N. Security Council adopted a set of weak sanctions this month, and the U.S. and Europe have followed with others of their own. Cue Mr. Panetta: "I think the sanctions will have some impact. . . . It could help weaken the regime. It could create some serious economic problems. Will it deter them from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not."
So the U.S. now thinks Iran stands barely two years from an atomic bomb that could target Israel, Europe and beyond, and sanctions "probably" won't stop it. No wonder the world—and not least Tehran—is concluding that the real Obama Administration policy is to learn to live with the inevitability of an Iranian bomb. Read "Panetta's Bomb" at Wall Street Jr.
...Mr. Panetta buried for good the discredited and politically motivated 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003. Now the agency, which helped put together that report, believes the Iranians are close to acquiring multiple bombs.
"We think they have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons," Mr. Panetta said. "They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable." He said Iran also continues to develop missiles and warheads.
The Obama Administration spent its first year extending a hand to Tehran. Rebuffed, this spring Washington went to its weapon of apparent last resort, sanctions. The U.N. Security Council adopted a set of weak sanctions this month, and the U.S. and Europe have followed with others of their own. Cue Mr. Panetta: "I think the sanctions will have some impact. . . . It could help weaken the regime. It could create some serious economic problems. Will it deter them from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not."
So the U.S. now thinks Iran stands barely two years from an atomic bomb that could target Israel, Europe and beyond, and sanctions "probably" won't stop it. No wonder the world—and not least Tehran—is concluding that the real Obama Administration policy is to learn to live with the inevitability of an Iranian bomb. Read "Panetta's Bomb" at Wall Street Jr.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The Sorry Record of a Community Organizer and his False Drama
Like the Greek Gods and their amusing crisis and drama Obama is forever making a bad situation into a crisis. We are currently living in a never ending Obama drama. Victor David Hanson, the noted historian and classicist, looks over Obama's record and shows us that it is not a pretty one. Mainly, he is a man without experience and man who has not kept to not one of his campaign promises. He has confused all of us some of the time and some of us all of the time. He is a man who does everything the exact opposite of what would be reasonable. We all question his motives...but can there be any doubt? He holds anti-American values. Read Hanson's -
Obama Drama Is Classic Tragedy: Would-Be God Heading For A Fall
...But now the once-enthralled electorate is starting to tire of the hope-and-change platitudes, and even of the easy blame-gaming of his predecessor, mostly because almost everything Obama once demagogued in weird fashion is coming back to haunt him.
Obama easily damned everything from Guantanamo Bay to Predator drone attacks in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq, only to adopt those policies and more from Bush.
He sermonized about the morals of a corrupt Republican Congress, only to keep quiet about earmarks, lobbyists and the sins of Democratic cronies such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Charles Rangel. Deficits were once supposed proof of Bush's out-of-control spending. What does far-greater red ink say about Obama?
If only swaggering George W. Bush could have been smart enough to reach out to Cuba, Iran and Syria. Then Obama did just that, only to make bad things even worse.
And remember the Obama comment about an arrogant Bush turning off our allies? Why, then, does an aloof Obama seem to alienate them even more?
The reality of Barack Obama is that he was an inexperienced community organizer with an undistinguished record as a Senate newcomer. A perfect storm of popular anger at eight years of George W. Bush, a lackluster John McCain campaign, Obama's landmark candidacy as an African-American, a disingenuous campaign promising centrist and bipartisan governance, and the financial meltdown in 2008 got the relatively untried and unknown Obama elected.
Most mortals in Obama's position would have treaded lightly. They would have kept promises, steered a moderate course and listened more than lectured until they won over the public with concrete achievement.
But headstrong tragic figures do not do that. They neither welcome in critics nor would listen to them if they did. They impute their unforeseen temporary success to their own brilliance — and expect it to continue forever. So would-be gods set themselves up for a fall far harder than what happens to the rest of us.
That's about where we are now, with our president playing a character right out of Greek tragedy, who, true to form, is railing about the unfairness of it all. Read the rest here.
Obama Drama Is Classic Tragedy: Would-Be God Heading For A Fall
...But now the once-enthralled electorate is starting to tire of the hope-and-change platitudes, and even of the easy blame-gaming of his predecessor, mostly because almost everything Obama once demagogued in weird fashion is coming back to haunt him.
Obama easily damned everything from Guantanamo Bay to Predator drone attacks in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq, only to adopt those policies and more from Bush.
He sermonized about the morals of a corrupt Republican Congress, only to keep quiet about earmarks, lobbyists and the sins of Democratic cronies such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Charles Rangel. Deficits were once supposed proof of Bush's out-of-control spending. What does far-greater red ink say about Obama?
If only swaggering George W. Bush could have been smart enough to reach out to Cuba, Iran and Syria. Then Obama did just that, only to make bad things even worse.
And remember the Obama comment about an arrogant Bush turning off our allies? Why, then, does an aloof Obama seem to alienate them even more?
The reality of Barack Obama is that he was an inexperienced community organizer with an undistinguished record as a Senate newcomer. A perfect storm of popular anger at eight years of George W. Bush, a lackluster John McCain campaign, Obama's landmark candidacy as an African-American, a disingenuous campaign promising centrist and bipartisan governance, and the financial meltdown in 2008 got the relatively untried and unknown Obama elected.
Most mortals in Obama's position would have treaded lightly. They would have kept promises, steered a moderate course and listened more than lectured until they won over the public with concrete achievement.
But headstrong tragic figures do not do that. They neither welcome in critics nor would listen to them if they did. They impute their unforeseen temporary success to their own brilliance — and expect it to continue forever. So would-be gods set themselves up for a fall far harder than what happens to the rest of us.
That's about where we are now, with our president playing a character right out of Greek tragedy, who, true to form, is railing about the unfairness of it all. Read the rest here.
Friday, June 25, 2010
"Stop the Obama Administration's Grab for Arbitrary Power"
As Obama grabs more and more power Americans must rise up in protest and proclaim our detestation of this capricious and dangerous administration. It must end now - and we the people must continue battling against tyranny and be alert constantly for deeds and actions that betray our Constitution. If you are fuzzy on our unique and great history a great place to start is to watch Glenn Beck on Fox News at 5 pm Eastern time. He does an excellent job of presenting the facts of our past and interviewing Historians and people who KNOW American history. The following is part of Rob Tracinski's The Intellectual Activist Daily. Click on the link below his commentary.
3. Arbitrary and Capricious
The "escrow fund" Obama squeezed out of BP was not only outside of any legal authority. Experts on these sorts of cases are also saying that it is a "magnet for fraud," precisely because it bypasses the usual legal requirements, such as actually having to appear in court to make your case that the plaintiff owes you damages.
But the big story about Obama's mismanagement of the Gulf disaster is his six-month moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling, an arbitrary measure that threatens to shut down oil exploration for years as drilling rigs—and the investment capital behind them—go where they are more welcome and face less political risk.
The damages has already been done—once political risk rears its ugly head, it takes a long time for investors to regain a sense of safety, even if the moratorium is lifted. But it is a very good sign that a federal judge has declared the moratorium to be unconstitutional, on the grounds that it is literally an arbitrary act, one based on no arguments, reasoning, or legal procedure, and is therefore a violation of the right to due process.
This is good news, because this case is about much more than a drilling moratorium. It's about whether there is any part of the American system of government that is willing to stand up to stop the Obama administration's grab for arbitrary power. The judiciary is the only place left to look for such action, and it's good to see that there is at least one judge who is up to the job.
But as if to underscore its contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, the administration immediately declared, not just that it would appeal the ruling, but that it would immediately issue a new, slightly reworded ban within a few days—in effect, ignoring the judge's ruling and trying to circumvent it.
Perhaps President Obama will borrow a notorious statement of presidential lawlessness attributed to Andrew Jackson: "Mr. Feldman has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Read and Join TIADaily.com.
3. Arbitrary and Capricious
The "escrow fund" Obama squeezed out of BP was not only outside of any legal authority. Experts on these sorts of cases are also saying that it is a "magnet for fraud," precisely because it bypasses the usual legal requirements, such as actually having to appear in court to make your case that the plaintiff owes you damages.
But the big story about Obama's mismanagement of the Gulf disaster is his six-month moratorium on deep-water offshore drilling, an arbitrary measure that threatens to shut down oil exploration for years as drilling rigs—and the investment capital behind them—go where they are more welcome and face less political risk.
The damages has already been done—once political risk rears its ugly head, it takes a long time for investors to regain a sense of safety, even if the moratorium is lifted. But it is a very good sign that a federal judge has declared the moratorium to be unconstitutional, on the grounds that it is literally an arbitrary act, one based on no arguments, reasoning, or legal procedure, and is therefore a violation of the right to due process.
This is good news, because this case is about much more than a drilling moratorium. It's about whether there is any part of the American system of government that is willing to stand up to stop the Obama administration's grab for arbitrary power. The judiciary is the only place left to look for such action, and it's good to see that there is at least one judge who is up to the job.
But as if to underscore its contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, the administration immediately declared, not just that it would appeal the ruling, but that it would immediately issue a new, slightly reworded ban within a few days—in effect, ignoring the judge's ruling and trying to circumvent it.
Perhaps President Obama will borrow a notorious statement of presidential lawlessness attributed to Andrew Jackson: "Mr. Feldman has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Read and Join TIADaily.com.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
"An Ugly Mood and an Unhappy Electorate"
Obama just keeps on taking and taking as his approvals keeps on diving and diving.
Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
.The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment.
Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure.
Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years.
The results show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats."
.Support for Mr. Obama and his party is declining among centrist, independent voters. But, more ominous for the president, some in his base also are souring, with 17% of Democrats disapproving of Mr. Obama's job performance, the highest level of his presidency.
...Approval for Mr. Obama has dropped among Hispanics, too, along with small-town residents, white women and seniors. African-Americans remain the firmest part of Mr. Obama's base, with 91% approving of his job performance. ..READ more - "Confidence Waning in Obama, US Outlook" at WSJ.
Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
.The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment.
Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure.
Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years.
The results show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats."
.Support for Mr. Obama and his party is declining among centrist, independent voters. But, more ominous for the president, some in his base also are souring, with 17% of Democrats disapproving of Mr. Obama's job performance, the highest level of his presidency.
...Approval for Mr. Obama has dropped among Hispanics, too, along with small-town residents, white women and seniors. African-Americans remain the firmest part of Mr. Obama's base, with 91% approving of his job performance. ..READ more - "Confidence Waning in Obama, US Outlook" at WSJ.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Elections in Colombia Casts Not Only Chavez but Hopefully Obama Into Irrelevance
As America goes down the sewer of Socialism, Colombia has chosen capitalism by electing Mr. Santos President, a pro-capitalist and fighter of the FARC. But Colombia is surrounded by countries that are turning to freedom as well. Only the idiot Chavez is hell bent on turning Venezuela to the left and by definition poverty. As we speak he has seized around 80,000 tons of food and left it to rot. Why? Because that is what leftists do. They control power brute power and taking away the means of making a living from the people.
Democracy: After vowing war on Colombia if Juan Manuel Santos were elected president, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is singing soprano. Santos' big win Sunday is part of a wave of free market leaders sneaking up on him.
It was almost comical to see Venezuela's dictatorship put on its best manners and offer congratulations to Colombia's new conservative president, who won the election in a 69%-27% landslide.
...Truth is, Santos and his pro-free-market plans pose a threat to Chavez, whose socialist failures are mounting. His sudden sweet words signal a recognition that he is being outnumbered in a hemisphere he seeks to rule, amounting to an admission of defeat.
Venezuela in fact is now being encircled by nations that are electing responsible leaders who place their hopes for the future on free markets. Those markets will inevitably succeed and dominate the continent in coming years, leaving Chavez as irrelevant as Cuba in bringing prosperity and winning the hearts and minds of voters.
For Santos, that means supporting "the market as far as possible" and reliance on the state only "to the extent necessary."
That echoes what leaders up and down the Pacific coastline say, all of whom have shown a private-sector orientation. Sebastian Pinera of Chile, Alan Garcia of Peru, Ricardo Martinelli of Panama, Porfirio Lobo of Honduras, Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Stephen Harper of Canada have all acted on their free-market instincts and shown above-average economic growth as a result.
But Santos is probably most dangerous for Chavez, because Colombia's rags-to-riches success story is so dramatic — showing that any beat-up nation can drag itself out of misery through markets — and because Venezuela and Colombia are such close neighbors. Word gets out about how well things are going in Colombia and it spreads fast in Venezuela. Santos need never fire a shot at Venezuela to slay Chavez's revolution because the power of the markets will do it for him.
Santos as president now targets 6% growth rates for Colombia, single-digit unemployment, tax cuts, privatization, free trade and other market-oriented instruments that are known to work.
He's also planning something that is likely to give Chavez — and for that matter, President Obama, something to think about — a forging of a more assertive Pacific alliance with free-market Chile and Peru, as well as the nations of the Pacific Rim. Given Obama's dithering on free trade — and the fact that Canada on Tuesday, has just finalized its pact, and it's obvious Colombia is going to prosper with or without its friends or enemies.
Chavez knows he can't beat these growing numbers of free-market leaders in the hemisphere, nor the building success of their programs. He can only hunker down and pretend to play nice. But the reality is, they are casting him into irrelevance.
READ AT IBD Colombia's Success.
Democracy: After vowing war on Colombia if Juan Manuel Santos were elected president, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is singing soprano. Santos' big win Sunday is part of a wave of free market leaders sneaking up on him.
It was almost comical to see Venezuela's dictatorship put on its best manners and offer congratulations to Colombia's new conservative president, who won the election in a 69%-27% landslide.
...Truth is, Santos and his pro-free-market plans pose a threat to Chavez, whose socialist failures are mounting. His sudden sweet words signal a recognition that he is being outnumbered in a hemisphere he seeks to rule, amounting to an admission of defeat.
Venezuela in fact is now being encircled by nations that are electing responsible leaders who place their hopes for the future on free markets. Those markets will inevitably succeed and dominate the continent in coming years, leaving Chavez as irrelevant as Cuba in bringing prosperity and winning the hearts and minds of voters.
For Santos, that means supporting "the market as far as possible" and reliance on the state only "to the extent necessary."
That echoes what leaders up and down the Pacific coastline say, all of whom have shown a private-sector orientation. Sebastian Pinera of Chile, Alan Garcia of Peru, Ricardo Martinelli of Panama, Porfirio Lobo of Honduras, Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Stephen Harper of Canada have all acted on their free-market instincts and shown above-average economic growth as a result.
But Santos is probably most dangerous for Chavez, because Colombia's rags-to-riches success story is so dramatic — showing that any beat-up nation can drag itself out of misery through markets — and because Venezuela and Colombia are such close neighbors. Word gets out about how well things are going in Colombia and it spreads fast in Venezuela. Santos need never fire a shot at Venezuela to slay Chavez's revolution because the power of the markets will do it for him.
Santos as president now targets 6% growth rates for Colombia, single-digit unemployment, tax cuts, privatization, free trade and other market-oriented instruments that are known to work.
He's also planning something that is likely to give Chavez — and for that matter, President Obama, something to think about — a forging of a more assertive Pacific alliance with free-market Chile and Peru, as well as the nations of the Pacific Rim. Given Obama's dithering on free trade — and the fact that Canada on Tuesday, has just finalized its pact, and it's obvious Colombia is going to prosper with or without its friends or enemies.
Chavez knows he can't beat these growing numbers of free-market leaders in the hemisphere, nor the building success of their programs. He can only hunker down and pretend to play nice. But the reality is, they are casting him into irrelevance.
READ AT IBD Colombia's Success.
"Are All Airplanes a Danger Because One Was?"
Look. Obama's moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling is his door to close on this source of energy and the door he wants to open is the door to windmills and solar panels. Can you imagine panels to run a super economy? Well that's the problem isn't it...he wants to take us back to the Pleistocene and don't forget the power and money thing. Apparently, there's money to be made in the Brazilian Petrobras oil company as these expensive oil drilling platforms move to other shores with oil - like Brazil. Don't know if Obama has money invested in Petrobras but the multimillionaire guy George Soros does and he's part of the Obama circle of friends.
A federal judge Tuesday overturned the Obama administration's six-month moratorium on new deepwater oil and gas drilling, handing a major victory to the oil industry and delivering a stinging rebuke to the White House.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday the administration would immediately appeal the decision. "Continuing drilling at these depths without knowing what happened" in the April 20 explosion that triggered the spill "does not make sense."
U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman, in siding with the industry, said the administration had trivialized the economic impact of the moratorium. He added that the plaintiffs "have established a likelihood of successfully showing that the Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the moratorium."
"An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country," Judge Feldman wrote.
In his ruling, Judge Feldman said the moratorium "does not seem to be fact-specific" and did not account for the safety records of the many companies that operate in the Gulf.
"Are all airplanes a danger because one was?" the judge wrote. "All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."... Read at WSJ "Judge Blocks Offshore Drilling Ban".
A federal judge Tuesday overturned the Obama administration's six-month moratorium on new deepwater oil and gas drilling, handing a major victory to the oil industry and delivering a stinging rebuke to the White House.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday the administration would immediately appeal the decision. "Continuing drilling at these depths without knowing what happened" in the April 20 explosion that triggered the spill "does not make sense."
U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman, in siding with the industry, said the administration had trivialized the economic impact of the moratorium. He added that the plaintiffs "have established a likelihood of successfully showing that the Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the moratorium."
"An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country," Judge Feldman wrote.
In his ruling, Judge Feldman said the moratorium "does not seem to be fact-specific" and did not account for the safety records of the many companies that operate in the Gulf.
"Are all airplanes a danger because one was?" the judge wrote. "All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."... Read at WSJ "Judge Blocks Offshore Drilling Ban".
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Restraining and Reforming Goverment
The Conservatives HAVE lost their way. And it's time they find it. The way is paved with economic and political freedom. With a leftist government set on driving us to socialism maybe it's time for us to educate ourselves about our history and the uniqueness of what America stands for-individual freedom with a government that knows its place-subordination to the idea of limited government.
...But that's no excuse to conflate reform, which is often necessary to advance the cause of political liberty, with the progressive interpretation of it. Indeed, conservative reform will very often involve devising policies to limit government in the face of relentless progressive pressure to expand its reach and responsibilities.
Conservative reform is particularly necessary today. Revolutions in telecommunications and transportation continue to transform business, the family and the environment. The threat of transnational terrorists employing biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber weapons demands greater resourcefulness and agility at all levels of government, as well as greater cooperation among federal, state and municipal officials. And the vast expansion of the federal government undertaken by President Barack Obama and the Democrats has focused the electorate on government's cost and role in a way not seen since Ronald Reagan ran for president.
Unfortunately, over the past decade, conservatism in America has squandered the reputation for reform that it earned in the 1980s and 1990s. President Reagan led the way with his signature tax cuts, which launched two decades of stunning economic growth. Gov. John Engler in Michigan (1991–2003) and Gov. Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin (1987-2001) gained national prominence for the benefits they brought to their states by cutting taxes, promoting school choice and renovating welfare. The 1994 Republican congressional campaign's Contract with America, which drew on President Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address to propose concrete legislation to make the federal government more transparent and accountable, promised a new era of conservative reform. ..Read "Conservatism and the Spirit of Reform" at WSJ
...But that's no excuse to conflate reform, which is often necessary to advance the cause of political liberty, with the progressive interpretation of it. Indeed, conservative reform will very often involve devising policies to limit government in the face of relentless progressive pressure to expand its reach and responsibilities.
Conservative reform is particularly necessary today. Revolutions in telecommunications and transportation continue to transform business, the family and the environment. The threat of transnational terrorists employing biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber weapons demands greater resourcefulness and agility at all levels of government, as well as greater cooperation among federal, state and municipal officials. And the vast expansion of the federal government undertaken by President Barack Obama and the Democrats has focused the electorate on government's cost and role in a way not seen since Ronald Reagan ran for president.
Unfortunately, over the past decade, conservatism in America has squandered the reputation for reform that it earned in the 1980s and 1990s. President Reagan led the way with his signature tax cuts, which launched two decades of stunning economic growth. Gov. John Engler in Michigan (1991–2003) and Gov. Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin (1987-2001) gained national prominence for the benefits they brought to their states by cutting taxes, promoting school choice and renovating welfare. The 1994 Republican congressional campaign's Contract with America, which drew on President Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address to propose concrete legislation to make the federal government more transparent and accountable, promised a new era of conservative reform. ..Read "Conservatism and the Spirit of Reform" at WSJ
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Australia and America - Led by Leftist Power Lusters
Obama has a clone in Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Every other country is ditching the "global warming" line but the United States and Australia march to the tune of outright lies and distortions. Spain is turning away from green technology because of the expense but America's leaders are shoving us into this ravenous money pit. But don't worry, Brazil is going to drill baby drill while we go down the tubes. READ the article below by Tom Minchin posted at Rob Tracinski's TIADaily.
Australia's Obama
The Rise and Fall of Kevin Rudd—and What It Implies for Obama and the Oil Spill
by Tom Minchin
Barack Obama and Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd both belong to a new class of leftist leaders: postmodern ones. This distinguishes them from either the Old Left or the New Left. The Old Left (led by men like Franklin Roosevelt) were class-warfare-focused but claimed to believe in economic progress: they said they wanted a modern world with the government in control of the means of production. The New Left (the hippies and their contemporary descendants, the Greens) witnessed the failure of that socialist/fascist ideal in every country it was tried and, in bitterness, threw economic progress overboard to adopt a policy of living at the mercy of nature.
Unsurprisingly, the New Left failed to attract wide support. Its contempt for human survival was too apparent. Thus the postmodern left was born. The postmodern left combines a thirst for an ever-growing centralized government power with cunning levels of disguise to appear to be all things to all men. Hostility to science is wrapped in the language of science (global warming theory). The shackling of capitalism is dressed up as saving it (the stimulus packages). Hostility to US predominance is dressed up as a desire for a new world order in which US strength is "restraint." In fact, under all its disguises, the postmodern left believes in nothing but power for itself and the weakening of the institutions of the West. The common denominator of its policies: ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, the takeover and regulation of big business, internationalism, isolation of Israel, fawning over enemies and taking tough lines against their allies, is: Western disempowerment.
This is why Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd are both dynamite on their respective nations but greatly strengthen foreign enemies.
The protection for their agenda has been its sheer unbelievability. Few Western citizens thought postmodern leaders intended to persist in their destructiveness once the drawbacks of their programs were pointed out. How many thought Obama would continue with his health care program against overwhelming public resistance and in the face of the loss of Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat—an effective referendum on his policy? But he did. In Australia, Prime Minister Rudd was no sooner crushingly defeated on one means of shackling the Australian economy (cap-and-trade) than he singled out the most efficient industry in Australia—mining—to hit with a brand new 40% tax on Super Profits—a "Super Profit" being defined as any profit above a 6% return. (It is no accident that the term "Super Profit" was coined by Lenin.)
But the power of Obama and Rudd has peaked and is now in sharp decline. Both have gone from approval ratings around the 70% mark to the 40s. It is worth understanding why.
In the first place their irrationality and economic wastefulness has galvanized the pro-freedom side of politics. In America it is the Tea Party movement. In Australia it is the supporters of capitalism and the best of the media (Andrew Bolt and The Australian newspaper) who are leading an increasingly successful resistance. While seeing clearly the flaws in the right-leaning opposition party (the Liberal-National parties in coalition) they are relentless in exposing the Rudd government's lies, deceptions, and failings. See Andrew Bolt's 2-million-hits-a-month blog for evidence.
Yet ironically it will probably not be the people who saw through Obama and Rudd right from the start who bring them down. What may be the undoing of both leaders is the disillusionment of those who believed in them most, in the area of their biggest lies: the environment. As Rob Tracinski has pointed out, a US president has no business micro-managing the cleanup or even the prevention of an oil spill. Yet Obama, like Rudd over his Emissions Trading Scheme, has raised his supporters' expectations. Obama is the man who claimed he could, just by his nomination, cause the oceans to lower. Now he can't even prevent them from carrying the spill of a single oil rig.
The bubble is bursting for him not because he has disappointed real expectations but because he dealt in unreality all along, and his followers are betrayed because the unreal is the unreal and never had any value.
So it is with Kevin Rudd. He claimed to believe more than anyone in human-caused global warming. He called it the "great moral challenge of our age." Yet he has abandoned it because he hasn't had the guts to carry out his threat of dissolving both houses of parliament to pass bitterly opposed legislation—knowing he would fail. Now it is his most ardent supporters who are abandoning him. Take the leading climate alarmist Tim Flannery who will be a model for many an Obama supporter. As the Australian News website reported:
Tim Flannery, a former Australian of the Year, said he was unlikely to vote Labor again after Mr Rudd shelved plans for an emissions trading scheme.
"It's a profound betrayal of the person I voted for,'' Professor Flannery said at a conference in Canberra.
"Politicians only have one thing that they trade in, which is trust ... unfortunately my trust in the party's been corroded."
Rudd, like Obama, depended on a mystique. He was the leader who could do anything. Now his loss of confidence is causing all of his actions to have a touch of panic and he is floundering without support. The opposition to his big mining tax is growing daily.
Obama has gone one step further. He has promised a world where the government can control everything. Like Rudd since the failure of cap-and-trade, he will not even be able to control his own followers when the truth of his impotence over the Gulf oil spill stands fully revealed.
Tom Minchin is a writer, researcher, and businessman in Melbourne, Australia.
GO TO TIADaily.com
Australia's Obama
The Rise and Fall of Kevin Rudd—and What It Implies for Obama and the Oil Spill
by Tom Minchin
Barack Obama and Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd both belong to a new class of leftist leaders: postmodern ones. This distinguishes them from either the Old Left or the New Left. The Old Left (led by men like Franklin Roosevelt) were class-warfare-focused but claimed to believe in economic progress: they said they wanted a modern world with the government in control of the means of production. The New Left (the hippies and their contemporary descendants, the Greens) witnessed the failure of that socialist/fascist ideal in every country it was tried and, in bitterness, threw economic progress overboard to adopt a policy of living at the mercy of nature.
Unsurprisingly, the New Left failed to attract wide support. Its contempt for human survival was too apparent. Thus the postmodern left was born. The postmodern left combines a thirst for an ever-growing centralized government power with cunning levels of disguise to appear to be all things to all men. Hostility to science is wrapped in the language of science (global warming theory). The shackling of capitalism is dressed up as saving it (the stimulus packages). Hostility to US predominance is dressed up as a desire for a new world order in which US strength is "restraint." In fact, under all its disguises, the postmodern left believes in nothing but power for itself and the weakening of the institutions of the West. The common denominator of its policies: ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, the takeover and regulation of big business, internationalism, isolation of Israel, fawning over enemies and taking tough lines against their allies, is: Western disempowerment.
This is why Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd are both dynamite on their respective nations but greatly strengthen foreign enemies.
The protection for their agenda has been its sheer unbelievability. Few Western citizens thought postmodern leaders intended to persist in their destructiveness once the drawbacks of their programs were pointed out. How many thought Obama would continue with his health care program against overwhelming public resistance and in the face of the loss of Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat—an effective referendum on his policy? But he did. In Australia, Prime Minister Rudd was no sooner crushingly defeated on one means of shackling the Australian economy (cap-and-trade) than he singled out the most efficient industry in Australia—mining—to hit with a brand new 40% tax on Super Profits—a "Super Profit" being defined as any profit above a 6% return. (It is no accident that the term "Super Profit" was coined by Lenin.)
But the power of Obama and Rudd has peaked and is now in sharp decline. Both have gone from approval ratings around the 70% mark to the 40s. It is worth understanding why.
In the first place their irrationality and economic wastefulness has galvanized the pro-freedom side of politics. In America it is the Tea Party movement. In Australia it is the supporters of capitalism and the best of the media (Andrew Bolt and The Australian newspaper) who are leading an increasingly successful resistance. While seeing clearly the flaws in the right-leaning opposition party (the Liberal-National parties in coalition) they are relentless in exposing the Rudd government's lies, deceptions, and failings. See Andrew Bolt's 2-million-hits-a-month blog for evidence.
Yet ironically it will probably not be the people who saw through Obama and Rudd right from the start who bring them down. What may be the undoing of both leaders is the disillusionment of those who believed in them most, in the area of their biggest lies: the environment. As Rob Tracinski has pointed out, a US president has no business micro-managing the cleanup or even the prevention of an oil spill. Yet Obama, like Rudd over his Emissions Trading Scheme, has raised his supporters' expectations. Obama is the man who claimed he could, just by his nomination, cause the oceans to lower. Now he can't even prevent them from carrying the spill of a single oil rig.
The bubble is bursting for him not because he has disappointed real expectations but because he dealt in unreality all along, and his followers are betrayed because the unreal is the unreal and never had any value.
So it is with Kevin Rudd. He claimed to believe more than anyone in human-caused global warming. He called it the "great moral challenge of our age." Yet he has abandoned it because he hasn't had the guts to carry out his threat of dissolving both houses of parliament to pass bitterly opposed legislation—knowing he would fail. Now it is his most ardent supporters who are abandoning him. Take the leading climate alarmist Tim Flannery who will be a model for many an Obama supporter. As the Australian News website reported:
Tim Flannery, a former Australian of the Year, said he was unlikely to vote Labor again after Mr Rudd shelved plans for an emissions trading scheme.
"It's a profound betrayal of the person I voted for,'' Professor Flannery said at a conference in Canberra.
"Politicians only have one thing that they trade in, which is trust ... unfortunately my trust in the party's been corroded."
Rudd, like Obama, depended on a mystique. He was the leader who could do anything. Now his loss of confidence is causing all of his actions to have a touch of panic and he is floundering without support. The opposition to his big mining tax is growing daily.
Obama has gone one step further. He has promised a world where the government can control everything. Like Rudd since the failure of cap-and-trade, he will not even be able to control his own followers when the truth of his impotence over the Gulf oil spill stands fully revealed.
Tom Minchin is a writer, researcher, and businessman in Melbourne, Australia.
GO TO TIADaily.com
Monday, June 14, 2010
Solomon's Mine
Ah, Afghanistan. The prehistoric land of a trillion dollars worth of minerals. All the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men, couldn't put the Middle East back together again. One thing for sure - it will be fun to watch other nations jockeying for a part of that wealth - a fable like Solomon's Mine.
Revelations that Afghanistan may be sitting on $1 trillion worth of untapped minerals pose a quandary straight out of the pages of "The Hobbit," of all things.
In J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy, the eponymous hero overcomes multiple obstacles to reach a treasure hoard guarded by a dragon. But the hobbit then almost succumbs to defeatism when the cunning monster asks him how, even if he gets his hands on the gold, he will actually carry it all home?
Reuters Afghan boys ride on a bicycle in the old city of Ghazni, southwest of Kabul, in August 2007. The region that could be holding $1 trillion of untapped mineral deposits.
.
Useful as mineral wealth might someday prove to be for Afghanistan, commodities analysts need not adjust their supply forecasts just yet.
Oil offers a lesson here..READ
Revelations that Afghanistan may be sitting on $1 trillion worth of untapped minerals pose a quandary straight out of the pages of "The Hobbit," of all things.
In J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy, the eponymous hero overcomes multiple obstacles to reach a treasure hoard guarded by a dragon. But the hobbit then almost succumbs to defeatism when the cunning monster asks him how, even if he gets his hands on the gold, he will actually carry it all home?
Reuters Afghan boys ride on a bicycle in the old city of Ghazni, southwest of Kabul, in August 2007. The region that could be holding $1 trillion of untapped mineral deposits.
.
Useful as mineral wealth might someday prove to be for Afghanistan, commodities analysts need not adjust their supply forecasts just yet.
Oil offers a lesson here..READ
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Mr. President - Protect America
Peggy Noonan writes about how unprepared and nonchalant we are about WMD's and that's what I've been thinking about lately. Iran probably has a couple of nukes already and is just waiting for an opportunity to use them with that kook in power... and Obama and our congress fiddles while Rome burns. I REPEAT AGAIN HERE: THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENRY! Obama doesn't seem to know how to resolve the BP mess in the gulf - how can we expect him to defend Americans and our homeland? READ "We are Totally Unprepared".
...No one wants to think about it. I don't want to think about it. But you have to make plans. You have to imagine, you have to think about the worst case, and then you have to plan for it—literally. We've had enough time, nine years since our unforgettable reminder that history is, among other things, and some of them quite wonderful, a charnel house.
Our eye is off the ball. The public, in spite of what it knows in the day to day, assumes the government is on the case. And certainly the government is on the case with regard to prevention: Not being hit again since 2001 means something, and our antiterrorism professionals, intelligence and law-enforcement agents, do impressive work. In New York the past week they picked up two apparent would-be terrorists who won't be playing jihad anytime soon. But public awareness of prevention success gives the impression the government is similarly capable in terms of readiness and response.
You can see a certain air of complacency even on government websites. On the front page of the House Committee on Homeland Security site there's a picture of Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, then, below, an area devoted to something called "Business Opportunities Model" and an area for "DHS Business Opportunities." On the Homeland Security Department's website, the priorities seem equally clear: "Find Career Opportunities," "Use the Job Finder." There's little sense of urgency; it's government as employment agency, not crisis leader.
A few days before the report on the Justice Department, Henry Kissinger spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. His testimony ...Read the rest at Wall Street Journal.
...No one wants to think about it. I don't want to think about it. But you have to make plans. You have to imagine, you have to think about the worst case, and then you have to plan for it—literally. We've had enough time, nine years since our unforgettable reminder that history is, among other things, and some of them quite wonderful, a charnel house.
Our eye is off the ball. The public, in spite of what it knows in the day to day, assumes the government is on the case. And certainly the government is on the case with regard to prevention: Not being hit again since 2001 means something, and our antiterrorism professionals, intelligence and law-enforcement agents, do impressive work. In New York the past week they picked up two apparent would-be terrorists who won't be playing jihad anytime soon. But public awareness of prevention success gives the impression the government is similarly capable in terms of readiness and response.
You can see a certain air of complacency even on government websites. On the front page of the House Committee on Homeland Security site there's a picture of Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, then, below, an area devoted to something called "Business Opportunities Model" and an area for "DHS Business Opportunities." On the Homeland Security Department's website, the priorities seem equally clear: "Find Career Opportunities," "Use the Job Finder." There's little sense of urgency; it's government as employment agency, not crisis leader.
A few days before the report on the Justice Department, Henry Kissinger spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. His testimony ...Read the rest at Wall Street Journal.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Would You Allow a Bust of a Mass Murderer in Your Town?
Do you know who this man is? Are Americans that dumb that they would put up a bust of this killer in their town? A man who murdered 50 million people by most estimates, more than double what the article below states, is extoled by art? This is so beyond the pale and must indicate one of two things - either these people don't know their history or they actually admire this butcher!
The small town of Bedford, Va., is home to 21 men who sacrificed their lives on D-Day, June 6, 1944. It is now also the home of one of the world's few public memorial busts of communist dictator Josef Stalin.
Local citizens and organizations have expressed their outrage over the installation of the bust at the National D-Day Memorial, which honored the 66th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy over the weekend. The bust of the Soviet Union's wartime leader was unveiled last week to accompany existing busts of U.S. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman as well as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
"Having Stalin in our backyard, people are really upset about that," said Karl Altau, the managing director at the joint Baltic American National Committee that has helped in movements against the Stalin bust.
A Facebook page with more than 2,000 members as of Monday afternoon has been set up to protest the statue. In an online poll from the Bedford Bulletin, the town's local newspaper, 94.8 percent of 429 respondents said a bust of Stalin should not be placed at the National D-Day Memorial as of Monday afternoon.
Lee Edwards, chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, another organization involved in the protests against the statue, said he and others thought the prospect of a bust of Stalin was a joke when they first heard about it.
It was "too misplaced and ill-timed," he said.
But confusion soon gave way to frustration. "The National D-Day Memorial Foundation knows it made a monumental mistake by including Stalin in its memorial," he said...READ "Stalin Bust has Town Red Faced".
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Keeping Tabs on Those People in Government - Still No Reforms of Fannie in Sight
This is how Michigan Representatives voted on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack - Not to abolish this government run and mismanaged entity but to reform it. That's a laugh. You can get your state and how your reps voted HERE.
Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Savings estimated at $30 billion.
Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored mortgage-backing companies, taxpayers have injected over $145 billion into the two companies. Yet Congress still has not considered proposals to reform these companies and recoup taxpayer funds. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that absent reform, costs to taxpayer will continue to grow. Taking action to reform these companies now (as opposed to delaying action as some have proposed) by ending their government conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure could generate savings of up to an estimated $30 billion. Go HERE for your state.
John Dingell NO District 15
Dale Kildee NO 5
Sander Levine NO 12
Thaddeus McCotter NO 11
Gary Peters NO 9
Mark Shower NO 7
Bart Stupak NO 1
John Conyers NO 14
Fred Upton YES 6
Dave Camp YES 4
Vernon Ehlers YES 3
Candice Miller YES 10
Pete Hoekstra NO VOTE 2
Mike Rogers YES 8
Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Savings estimated at $30 billion.
Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored mortgage-backing companies, taxpayers have injected over $145 billion into the two companies. Yet Congress still has not considered proposals to reform these companies and recoup taxpayer funds. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that absent reform, costs to taxpayer will continue to grow. Taking action to reform these companies now (as opposed to delaying action as some have proposed) by ending their government conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure could generate savings of up to an estimated $30 billion. Go HERE for your state.
John Dingell NO District 15
Dale Kildee NO 5
Sander Levine NO 12
Thaddeus McCotter NO 11
Gary Peters NO 9
Mark Shower NO 7
Bart Stupak NO 1
John Conyers NO 14
Fred Upton YES 6
Dave Camp YES 4
Vernon Ehlers YES 3
Candice Miller YES 10
Pete Hoekstra NO VOTE 2
Mike Rogers YES 8
Monday, June 07, 2010
The Unbearable Lightness of Living in Venezuela
Venezuela started from behind already when Chavez was "voted" President a few years ago. But America has been on the road to socialism for several decades maybe even since the early 1900's. It might be a good idea to look at Venezuela - the biggest producer of, of, of, ....NOTHING. Is that where we want to go? Let's rediscover capitalism and freedom from big government and we'll unleash the can do spirit of Americans. Read this informative piece by the great writer and reporter on South American Politics, Mary Anastasia O'Grady.
This is the busiest crossing along the 1,375 mile Venezuelan-Colombian border. It is also the best place to observe what happens when the commanding heights of Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian revolution collide with real life—aka, the market economy.
Crime—kidnapping, robbery and extortion—is a big risk for travelers here and so is dealing with Mr. Chávez's National Guard, which is notoriously corrupt. It has hundreds of highway check points throughout the country and every Venezuelan I talk to is uneasy about its arbitrary power. But I've come to see how Venezuelans are able to get by under price and capital controls, the slow suffocation of the private sector, a skyrocketing crime rate and a variety of shortages. I also want to better understand how people in the provinces feel about their government.
Ironically, a bizarre form of market economics may be playing a key role in Mr. Chávez's survival. Venezuela imports nearly everything it consumes, and Colombia has long been one of its major suppliers. But in a fit of pique last year, when Colombia agreed to allow the U.S. to use its air bases for drug surveillance, Mr. Chávez announced that he would restrict trade with his neighbor.
Food imports are now denied health-department permits, and expiring import permits for some other goods are not being renewed. Mr. Chávez says that the country can get what it needs from allies like Brazil, Argentina and Nicaragua.
Yet there is a long line of trucks waiting to enter Venezuela. A partial explanation is that some of these trucks are carrying goods produced outside of Colombia. Venezuelan ports have deteriorated so much under Mr. Chávez's rule that importers are increasingly offloading in Colombian ports and using overland transportation to the final Venezuelan destinations. This theory is supported by a recent report in the Colombian daily El Tiempo that said 50,000 tons of food had spoiled in Venezuela's northern Puerto Cabello because of government mismanagement...Read "Chavismo Meets the Market" at WSJ
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Leon Uris' Novel "The Haj" and its Relevance Today
One of the great books I've read, "The Haj", is about the conflict in Palestine between the Arabs, Jews and the British after the end of WWII. The following is the response from Gideon, a Jew and one of the main characters in the book to a British officer as the battle between the Arabs and Jews erupts into all out war in Palestine. The British have started their withdrawal from those lands, abandoning the few thousand beleaguered Jews to the millions of Arabs arming themselves to wipe them out. Gideon warns the British officer that Islam is on the march. This book was written in 1984 and here we are 16 years later...with a President that does not seem to realize the dangers we confront or maybe doesn't care.
I always think that we get the President we deserve because of the way we don't consistently uphold the founding principles of this great nation. It's time to change that and realize that we live in a dangerous world with nuts on the loose governing countries that have nukes. Americans have to accept this danger and the idea that the only way we can continue on is to recognize our Founding values of small government and our individual rights to life and liberty. By making our government focus on its primary mandate - the protection of our homeland and American lives, we will have the resources to defend our land against the evil that abounds in certain places on this beautiful earth.
"Strange, isn't it, that we Jews are once again stuck with a dirty job no one else wants? You and all your snide friends in all the foreign offices know in your hearts the cruelty, the evil that emanates from the Moslem world. But you are afraid to hold Islam up to the light and tell your people, 'Look, this is what we have to live with.' No, let the Jews do it. We once again man the barricades alone, berated by our smug, so-called allies of the Western democracies. Islam is going to turn this world upside down before this century is out and you'd better have enough guts to deal with it. It's lonely here, Brompton. It's lonely." Page 213 from "The Haj" by Leon Uris (Bantam Books, the paperback edition).
I always think that we get the President we deserve because of the way we don't consistently uphold the founding principles of this great nation. It's time to change that and realize that we live in a dangerous world with nuts on the loose governing countries that have nukes. Americans have to accept this danger and the idea that the only way we can continue on is to recognize our Founding values of small government and our individual rights to life and liberty. By making our government focus on its primary mandate - the protection of our homeland and American lives, we will have the resources to defend our land against the evil that abounds in certain places on this beautiful earth.
"Strange, isn't it, that we Jews are once again stuck with a dirty job no one else wants? You and all your snide friends in all the foreign offices know in your hearts the cruelty, the evil that emanates from the Moslem world. But you are afraid to hold Islam up to the light and tell your people, 'Look, this is what we have to live with.' No, let the Jews do it. We once again man the barricades alone, berated by our smug, so-called allies of the Western democracies. Islam is going to turn this world upside down before this century is out and you'd better have enough guts to deal with it. It's lonely here, Brompton. It's lonely." Page 213 from "The Haj" by Leon Uris (Bantam Books, the paperback edition).
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Is Greece a Mirror for the Fate of America?
Arthur Brooks hit it on the head with his article of "Slouching Towards Athens - The Obama Agenda and the Europeanization of America". I had been thinking about the American can do and stick to it spirit being eroded by a bloated, overreaching, hypocritic, paternalistic government ever since Obama became President. This article by Brooks says it all. Will our children have the American spirit when they grow up? Will America become another European birth to cradle welfare state? Are we for all intents and purpose already there? Can we reverse this creeping socialism which Obama is rapidly now forcing down our throats? Only time, which we don't have anymore, will tell. But as Americans we must fight this insidious socialism which is nothing but slavery to the state.
...Why are citizens rioting and striking in Greece? Despite the worst economic crisis in decades, labor unions and state functionaries demand that others pay for the early retirements, lifetime benefits and state pensions to which they feel entitled. In America, however, the tea partiers demonstrate not to get more from others, but rather against government growth, public debt, bailouts and a budget-busting government overhaul of the health-care industry.
In other words, the tea partiers are protesting against exactly what the Greeks are demanding. It is an example of American exceptionalism if there ever was one.
Instead of celebrating this ethical populism, however, many political leaders here denounced the legitimacy of the tea party protesters. "It's not really a grass-roots movement," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed after the tax day tea party protests in April 2009. "It's 'astroturf' by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich."...
...The increasing size of the federal work force is an early indication of what lies ahead. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in the last year the federal government added 86,000 permanent (non-Census) jobs to the rolls. And high-paying jobs at that: The number of federal salaries over $100,000 per year has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the recession.
Today, the average federal worker earns 77% more than the average private-sector worker, according to a USA Today analysis of data from the federal Office of Personnel Management. To pay for bigger government, the private sector will bear a heavier tax burden far into the future, suppressing the innovation and entrepreneurship that creates growth and real opportunity, not to mention the revenue that pays for everything else in the first place.
If these trends are not reversed, it is hard to see how our culture of free enterprise will not change. More and more Americans, especially younger Americans, will grow accustomed to a system in which the government pays better wages, offers the best job protection, allows the earliest retirement, and guarantees the most lavish pensions. Against such competition, more and more young, would-be entrepreneurs will inevitably choose the safety and comfort of government employment—and do so with all the drive that is generally thought to be "good enough" for that kind of work. Read "Slouching Toward Athens" at the Wall Street Journal
...Why are citizens rioting and striking in Greece? Despite the worst economic crisis in decades, labor unions and state functionaries demand that others pay for the early retirements, lifetime benefits and state pensions to which they feel entitled. In America, however, the tea partiers demonstrate not to get more from others, but rather against government growth, public debt, bailouts and a budget-busting government overhaul of the health-care industry.
In other words, the tea partiers are protesting against exactly what the Greeks are demanding. It is an example of American exceptionalism if there ever was one.
Instead of celebrating this ethical populism, however, many political leaders here denounced the legitimacy of the tea party protesters. "It's not really a grass-roots movement," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed after the tax day tea party protests in April 2009. "It's 'astroturf' by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich."...
...The increasing size of the federal work force is an early indication of what lies ahead. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in the last year the federal government added 86,000 permanent (non-Census) jobs to the rolls. And high-paying jobs at that: The number of federal salaries over $100,000 per year has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the recession.
Today, the average federal worker earns 77% more than the average private-sector worker, according to a USA Today analysis of data from the federal Office of Personnel Management. To pay for bigger government, the private sector will bear a heavier tax burden far into the future, suppressing the innovation and entrepreneurship that creates growth and real opportunity, not to mention the revenue that pays for everything else in the first place.
If these trends are not reversed, it is hard to see how our culture of free enterprise will not change. More and more Americans, especially younger Americans, will grow accustomed to a system in which the government pays better wages, offers the best job protection, allows the earliest retirement, and guarantees the most lavish pensions. Against such competition, more and more young, would-be entrepreneurs will inevitably choose the safety and comfort of government employment—and do so with all the drive that is generally thought to be "good enough" for that kind of work. Read "Slouching Toward Athens" at the Wall Street Journal
The Global Warming "Debate" is Falling Apart
Rob Tracinski at TIADaily.com has a great piece describing how the Climate Warming "debate" is falling apart.
"..And best of all is the story below, about a debate at the venerable old Oxford Union, in which prominent skeptics defeated alarmists in a vote by the students—and by a good margin. Intellectual climate change is possible, and it is only a matter of time before it comes, in full force, to the US."
Tracinski will have his Daily blog free for a while so take advantage and read his excellent analysis of the events of the day from an Objectivist's point of view. Read below.
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that "global warming" is or could become a global crisis….
Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world's premier debating society, carried the motion "That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change" by 135 votes to 110….
Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that–politically speaking–the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun….
Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: "And your reference is?" Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering "Your reference? Your reference?" Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.
Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much "global warming" over the 20th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective….
Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as "Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society". At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, "If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and"–glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box–"measure it!" "Oxford Union Debate On Climate Catastrophe" at The SPPI Blog .
"..And best of all is the story below, about a debate at the venerable old Oxford Union, in which prominent skeptics defeated alarmists in a vote by the students—and by a good margin. Intellectual climate change is possible, and it is only a matter of time before it comes, in full force, to the US."
Tracinski will have his Daily blog free for a while so take advantage and read his excellent analysis of the events of the day from an Objectivist's point of view. Read below.
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that "global warming" is or could become a global crisis….
Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world's premier debating society, carried the motion "That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change" by 135 votes to 110….
Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that–politically speaking–the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun….
Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: "And your reference is?" Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering "Your reference? Your reference?" Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.
Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much "global warming" over the 20th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective….
Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as "Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society". At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, "If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and"–glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box–"measure it!" "Oxford Union Debate On Climate Catastrophe" at The SPPI Blog .
Friday, June 04, 2010
EPA's Policies Have Stymied Innovations
The EPA is one of the most retarded and useless agencies we have. For example they have refused to allow the genetic engineering of bacteria and fungus that might have been able feed on the oil and change it thereby to something less noxious for the environment. Why do we even have an Environmental Protection Agency if it's not to PROTECT the environment? Seems like an oxymoron.
I dislike President Obama's style and substance. A whiner and left-wing ideologue, he is remarkably slow-witted when out of range of speechwriters and teleprompters. I'll say one thing for him, though: He brings a sense of irony to government.
The latest example is the incomprehensible choice of William Reilly, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to co-chair the presidential commission to investigate the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
During Reilly's tenure, the EPA implemented policies that prevented the development of a high-tech method to mitigate the effects of the oil washing onto the magnificent beaches along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida.
During the 1980s microorganisms genetically engineered to feed on spilled oil were developed in laboratories, but draconian federal regulations discouraged their testing and commercialization and ensured that the techniques available for responding to these disasters remain low-tech and marginally effective.
They include methods such as deploying booms to contain the oil, spraying chemicals to disperse it, burning it and spreading absorbent mats.
At the time of the catastrophic 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, there were great expectations for modern biotechnology applied to "bioremediation," the biological cleanup of toxic wastes, including oil. Reilly, who at that time headed the EPA, later recalled:
"When I saw the full scale of the disaster in Prince William Sound in Alaska ... my first thought was: Where are the exotic new technologies, the products of genetic engineering, that can help us clean this up?"
Reilly should have known: Innovation had been stymied by his agency's hostile policies toward the most sophisticated new genetic engineering techniques. The regulations ensured that biotech researchers in several industrial sectors, including bioremediation, would continue to be intimidated and inhibited by regulatory barriers. Those policies remain in place today, and the EPA's anti-technology zealots show no signs of changing them...READ: Obama Slips Up on Oil Spill Panel" at IBD editorials.
I dislike President Obama's style and substance. A whiner and left-wing ideologue, he is remarkably slow-witted when out of range of speechwriters and teleprompters. I'll say one thing for him, though: He brings a sense of irony to government.
The latest example is the incomprehensible choice of William Reilly, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to co-chair the presidential commission to investigate the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
During Reilly's tenure, the EPA implemented policies that prevented the development of a high-tech method to mitigate the effects of the oil washing onto the magnificent beaches along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida.
During the 1980s microorganisms genetically engineered to feed on spilled oil were developed in laboratories, but draconian federal regulations discouraged their testing and commercialization and ensured that the techniques available for responding to these disasters remain low-tech and marginally effective.
They include methods such as deploying booms to contain the oil, spraying chemicals to disperse it, burning it and spreading absorbent mats.
At the time of the catastrophic 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, there were great expectations for modern biotechnology applied to "bioremediation," the biological cleanup of toxic wastes, including oil. Reilly, who at that time headed the EPA, later recalled:
"When I saw the full scale of the disaster in Prince William Sound in Alaska ... my first thought was: Where are the exotic new technologies, the products of genetic engineering, that can help us clean this up?"
Reilly should have known: Innovation had been stymied by his agency's hostile policies toward the most sophisticated new genetic engineering techniques. The regulations ensured that biotech researchers in several industrial sectors, including bioremediation, would continue to be intimidated and inhibited by regulatory barriers. Those policies remain in place today, and the EPA's anti-technology zealots show no signs of changing them...READ: Obama Slips Up on Oil Spill Panel" at IBD editorials.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
It's Time To Take a Stand and Fight Big Government
For those of you who are concerned about big government getting into every aspect of our lives the time has come to do something. You don't know what to do or how to get started? Read below then go to TIADaily.com
The passage of the health care bill has made the current political environment more serious and urgent than ever before. The vote on that bill demonstrated that it is not enough to mobilize massive public opposition to statism—that the Democrats will push it through anyway, with contempt for the views of the governed. They will do it because they regard opposition to their agenda as passing, temporary, and ultimately ineffectual. They believe they can shove through this legislation—and more, in whatever time they have remaining—and that once it is in place, it can never be rolled back. ..
If we don't prove them wrong, we are in very big trouble.
Just how big is demonstrated by the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, because she brings to the forefront the main issue of Barack Obama's presidency. As I wrote in the May 13 edition of TIA Daily:
This year, we are called upon to decide the most important political issue there is: are they any limits on the power of government?
We saw this in the health care debate, when Democratic congressmen were quizzed on the constitutionality of the law and answered with a collective shrug of indifference….
And now, with Elena Kagan, we discover that even the First Amendment is not safe, that Congress may also claim the power to censor our speech, should the "general welfare" dictate that the benefits of our freedom are outweighed by the "costs to society."
If there is a single theme to Obama's term in office so far, it is his attempt to break the last of the bonds that used to limit the power of government.
At the same time, however, there is also a lot of reason for hope. The primaries and special elections that have been held so far this year have been a bloodbath for incumbents, for the party establishment—of both parties—and especially for the appropriators, the politicians who are on the committees most directly responsible for runaway government spending...
It's time to get educated and to take a stand against BIG GOVERNMENT. Do you want to be told how to live your life from birth to death? Will you accept the high rate of taxation that is coming down the pike to pay for all this government intervention in our lives? Do you want to send most of your money to Washington for them to spend on welfare programs? You can start educating yourself at: Read the rest at TIADaily.com.
The passage of the health care bill has made the current political environment more serious and urgent than ever before. The vote on that bill demonstrated that it is not enough to mobilize massive public opposition to statism—that the Democrats will push it through anyway, with contempt for the views of the governed. They will do it because they regard opposition to their agenda as passing, temporary, and ultimately ineffectual. They believe they can shove through this legislation—and more, in whatever time they have remaining—and that once it is in place, it can never be rolled back. ..
If we don't prove them wrong, we are in very big trouble.
Just how big is demonstrated by the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, because she brings to the forefront the main issue of Barack Obama's presidency. As I wrote in the May 13 edition of TIA Daily:
This year, we are called upon to decide the most important political issue there is: are they any limits on the power of government?
We saw this in the health care debate, when Democratic congressmen were quizzed on the constitutionality of the law and answered with a collective shrug of indifference….
And now, with Elena Kagan, we discover that even the First Amendment is not safe, that Congress may also claim the power to censor our speech, should the "general welfare" dictate that the benefits of our freedom are outweighed by the "costs to society."
If there is a single theme to Obama's term in office so far, it is his attempt to break the last of the bonds that used to limit the power of government.
At the same time, however, there is also a lot of reason for hope. The primaries and special elections that have been held so far this year have been a bloodbath for incumbents, for the party establishment—of both parties—and especially for the appropriators, the politicians who are on the committees most directly responsible for runaway government spending...
It's time to get educated and to take a stand against BIG GOVERNMENT. Do you want to be told how to live your life from birth to death? Will you accept the high rate of taxation that is coming down the pike to pay for all this government intervention in our lives? Do you want to send most of your money to Washington for them to spend on welfare programs? You can start educating yourself at: Read the rest at TIADaily.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)