It is apparent that Obama is making preparations to close Gitmo. It was discussed that some of the detainees will be released into the U.S. Now, it is being planned that 460 inmates will be moved to a maximum security jail in Virginia.
This is a huge problem. Gitmo was created to keep the enemy combatants away from American soil and the civilian court system. At the time, U.S. Supreme Court precedent was that if the prisons were not in the U.S. then the civilan courts did not have jurisidication.
The Court changed that but it is still a debate if they can bring their cases in civilan courts. If these terrorists are housed in our prisions, then the debate is mute and they can began filing cases in our court system.
Why is this a problem?
They were captured in war. They have been questioned under the rules of war. These are different that criminal cases. Most of the evidence used in a war tribunal would not admissible in our criminal courts. In other words, we could not present a case to detain or jail them. They could possibly go free and then go back to the battlefield or worse stay here.
Here is a story from Fox News:
A Virginia jail could be the next home for Guantanamo Bay inmates.
The maximum security jail in Alexandria, Va. -- home to approximately 460 inmates -- is under contract to take federal inmates who are tried at the courthouse just a few blocks away.
Among them could be former Al Qaeda operatives detained in Guantanamo Bay like Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's operations chief, or Abd Al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the U.S.S. Cole attack, Alexandria sheriff Dana Lawhorne told FOX News.
"We are a maximum security jail, so the answer is yes," Lawhorne said when asked about the possibility that Gitmo detainees could be transferred to the jail.
Lawhorne said that although most inmates are booked at city jail on local charges, Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui was detained there in a separate unit on the third floor for five years.
Lawhorne said he and his team were given specific instructions for Moussaoui's imprisonment, which included no contact with television, radio, or other inmates.
"He had to be isolated. He could not be within earshot -- of television, radios, and other people. It takes a lot of space to accomplish that," Lawhorne said.
The jail, built in 1987, is surrounded by condominiums, government offices, and a luxury hotel just a few hundred feet from the courthouse door.
In a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder two weeks ago, Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican, inquired about the housing and handling of detainees at Alexandria's jail because he said all signs indicate that Gitmo detainees will be transferred there.
Holder's office has not yet responded, according to Wolf.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Conservative Congressmen Push for Parental Rights Amendment
It is sad that in the United States our Congress must waste their time, trying to pass an amendment protecting parental righst, but it is true. With Senate Democrats pushing the UN treaty for Children’s Right, Republicans have no choice but to take this route.
The UN treaty would do the following:
“[T]he treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.”
Between the Democrats and the UN, our liberties, freedoms, society, and economy is under attack. Now they are attacking our families.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C).and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) are attempting to protect parental rights with a Constitutional Amendment. Good Luck to them!
Here is a story for WorldNet Daily:
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.
According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."
"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."
Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."
Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.
Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.
According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.
As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:
"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.
Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.
"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."
He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.
"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.
Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.
Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.
Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."
Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.
DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.
To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The UN treaty would do the following:
“[T]he treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.”
Between the Democrats and the UN, our liberties, freedoms, society, and economy is under attack. Now they are attacking our families.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C).and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich) are attempting to protect parental rights with a Constitutional Amendment. Good Luck to them!
Here is a story for WorldNet Daily:
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.
According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."
"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."
Discover the mindset behind the establishment of today's system of mass education, and where has it led us as a society with "The Little Book of Big Reasons to Homeschool."
Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.
Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.
According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.
As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:
"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.
Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.
"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."
He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."
As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.
"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said, according to Fox News.
Critics like Smith, however, argue the document, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" usurps the role of parents in directing their children's upbringing.
Opponents of the amendment, such as those that opposed a Colorado state version proposed in the 1990's, argue that the measure would protect child abusers, make public schools a battleground for parents' ideological issues and prevent teenage students from receiving sex education and family planning services through their schools.
Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued against the amendment in a blog post last month, making many of the same arguments lodged against the Colorado initiative.
Boston also argued that the amendment is a back door approach to mixing public education dollars and religion, claiming through the amendment "states would be forced to give parents tuition vouchers for private and religious schooling since the right to direct a child's education would be enshrined in the Constitution."
Sen. DeMint, who will join Hoekstra in offering the amendment, has been involved in similar legislation in the past. DeMint was a co-sponsor of the Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act of 2007, which required schools to obtain written parental permission before teaching children about sex or sexuality.
DeMint's bill, like Hoekstra's in 2008, never made it out of committee.
To succeed, the amendment Hoekstra and DeMint plan to introduce Tuesday will need to pass in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate by two-thirds majorities each, then win ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Obama Acts like a Marxist
After watching Obama fire the CEO of General Motors, the first thing that needs to be asked is where did he acquire the power. Flipping through the Constitution, that particular power is not there for the Executive Branch. It is not in the Legislative either. So, it is safe to say Obama violated the Constitution when he fired Rick Wagoner.
However, what is lost in the debate is what is really going on. The government just told Chrysler to work a buyout with Fiat and fired the CEO of GM. This is unprecedented overreaching of authority, which no one in government has. The government is telling banks what to do. They are controlling insurance companies. The question must be asked what is Obama, Congress and Democratic Party doing. Is there so motive to why they are moving so fast and attacking the liberties they are attacking.
Obama has been called a Marxist. You get a great lesson from the American Thinker. This is based on what he is saying and the policies he is supporting and that are passing in Congress. Since becoming President, the government has attacked the following rights:
1st Amendment with suggesting the Fairness Doctrine
2nd Amendment with suggesting the assault weapon ban and many other regulations
4th Amendment with attacks on privacy and probable cause
9th Amendment with everything they are doing
10th Amendment with the passing of the Stimulus Bill that tells states what to do and rewrites their Constitution
13th Amendment with the passing to Obama Youth Bill (GIVE Act). It amounts to slavery
And…the list goes on and on…
When the actions of the government in the last 50 some days are presented this way, it obvious they are trashing the Constitution and the People’s liberties. But, what is their plan. I have been saying that Obama is following a playbook. Whose could be debated.
But…I present for your review the Party’s plan:
JOBS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
-Support the Employee Free Choice Act to allow workers to gain union representation without harassment or recrimination.
-Create living wage, union jobs with a massive program to rebuild the bridges, schools, water treatment plants, and parks of our nation, while sending funds to cities and states to fully staff education, childcare, health care and other peoples’ needs.
-Special measures for federal spending and job creation in the African American and Latino communities where jobless rates are up to twice as high because of overt and institutional racism.
-Expand aid and job creation in rural areas with disproportionately high unemployment.
-Protect family farmers with price supports and no curtailment of subsidies.
-Expand federal funding of youth jobs, vocational and apprenticeship programs and higher education especially geared toward low income and racially oppressed youth.
-Raise the minimum wage to living wage standards taking into account cost of housing and other essentials.
-Provide adequate federal funding to cities and towns for first responders and emergency personnel.
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
-Access to reproductive health care for young women. Expand funding for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.
-Equal, Quality Public Education
-Enact the DREAM Act and Student Adjustment Act to increase access to education for immigrants.
-Increase Pell Grants. Repeal provisions that deny funds to students with drug convictions.
-Social Safety Net
-Extend unemployment compensation to include entire time without a job.
-No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Use the Social Security surplus to increase benefits instead of funding the Bush tax cuts and war in Iraq. Protect retirement funds.
-Restore and expand the social safety net for women and children and victims of economic dislocation. Emergency measures to end child poverty.
-Expand Section 8 and other affordable housing measures. Federal funding of construction and maintenance of housing for working class families.
END RACISM, DISCRIMINATION AND BIGOTRY – FOR FULL EQUALITY
-Enforce and expand affirmative action to end racism and achieve equality in jobs, housing, health care, education (including university admissions), and all areas of life.
-Outlaw racial profiling. Enact federal hate crime legislation.
-Alternative sentencing for non-violent crimes. Abolish the death penalty.
-Enact the SOLVE ACT (HR 4264/SB 238)to fulfill the goals of the Immigrant Workers
-Freedom Ride including a clear path to citizenship, equal rights on the job and civil liberties protections.
-End the wage gap for women. Equal pay for equal work. Reject efforts to repeal Roe V. Wade which would restrict women’s reproductive rights.
-Reject the Bush proposed Marriage amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit gay marriages. End discrimination because of sexual orientation.
PEACE AND FOREIGN POLICY
-Bring the troops home from Iraq. US out, UN in. Full funding for veterans benefits.
-Support HR 690 for a full investigation into prison abuses in Iraq, especially at Abu Ghraib.
-End the policy of pre-emptive war, war without end and world domination and occupation. Foreign policy based on cooperation and negotiations utilizing the United Nations.
-Stop procurement and testing of nuclear weapons. Stop deployment of nuclear weapons to outer space.
-End the harmful buildup of the military budget. Transfer funds to human needs.
-Repeal NAFTA and negotiate enforceable labor and environmental rights into the body of all new agreements.
-Support Department of Peace as cabinet level position.
-Remove military recruiters from public schools and campuses. Require parental agreement before students names are given to the military.
-End the policy of promoting regime change in Cuba, Venezuela and other countries. End support for repressive governments around the world.
PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT
-Protect our natural resources. Repeal the Healthy Forests and Clear Skies acts. Prosecute corporate polluters.
-Develop renewable clean energy alternatives.
-Support the Apollo Project of labor and environment organizations to create environmentally friendly jobs in transportation and infrastructure.
-Enact energy price controls and public ownership with investment in renewable and sustainable energy.
-Ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
-Repeal the USA Patriot Act, which limits constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and dissent.
-End appointments of right-wing, extremist judges to Federal Courts.
-Funding for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that no voters are denied their rights. Restoration of Voting Rights to ex-felons in every state. Same day voter registration to allow for the largest turnout.
-Pass the Voter Confidence And Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 to require a verifiable paper trail for every electronic voting machine. (HR 2239)
-Publically financed elections to take big money influence out of politics.
-Expand opportunities for minority candidates by replacing the “winner take all” election system with Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation which allow voters to rank candidates by choice and elect the candidate with the most overall support.
-End monopoly control and censorship of the media.
TAX THE RICH
-Repeal Bush tax cuts for the rich.
-Restore tax rates on the rich and corporations to 1970 levels.
-Restore and increase federal funding for human needs. Enact a refundable child tax credit.
Scary isn’ it! So, this is the Party’s plan, but it is not the Democratic Party’s. It is the Communist Party’s plan. The scary thing is you cannot tell the difference between their platforms anymore.
It is so obvious that they want to destroy the fabric of American society and create chaos by unraveling our economy.
Now, if you review the Communist Manifesto written by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx in 1848, you can see what they have implemented and what could be on the horizon.
10 Conditions For Transition To Communism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production
When you look at the centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly and the centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State, you see what they just did with the banks and car companies.
So, we can see whose playbook the Democrats are using. The Communists! Karl Marx's! You can find comparisons with countless Democratic policies and these platforms.
We are at a crossroads in history where are society and freedoms are under assault like no other time in our history from the enemy within. We must not go into that that darkness of Marxism, Fascism, and tyranny. We must stand up and pronounce we, the People, have the power and not the government before we no longer can.
However, what is lost in the debate is what is really going on. The government just told Chrysler to work a buyout with Fiat and fired the CEO of GM. This is unprecedented overreaching of authority, which no one in government has. The government is telling banks what to do. They are controlling insurance companies. The question must be asked what is Obama, Congress and Democratic Party doing. Is there so motive to why they are moving so fast and attacking the liberties they are attacking.
Obama has been called a Marxist. You get a great lesson from the American Thinker. This is based on what he is saying and the policies he is supporting and that are passing in Congress. Since becoming President, the government has attacked the following rights:
1st Amendment with suggesting the Fairness Doctrine
2nd Amendment with suggesting the assault weapon ban and many other regulations
4th Amendment with attacks on privacy and probable cause
9th Amendment with everything they are doing
10th Amendment with the passing of the Stimulus Bill that tells states what to do and rewrites their Constitution
13th Amendment with the passing to Obama Youth Bill (GIVE Act). It amounts to slavery
And…the list goes on and on…
When the actions of the government in the last 50 some days are presented this way, it obvious they are trashing the Constitution and the People’s liberties. But, what is their plan. I have been saying that Obama is following a playbook. Whose could be debated.
But…I present for your review the Party’s plan:
JOBS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
-Support the Employee Free Choice Act to allow workers to gain union representation without harassment or recrimination.
-Create living wage, union jobs with a massive program to rebuild the bridges, schools, water treatment plants, and parks of our nation, while sending funds to cities and states to fully staff education, childcare, health care and other peoples’ needs.
-Special measures for federal spending and job creation in the African American and Latino communities where jobless rates are up to twice as high because of overt and institutional racism.
-Expand aid and job creation in rural areas with disproportionately high unemployment.
-Protect family farmers with price supports and no curtailment of subsidies.
-Expand federal funding of youth jobs, vocational and apprenticeship programs and higher education especially geared toward low income and racially oppressed youth.
-Raise the minimum wage to living wage standards taking into account cost of housing and other essentials.
-Provide adequate federal funding to cities and towns for first responders and emergency personnel.
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
-Access to reproductive health care for young women. Expand funding for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.
-Equal, Quality Public Education
-Enact the DREAM Act and Student Adjustment Act to increase access to education for immigrants.
-Increase Pell Grants. Repeal provisions that deny funds to students with drug convictions.
-Social Safety Net
-Extend unemployment compensation to include entire time without a job.
-No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Use the Social Security surplus to increase benefits instead of funding the Bush tax cuts and war in Iraq. Protect retirement funds.
-Restore and expand the social safety net for women and children and victims of economic dislocation. Emergency measures to end child poverty.
-Expand Section 8 and other affordable housing measures. Federal funding of construction and maintenance of housing for working class families.
END RACISM, DISCRIMINATION AND BIGOTRY – FOR FULL EQUALITY
-Enforce and expand affirmative action to end racism and achieve equality in jobs, housing, health care, education (including university admissions), and all areas of life.
-Outlaw racial profiling. Enact federal hate crime legislation.
-Alternative sentencing for non-violent crimes. Abolish the death penalty.
-Enact the SOLVE ACT (HR 4264/SB 238)to fulfill the goals of the Immigrant Workers
-Freedom Ride including a clear path to citizenship, equal rights on the job and civil liberties protections.
-End the wage gap for women. Equal pay for equal work. Reject efforts to repeal Roe V. Wade which would restrict women’s reproductive rights.
-Reject the Bush proposed Marriage amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit gay marriages. End discrimination because of sexual orientation.
PEACE AND FOREIGN POLICY
-Bring the troops home from Iraq. US out, UN in. Full funding for veterans benefits.
-Support HR 690 for a full investigation into prison abuses in Iraq, especially at Abu Ghraib.
-End the policy of pre-emptive war, war without end and world domination and occupation. Foreign policy based on cooperation and negotiations utilizing the United Nations.
-Stop procurement and testing of nuclear weapons. Stop deployment of nuclear weapons to outer space.
-End the harmful buildup of the military budget. Transfer funds to human needs.
-Repeal NAFTA and negotiate enforceable labor and environmental rights into the body of all new agreements.
-Support Department of Peace as cabinet level position.
-Remove military recruiters from public schools and campuses. Require parental agreement before students names are given to the military.
-End the policy of promoting regime change in Cuba, Venezuela and other countries. End support for repressive governments around the world.
PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT
-Protect our natural resources. Repeal the Healthy Forests and Clear Skies acts. Prosecute corporate polluters.
-Develop renewable clean energy alternatives.
-Support the Apollo Project of labor and environment organizations to create environmentally friendly jobs in transportation and infrastructure.
-Enact energy price controls and public ownership with investment in renewable and sustainable energy.
-Ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
-Repeal the USA Patriot Act, which limits constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and dissent.
-End appointments of right-wing, extremist judges to Federal Courts.
-Funding for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that no voters are denied their rights. Restoration of Voting Rights to ex-felons in every state. Same day voter registration to allow for the largest turnout.
-Pass the Voter Confidence And Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 to require a verifiable paper trail for every electronic voting machine. (HR 2239)
-Publically financed elections to take big money influence out of politics.
-Expand opportunities for minority candidates by replacing the “winner take all” election system with Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation which allow voters to rank candidates by choice and elect the candidate with the most overall support.
-End monopoly control and censorship of the media.
TAX THE RICH
-Repeal Bush tax cuts for the rich.
-Restore tax rates on the rich and corporations to 1970 levels.
-Restore and increase federal funding for human needs. Enact a refundable child tax credit.
Scary isn’ it! So, this is the Party’s plan, but it is not the Democratic Party’s. It is the Communist Party’s plan. The scary thing is you cannot tell the difference between their platforms anymore.
It is so obvious that they want to destroy the fabric of American society and create chaos by unraveling our economy.
Now, if you review the Communist Manifesto written by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx in 1848, you can see what they have implemented and what could be on the horizon.
10 Conditions For Transition To Communism
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production
When you look at the centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly and the centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State, you see what they just did with the banks and car companies.
So, we can see whose playbook the Democrats are using. The Communists! Karl Marx's! You can find comparisons with countless Democratic policies and these platforms.
We are at a crossroads in history where are society and freedoms are under assault like no other time in our history from the enemy within. We must not go into that that darkness of Marxism, Fascism, and tyranny. We must stand up and pronounce we, the People, have the power and not the government before we no longer can.
Monday, March 30, 2009
North Korea's Missile Launch Could Be Plans for an EMP
On NewsMax, there is an incredible story, Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America, that discusses the seriousness of North Korea’s plan missile launch. The same launch that Gates stated on Fox News Sunday that they would not do anything about.
North Korea’s missile launch is serious, because if they can develop technology to put a satellite in orbit, then they can launch intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). This would give the ability to hit the U.S. mainland. North Korea seems quite unstable compared to the U.S.S.R. and less likely to negotiate as well. I really cannot see Kim Jong-il sitting with Obama at Reykjavik, Iceland and chatting by the fire.
The story from NewsMax discusses another terrifying possibility. It is not a coincidence that Iran supposedly launched a satellite recently and that North Korea is now. They did get their nuclear technology from the same network.
Remember the Khan network from Pakistan that was giving nuclear technology to Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, and Iraq. The same network that would not have been revealed, if not for the invasion of Iraq and the uncovering the documents linking them all together.
It is not a coincidence that Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have been posturing together or doing so many similar things. This missile launch by North Korea is just a link in a long string of events that shows our enemies are gathering and positioning themselves.
Consider Russia using air bases in Cuba and Venezuela. Look at Iran launching a satellite and working with Russia on nuclear weapons. Then, there is Russia trying to become part of OPEC. Venezuela marching toward Fascism and supporting Socialist regimes is South America. This goes on and on.
Gingrich mentions that North Korea’s missile launch reminds us about threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) pulse. Iran has the ability to long range-nuclear-tipped from their ships. Iran could use ICBMs. Soon, North Korea will have the same ability with their ICBMs.
An EMP would fry anything that would have electronics, such as cars, computers, electrical grids, phone systems, etc…It would make all of the inoperable. Our ability to do anything would be impossible. The government claims that governmental and military facilities are prepared, but civilian facilities and equipment are not. In an instant, we would be plunged into the Dark Ages without an immediate solution.
The real threat is not nuclear fallout in a major city. This is not to downplay a direct hit on New York or Los Angeles, but an EMP over the Midwest would wipe out the entire regions ability to do anything. The real threat is an EMP pulse. By destroying our electronic technology, an EMP impacts an entire region and not just one city and has a longer affect than a direct hit by a nuclear weapon.
The one main way we can defend ourselves is with a missile defense system. The same one that Obama wants to cut funding to and not deploy to Europe. Gingrich makes valid points on why are we spending trillions in stimulus but not defending our nation.
I remember after 911 everyone screamed that no one connected the dots before the attacks. Well…here we go again. The dots are blinking red and our naive President is cutting defense spending and military projects. Obama is willing to sit and talk with our enemies while they scheme and put their plans in place.
All you have to do is look back to Pearl Harbor and see how our enemies use diplomacy as a weapon against the U.S. The Japanese were in talks with the U.S. just prior to the attacks. They used the talks to stall the U.S. and try to get diplomatic concessions prior to their planned attack.
Our enemies want to destroy us to create their new world order, as in the 1940s. An EMP is just one way they can attempt to accomplish their goals and North Korea and Iran are on the doorstep to have that capability.
Here is the story from NewsMax:
There is a sword of Damocles over our heads. It is a threat that is real but has been all but ignored.
On February 3rd, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit can also drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than forty-five minutes.
Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States given our retaliatory power. A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim:
One small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can, in fact, destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a by-product of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever.
This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered.
Even as the new Administration plans to spend trillions on economic bail outs, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense.
Furthermore, the reluctance by the United States to invest in a modern and credible traditional nuclear deterrent is a serious concern. What good will a bailout be if there is no longer a nation to bail out?
Fifty years ago it was not Sputnik itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted Sputnik into orbit could also serve as an ICBM.
Yet for all its rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to the edge.
The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation. . .can now at last achieve their dream of our annihilation in a matter of minutes.
Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they will only have one or two nuclear weapons, ignore the catastrophic level of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons.
Again: One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate at a high altitude—to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area of the United States—would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a continental-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation and communications infrastructure.
Within weeks after such an attack, tens of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90% of all Americans might very well die in the year after such an attack as our transportation, food distribution, communications, public safety, law enforcement and medical infrastructures collapse.
It is a blow we most likely would never recover from.
Two things need to be done now and without delay.
Make clear in the strongest of terms that if a rocket is launched by either Iran or North Korea on a trajectory headed towards the territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back for thirty minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable, beyond rational on our part.
Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which after twenty five years of research is at last becoming viable, would be an action of criminal negligence.
Surely, with such a threat confronting us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well depend on it.
Obama Has a New Radical Spiritual Adviser
Obama has been President for over 50 days, and he is proving that his associations with known radicals, like Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, etc, is the basis for his world-view and political views. Now, you would think, as President, he would be careful whom he would associate with to dispel the rumors from the Right that Obama is a Socialist.
Obama is displaying his narcissism again. Obama is openly seeking spiritual guidance from Jim Wallis, who is the founder of Sojourners. Wallis claims to be moderate, but as most Leftists radicals from the 1960s, this is only a charade to mask their Communist tendencies. It still amazes me how these radicals have to lie about who they are and Conservatives have no problem expressing who they are and what they stand for, but I digress.
A story on FrontPageMagazine.com, Barack Obama’s Newest Spiritual Advisor, explains who Wallis is and is a serious eye opener on his appalling Leftist views. It amazes me how arrogant Obama is in seeking Wallis’s guidance as President, knowing people are going to investigate Wallis. This, also, shows that Obama is comfortable with associating with Communists. He obviously doesn’t have a problem with it until the media does, such as Rev. Wright.
This brings up Black liberation theology, again. Wallis embraces this Leftist religion that pushes Socialism, class warfare, and racism, i.e. Rev Wright’s now famous sermons. So, Obama threw Wright under the bus after the media finally exposed him, but then he chooses another Leftist spiritual advisor who endorses those same views. This is quite different from Ayers and Wright situation. Obama could make so many excuses for them. Obama really cannot here. Obama cannot say he doesn’t know Wallis’s views. They are all over his magazine. Obama cannot say he wasn’t there for his sermons, because Obama asked for his advice.
I guess this just shows Obama is not afraid to show who is. It is just the mainstream media won’t expose the radical side of our own President. I guess talk radio, bloggers, and others are going to have to drag them kicking and screaming to the truth again. I would think this is newsworthy, since our President is seeking guidance from a known and admitted Communist, during a time when some many are saying that our country is being dragged to the Left and to Socialism.
Obama is displaying his narcissism again. Obama is openly seeking spiritual guidance from Jim Wallis, who is the founder of Sojourners. Wallis claims to be moderate, but as most Leftists radicals from the 1960s, this is only a charade to mask their Communist tendencies. It still amazes me how these radicals have to lie about who they are and Conservatives have no problem expressing who they are and what they stand for, but I digress.
A story on FrontPageMagazine.com, Barack Obama’s Newest Spiritual Advisor, explains who Wallis is and is a serious eye opener on his appalling Leftist views. It amazes me how arrogant Obama is in seeking Wallis’s guidance as President, knowing people are going to investigate Wallis. This, also, shows that Obama is comfortable with associating with Communists. He obviously doesn’t have a problem with it until the media does, such as Rev. Wright.
This brings up Black liberation theology, again. Wallis embraces this Leftist religion that pushes Socialism, class warfare, and racism, i.e. Rev Wright’s now famous sermons. So, Obama threw Wright under the bus after the media finally exposed him, but then he chooses another Leftist spiritual advisor who endorses those same views. This is quite different from Ayers and Wright situation. Obama could make so many excuses for them. Obama really cannot here. Obama cannot say he doesn’t know Wallis’s views. They are all over his magazine. Obama cannot say he wasn’t there for his sermons, because Obama asked for his advice.
I guess this just shows Obama is not afraid to show who is. It is just the mainstream media won’t expose the radical side of our own President. I guess talk radio, bloggers, and others are going to have to drag them kicking and screaming to the truth again. I would think this is newsworthy, since our President is seeking guidance from a known and admitted Communist, during a time when some many are saying that our country is being dragged to the Left and to Socialism.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Gettysburg Address and my Son
You can call me a geek if you want, but my son and I had a moment that really opened my eyes about being a Conservative, an American, my responibilities. My son is getting real interested in Social Studies. He is doing real well in it, so I took this moment to teach him a real life lesson.
They are going to start the American Civil War next week. So, I got out the of the library an American history book for his age. When I showed it to him today, his face lit up and he grabbed it. He turned the book directly to the Civil War.
Soon, we were sitting on the coach. He was reading about one of our most crucial moments in history and I was reading my book. Then he got to the Gettysburg Address. We discussed the battles that led to Gettysburg and Gettysburg itself. Then, without any prompting, as if he knew how important these words are, he began to read:
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”—Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863
At the end, my son emphasized and repeated, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
When you think what happened at Gettysburg and during the Civil War, it really brings to light how fragile our nation and freedom really is. After nearly 150 years, these revered words by such a great President still mean so much and are still so fitting.
We now find ourselves in such precarious times and events where our liberties and freedoms seemed threatened once again. To hear such words read by such an innocent voice underscores what is at stake and what is important.
As Lincoln understood, he was the steward of our nation and principles, as we are today. We are to pass down to the next generation this nation, hopefully better than we received it. We are to pass down the values, principles, and the way of life. We are to stand up and fight for our freedoms and liberties for us and future generations. We are to educate the next generation so they understand where America came from and why and how we are here. We are to insure we do not perish.
Ronald Reagan said in his California Gubernatorial Inauguration Speech in 1967, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”
After this enlightening moment, I believe it is time to talk to him about our founding and have him read some of the Declaration of Independence. It is time to introduce him to Jefferson, Washington, and the other Founders. It is time to educate so that our fragile nation shall not perish.
They are going to start the American Civil War next week. So, I got out the of the library an American history book for his age. When I showed it to him today, his face lit up and he grabbed it. He turned the book directly to the Civil War.
Soon, we were sitting on the coach. He was reading about one of our most crucial moments in history and I was reading my book. Then he got to the Gettysburg Address. We discussed the battles that led to Gettysburg and Gettysburg itself. Then, without any prompting, as if he knew how important these words are, he began to read:
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”—Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863
At the end, my son emphasized and repeated, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
When you think what happened at Gettysburg and during the Civil War, it really brings to light how fragile our nation and freedom really is. After nearly 150 years, these revered words by such a great President still mean so much and are still so fitting.
We now find ourselves in such precarious times and events where our liberties and freedoms seemed threatened once again. To hear such words read by such an innocent voice underscores what is at stake and what is important.
As Lincoln understood, he was the steward of our nation and principles, as we are today. We are to pass down to the next generation this nation, hopefully better than we received it. We are to pass down the values, principles, and the way of life. We are to stand up and fight for our freedoms and liberties for us and future generations. We are to educate the next generation so they understand where America came from and why and how we are here. We are to insure we do not perish.
Ronald Reagan said in his California Gubernatorial Inauguration Speech in 1967, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”
After this enlightening moment, I believe it is time to talk to him about our founding and have him read some of the Declaration of Independence. It is time to introduce him to Jefferson, Washington, and the other Founders. It is time to educate so that our fragile nation shall not perish.
Germans, Spaniards Act More Free than Brittan, France
I am currently looking for the rabbit hole that I just fell through. I just read a story, Brown snubbed over tax, which said that German Chancellor Angela Merkel does not want to back Brittan’s spending stimulus plan. Spain agrees with the Chancellor while French Prime Minster Sarkozy backs Brittan.
So, France and Brittan is all for Socialism. They want to increase government spending past what they can afford and attempt to stimulate Europe’s economy. The same plan Obama used that failed. The same plan FDR used in the 1930’s that failed.
Germany and Spain have said no. They don’t back this plan. Merckel believes the market can stabilize itself. That sounds like free market principles to me?
Now, this is some historic irony. In the 1940s, Hitler ruled Germany, and Franco ruled Spain. They were fascists and had Socialist economies. Now, it is 2009 and Germany and Spain support free market principles by saying no to a huge global Socialist movement in Europe and the United States.
All we need now is for China and Russia to warn that this Socialist road that the U.S., Brittan, and France want to try is a bad idea to complete this paradox.
Oh that’s right, they already did!
Again, I am looking for that lost girl in a blue dress and tardy rabbit to lead me back to reality.
Here is the story from Times Online:
GORDON BROWN’S carefully laid plans for a G20 deal on worldwide tax cuts have been scuppered by an eve-of-summit ambush by European leaders.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, last night led the assault on the prime minister’s “global new deal” for a $2 trillion-plus fiscal stimulus to end the recession.
“I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money,” she said.
The Spanish finance minister, Pedro Solbes, also dismissed new cash being pledged at Thursday’s London summit.
“In these conditions I and the rest of my colleagues from the eurozone believe there is no room for new fiscal stimulus plans,” he said.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has insisted that “radical reform” of capitalism is more important than tax cutting.
The attacks on Brown’s ambitions for the G20 to inject more money into the world economy come at the end of a week where the prime minister has travelled to three continents to build support for his proposals.
The likely deadlock at this week’s meeting will kill any remaining hope that Alistair Darling’s April 22 budget will offer significant tax cuts.
The assault by European Union leaders also represents a defeat for President Barack Obama, who is desperate for other big economies to copy his $800 billion stimulus plan.
“There will be a very long communiqué, but there won’t be much in it,” said a Washington economist.
Adding to the disarray, a draft of the agreement Brown hopes to secure was leaked to a German news magazine, prompting suggestions of “dirty tricks” by Berlin.
The draft stated that Britain wanted a “$2 trillion” global fiscal stimulus. However, the figure appeared only in brackets, indicating agreement on the package had yet to be reached.
The stimulus would boost world growth by 2% and employment by 19m, the draft said. The rest of the document was mainly general pledges.
“We believe that an open world economy, based on the principles of the market, effective regulation and strong global institutions, can ensure sustainable globalisation with rising well-being for all,” it said.
A No 10 source expressed “disappointment” at the leak and insisted the $2 trillion figure was not new money but an expression of the total tax and spending packages already pledged by G20 members.
Privately, government officials admit that no further fiscal stimulus will be announced this week, although there will be a $250 billion package for the International Monetary Fund to help rescue struggling poor nations.
Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, said he sympathised with the concerns of demonstrators planning to disrupt the London summit. “There is understandable frustration and some anger. The global economic systems has stalled and what we have got to do is get it started.”
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, yesterday warned Brown against further tax cuts in the budget. “When it comes to your plans for a second fiscal stimulus, I say this Gordon Brown: enough is enough,” he said in a speech. “We will not let you play roulette with the public finances yet again.”
UK officials have not given up on the idea there could be agreement on a fresh boost for the world economy later in the year. “It is likely that there will be another heads of government meeting probably in Asia in the autumn,” said an official.
“This will be the forum where the next round of stimulus will be discussed.”
Brown still hopes to establish the IMF as an informal referee for international tax cuts. The plan is that the Washington-based body could advise on the timing of any future cuts.
Merkel’s criticism drew an angry response from Labour MPs. Denis MacShane, the former Europe minister, said: “Who does Mrs Merkel think is going to buy Mercedes and BMWs if she . . . says putting demand into the economy is a bad thing?” Another Labour MP said: “One has to ask who had something to gain from the leak of the communiqué. This feels like a dirty trick.”
There are growing fears that protests at the summit venue, the ExCeL centre in London’s Docklands could be marred by violence. Scotland Yard will be deploying specialist officers trained to use 50,000-volt Taser stun guns.
So, France and Brittan is all for Socialism. They want to increase government spending past what they can afford and attempt to stimulate Europe’s economy. The same plan Obama used that failed. The same plan FDR used in the 1930’s that failed.
Germany and Spain have said no. They don’t back this plan. Merckel believes the market can stabilize itself. That sounds like free market principles to me?
Now, this is some historic irony. In the 1940s, Hitler ruled Germany, and Franco ruled Spain. They were fascists and had Socialist economies. Now, it is 2009 and Germany and Spain support free market principles by saying no to a huge global Socialist movement in Europe and the United States.
All we need now is for China and Russia to warn that this Socialist road that the U.S., Brittan, and France want to try is a bad idea to complete this paradox.
Oh that’s right, they already did!
Again, I am looking for that lost girl in a blue dress and tardy rabbit to lead me back to reality.
Here is the story from Times Online:
GORDON BROWN’S carefully laid plans for a G20 deal on worldwide tax cuts have been scuppered by an eve-of-summit ambush by European leaders.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, last night led the assault on the prime minister’s “global new deal” for a $2 trillion-plus fiscal stimulus to end the recession.
“I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money,” she said.
The Spanish finance minister, Pedro Solbes, also dismissed new cash being pledged at Thursday’s London summit.
“In these conditions I and the rest of my colleagues from the eurozone believe there is no room for new fiscal stimulus plans,” he said.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has insisted that “radical reform” of capitalism is more important than tax cutting.
The attacks on Brown’s ambitions for the G20 to inject more money into the world economy come at the end of a week where the prime minister has travelled to three continents to build support for his proposals.
The likely deadlock at this week’s meeting will kill any remaining hope that Alistair Darling’s April 22 budget will offer significant tax cuts.
The assault by European Union leaders also represents a defeat for President Barack Obama, who is desperate for other big economies to copy his $800 billion stimulus plan.
“There will be a very long communiqué, but there won’t be much in it,” said a Washington economist.
Adding to the disarray, a draft of the agreement Brown hopes to secure was leaked to a German news magazine, prompting suggestions of “dirty tricks” by Berlin.
The draft stated that Britain wanted a “$2 trillion” global fiscal stimulus. However, the figure appeared only in brackets, indicating agreement on the package had yet to be reached.
The stimulus would boost world growth by 2% and employment by 19m, the draft said. The rest of the document was mainly general pledges.
“We believe that an open world economy, based on the principles of the market, effective regulation and strong global institutions, can ensure sustainable globalisation with rising well-being for all,” it said.
A No 10 source expressed “disappointment” at the leak and insisted the $2 trillion figure was not new money but an expression of the total tax and spending packages already pledged by G20 members.
Privately, government officials admit that no further fiscal stimulus will be announced this week, although there will be a $250 billion package for the International Monetary Fund to help rescue struggling poor nations.
Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, said he sympathised with the concerns of demonstrators planning to disrupt the London summit. “There is understandable frustration and some anger. The global economic systems has stalled and what we have got to do is get it started.”
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, yesterday warned Brown against further tax cuts in the budget. “When it comes to your plans for a second fiscal stimulus, I say this Gordon Brown: enough is enough,” he said in a speech. “We will not let you play roulette with the public finances yet again.”
UK officials have not given up on the idea there could be agreement on a fresh boost for the world economy later in the year. “It is likely that there will be another heads of government meeting probably in Asia in the autumn,” said an official.
“This will be the forum where the next round of stimulus will be discussed.”
Brown still hopes to establish the IMF as an informal referee for international tax cuts. The plan is that the Washington-based body could advise on the timing of any future cuts.
Merkel’s criticism drew an angry response from Labour MPs. Denis MacShane, the former Europe minister, said: “Who does Mrs Merkel think is going to buy Mercedes and BMWs if she . . . says putting demand into the economy is a bad thing?” Another Labour MP said: “One has to ask who had something to gain from the leak of the communiqué. This feels like a dirty trick.”
There are growing fears that protests at the summit venue, the ExCeL centre in London’s Docklands could be marred by violence. Scotland Yard will be deploying specialist officers trained to use 50,000-volt Taser stun guns.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Democrat Admits Cap and Trade Intentionally Increases Energy Prices
Democrats are now so bold that they just utter their Socialist agenda without hiding it. Before they would create some program with an alternative agenda, but now they just tell us what they are going to do. It is arrogant and tyrannical. There is a bright side. At least, they are being more honest.
For example, the Democrats presented the “Spendulous” Bill as a stimulus when in actuality it did not stimulate anything. It was political pay offs to Liberal cronies, like unions and ACORN.
Now, a Congressman has just spelled out what Cap and Trade is really for, to drive up energy prices and force Americans to choose green energy. We knew that! But, it is nice to see that they are being honest about it now.
One problem. The green technology to replace our current energy, coal and natural gas, is not viable yet. Wind, solar, and geo-thermal is neither as efficient nor cost effective enough yet. In many areas, it is not even available and may not be able to be available.
So, the government is intentionally driving the price of energy up to compel us to other energy alternatives that do not work and may not exist. This is typical of government, no clue about unintended consequences. It is obvious Liberals cannot see past the end of their noses.
This is not going to drive Americans to alternative energy. It is going to drive the cost of energy, such as natural gas, coal, electricity, gasoline, heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, etc. This is going to drive the cost of everything up. Not only will we have to pay exorbitant taxes, but this policies is going to cause inflation, since energy prices directly affects products and services.
Now, the wealthy and a few others will be able to handle this excessive taxation and costly changes; however this directly negatively affects the poor, working class, minorities, and others who voted for Democrats.
I will say it again. Is the “change” you voted for?
Here is the story from CNSNews.com:
(CNSNews.com) - Government policy should be crafted to raise the price of carbon-emitting energy sources so consumers are compelled to choose alternative energy, House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday.
Larson agreed that such a policy would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers but said this is needed to protect the environment from the possible “catastrophic results” of not implementing a pro-green energy policy.
Some Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com at the Capitol agreed that electricity prices would go up, and they dismissed President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as little more than a large tax on energy producers, the cost of which is passed onto consumers.
With cap and trade, the amount of carbon an energy company can emit is capped. If it exceeds that limit, the company can purchase credits (“trade”) that would go towards investment in green or alternative energy firms.
“I think the government should serve as an impetus to do so, because as I said at the outset, not doing anything -- the catastrophic results that can come from that – are what drives this issue,” Larson told CNSNews.com when asked if boosting electricity prices through government policy to drive consumers to green energy was a good idea.
“We ought to do it in a way that both enhances our economy and our economic opportunity and also preserves the universe and the earth,” said Larson.
At a press conference Tuesday, Obama told reporters that a good cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions should be designed to “protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices.”
"I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere,” Obama said.
"The way it's structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through," he added.
But in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle back on Jan. 17, 2008, then-candidate Obama said his plan for cap and trade would tax every unit of carbon emitted, which would in turn create an expanded market for new technologies.
“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” said Obama.
“That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.”
Eventually, these taxes would ruin the U.S. coal industry, added Obama. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” said Obama. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
Republicans said that Obama’s plan to cap and trade carbon emissions would result in a massive tax hike on the companies and American consumers who have to pay for energy to heat and light their homes, and drive their cars, and to run myriad aspects of their daily lives.
“Of course” Obama’s plan will drive up energy costs, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com. “The president’s proposal is unacceptable, because it’s just being used as a source of revenue.”
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com: “Of course the cost is going to rise. When people think of cap and trade, they are going to think of a giant tax increase.”
Larson also said he is concerned about “what happens down the food chain.”
“My concern specifically is what happens down the food chain, so to speak, to the consumer who ultimately bears the cost,” he said. “I think that no matter what we do, I have to be in favor of a carbon-tax approach, because I think that it just levels with people right from the outset. But I believe completely in passing the savings back down the stream to have an impact on the consumer.”
For example, the Democrats presented the “Spendulous” Bill as a stimulus when in actuality it did not stimulate anything. It was political pay offs to Liberal cronies, like unions and ACORN.
Now, a Congressman has just spelled out what Cap and Trade is really for, to drive up energy prices and force Americans to choose green energy. We knew that! But, it is nice to see that they are being honest about it now.
One problem. The green technology to replace our current energy, coal and natural gas, is not viable yet. Wind, solar, and geo-thermal is neither as efficient nor cost effective enough yet. In many areas, it is not even available and may not be able to be available.
So, the government is intentionally driving the price of energy up to compel us to other energy alternatives that do not work and may not exist. This is typical of government, no clue about unintended consequences. It is obvious Liberals cannot see past the end of their noses.
This is not going to drive Americans to alternative energy. It is going to drive the cost of energy, such as natural gas, coal, electricity, gasoline, heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, etc. This is going to drive the cost of everything up. Not only will we have to pay exorbitant taxes, but this policies is going to cause inflation, since energy prices directly affects products and services.
Now, the wealthy and a few others will be able to handle this excessive taxation and costly changes; however this directly negatively affects the poor, working class, minorities, and others who voted for Democrats.
I will say it again. Is the “change” you voted for?
Here is the story from CNSNews.com:
(CNSNews.com) - Government policy should be crafted to raise the price of carbon-emitting energy sources so consumers are compelled to choose alternative energy, House Democratic Conference Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday.
Larson agreed that such a policy would likely result in higher electricity prices for consumers but said this is needed to protect the environment from the possible “catastrophic results” of not implementing a pro-green energy policy.
Some Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com at the Capitol agreed that electricity prices would go up, and they dismissed President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade plan as little more than a large tax on energy producers, the cost of which is passed onto consumers.
With cap and trade, the amount of carbon an energy company can emit is capped. If it exceeds that limit, the company can purchase credits (“trade”) that would go towards investment in green or alternative energy firms.
“I think the government should serve as an impetus to do so, because as I said at the outset, not doing anything -- the catastrophic results that can come from that – are what drives this issue,” Larson told CNSNews.com when asked if boosting electricity prices through government policy to drive consumers to green energy was a good idea.
“We ought to do it in a way that both enhances our economy and our economic opportunity and also preserves the universe and the earth,” said Larson.
At a press conference Tuesday, Obama told reporters that a good cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions should be designed to “protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices.”
"I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere,” Obama said.
"The way it's structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through," he added.
But in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle back on Jan. 17, 2008, then-candidate Obama said his plan for cap and trade would tax every unit of carbon emitted, which would in turn create an expanded market for new technologies.
“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” said Obama.
“That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.”
Eventually, these taxes would ruin the U.S. coal industry, added Obama. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” said Obama. “It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
Republicans said that Obama’s plan to cap and trade carbon emissions would result in a massive tax hike on the companies and American consumers who have to pay for energy to heat and light their homes, and drive their cars, and to run myriad aspects of their daily lives.
“Of course” Obama’s plan will drive up energy costs, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com. “The president’s proposal is unacceptable, because it’s just being used as a source of revenue.”
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com: “Of course the cost is going to rise. When people think of cap and trade, they are going to think of a giant tax increase.”
Larson also said he is concerned about “what happens down the food chain.”
“My concern specifically is what happens down the food chain, so to speak, to the consumer who ultimately bears the cost,” he said. “I think that no matter what we do, I have to be in favor of a carbon-tax approach, because I think that it just levels with people right from the outset. But I believe completely in passing the savings back down the stream to have an impact on the consumer.”
Wonder Woman Joins the Celebretard Parade
Lynda Carter, who played Wonder Women, said the Right, us, spread “hate” in an interview by CNSNews.com.
So, it “us” who spread hate. I listen to talk radio. I watch FoxNews. I read Conservative blogs. I read Conservative news sites. I read Conservative books and magazines. In all of that, I cannot find hate anywhere.
Now, I can name countless movies, books, songs, TV, celebrities, news media, and on and on that spew hate of Conservatives, religious leaders, the wealthy, and others.
What a hypocrite for a Liberal to call Conservatives haters, when all we do is promote equality, liberty, freedom, and moral values. She supports a President and a party that promotes the disparaging of the wealthy and others.
Just look at what has happened to the AIG executives and Rush Limbaugh.
Here is the story:
(CNSNews.com) - Actress Lynda Carter, best known for her role as Wonder Woman on television, said that while there always is a loyal opposition to the party in power, the political “right wing” in America is “spreading hate.” Carter, who spoke with CNSNews.com at an event to raise awareness about mental illness, also said “it’s pathetic that we don’t do more” for the homeless in America.
“You know, the last eight years I was the loyal opposition and now there’s another loyal opposition,” Carter told CNSNews.com at the Green Door gala. “The only problem I really have is the spreading of hate by right wing, you know, super right – the spreading of hate, I don’t get it. I don’t understand it.”
“It’s inexplicable to me – not to just want people, you know the best for people, and hey, you know, disagree politically – but you know I think it’s really, really bad for mental health to listen to hate 24-7 about something that, you know, give the guy [President Obama] a break,” said Carter.
Carter, a Democrat who comes from a family of Republicans in Arizona, also said that President Obama is “not blundering through his presidency” and that she is happy with the job he has been doing. “I think that he’s an inspiration,” said Carter.
“I think that he supercharged a whole generation of people, and I like that. Whether or not you like him or you don’t like him, he really is, he’s really an interesting guy, and he’s smart. Now, will he make mistakes? I’m sure he will, but he’s not blundering through.”
Carter performed cabaret style songs before speaking with CNSNews.com at a gala sponsored by Green Door, a community program that prepares women and men with mental illnesses to work and live independently in the District of Columbia. She said she did not know about Green Door until some of her close friends asked her to be a part of the gala.
“They are really great friends of mine, you know, Republicans too,” she said. “I’m not. I just said yes before I even knew anything about it, because these women are important to me in my life, and of course, as I came to understand what Green Door does, it is just phenomenal.”
“We have just neglected these people for so long and people, you know, you want to ignore the homeless people on the street or the mentally ill, you steer clear of when you walk by them, and it’s in a nation like ours, it’s pathetic that we don’t do more,” said Carter. “And that it is a private organization and private money that is doing it. You know, shame on us.”
Carter also said homeless people with mental illness should not be institutionalized by the government.
“It’s very frustrating when we don’t take care of our own people and warehousing them – no,” she said.
“We don’t want to warehouse people. We just want to give them the medications that they need,” she said. “We want to try to help them in any way we can.”
Friday, March 27, 2009
California Regulates Tire Pressure
After yesterday’s story (h/t Moonbat) from the land of fruits and nuts that California is banning black cars, this story from NewsMax is no surprise. Big Brother is now forcing mechanics to check air pressure in tires.
Thanks to Obama’s ignorant statement during the campaign, California thinks if they make it mandatory to check tire pressure it will save gasoline. What is amazing is that they have actual statistics proving this asinine law. I have one question. How is government going to reinforce this? I just saying.
So, in California you will no be able to drive black cars and have flat tires. The intrusion of the government is now just absurd. I feel so much better that the nanny state is looking out for my fellow comrade and me. I just hope my state government has more important things to do than to worry if I have proper air pressure in my tires and what color my car is.
Here is the story:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California officials have decided to require auto repair shops to check tire pressure; a move they say will save millions of gallons of gasoline.
The state Air Resources Board on Thursday adopted a resolution requiring repair shops to check tire pressure whenever they perform maintenance, oil changes and smog tests, beginning in July 2010.
Regulators hope the idea spreads to other states. The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that proper tire inflation can boost gas mileage by about 3.3 percent.
President Barack Obama suggested during his campaign that proper tire inflation should be part of an energy-conservation plan. Republicans mocked him, but GOP candidate John McCain later agreed that tire maintenance is a good idea.
Thanks to Obama’s ignorant statement during the campaign, California thinks if they make it mandatory to check tire pressure it will save gasoline. What is amazing is that they have actual statistics proving this asinine law. I have one question. How is government going to reinforce this? I just saying.
So, in California you will no be able to drive black cars and have flat tires. The intrusion of the government is now just absurd. I feel so much better that the nanny state is looking out for my fellow comrade and me. I just hope my state government has more important things to do than to worry if I have proper air pressure in my tires and what color my car is.
Here is the story:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California officials have decided to require auto repair shops to check tire pressure; a move they say will save millions of gallons of gasoline.
The state Air Resources Board on Thursday adopted a resolution requiring repair shops to check tire pressure whenever they perform maintenance, oil changes and smog tests, beginning in July 2010.
Regulators hope the idea spreads to other states. The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that proper tire inflation can boost gas mileage by about 3.3 percent.
President Barack Obama suggested during his campaign that proper tire inflation should be part of an energy-conservation plan. Republicans mocked him, but GOP candidate John McCain later agreed that tire maintenance is a good idea.
North Dakata Floods and Global Warming
On The Great Illuminator, there is a great story on how Obama blames the floods in North Dakota on Global Climate Change.
There is a slight problem with this theory. First, the planet is cooling. This, of course, is because of the sun and that is not emitting as much energy. This is proven since the all the planets are cooler and from countless other measurements, but I digress.
The best part of this whole premise is that Global Climate Change is causing it and it is our fault that the flooding is happening now. But, it happened there before. Actually, it happened in recent memory as early as 1997. What is amazing is this link that shows pictures of floods in 1897, 1945, 1950, 1979, 1997, 2001, and 2007.
"They" call it a historic flood. Strange, there is a history of flooding and this particular flood does not look unusual at all. I bet you if you could ask the Indians that lived before us there; they would say the area floods, as well.
This simply shows the climate is cyclical. It is so complex that we cannot even predict the weather for next week alone for the next decade. These floods have nothing to do with a few hubris humans that occupy the planet at this time. It has everything to do with Nature and it doing what it does, if we understand it or not.
There is a slight problem with this theory. First, the planet is cooling. This, of course, is because of the sun and that is not emitting as much energy. This is proven since the all the planets are cooler and from countless other measurements, but I digress.
The best part of this whole premise is that Global Climate Change is causing it and it is our fault that the flooding is happening now. But, it happened there before. Actually, it happened in recent memory as early as 1997. What is amazing is this link that shows pictures of floods in 1897, 1945, 1950, 1979, 1997, 2001, and 2007.
"They" call it a historic flood. Strange, there is a history of flooding and this particular flood does not look unusual at all. I bet you if you could ask the Indians that lived before us there; they would say the area floods, as well.
This simply shows the climate is cyclical. It is so complex that we cannot even predict the weather for next week alone for the next decade. These floods have nothing to do with a few hubris humans that occupy the planet at this time. It has everything to do with Nature and it doing what it does, if we understand it or not.
A Conservative Brit that Get's It, Daniel Hannan
Daniel Hannan has become quite popular in the U.S. for his speech in British Parliament. He criticizes the Prime Minister, but that is not what is making him popular. This man understands fiscal conservatism and explains it perfect. The American GOP should take notes or see if he can run for office in the U.S.
Obama Wants to Release Gitmo Detainees into U.S.
Obama has renamed the enemy combatant. He has renamed terrorist attack. He has renamed the War on Terror. He has closed Gitmo. Now…he wants to release some Gitmo detainees into the U.S. and give them “assistance.”
First, what kind of assistance are they talking about? So, we are going to give taxpayer’s money to terrorists to start a new life in country they want to destroy.
That is irony. This is just wrong.
Just when we thought the government had gone to far and we were furious, they do this. The Tea Parties just took on a whole other dimension.
Next, the Administration claims these are terrorists that have been cleared but cannot find countries to take them. First, that is lie. Ireland and some other European countries have agreed to take some. One of the groups that Obama says is safe are 17 Chinese Uighurs.
Who are Uighurs? They were mostly new recruits at the time of their capture. They are all affiliated with and/or members of a designated terrorist organization, received training at a training camp in the al Qaeda/Taliban stronghold of Tora Bora, and have admitted that two known terrorists trained them. And, on top of that, the group that trained them threatened to attack the Olympic Games in China last year. Sound safe to you?
If Obama claims they are safe, who else are they releasing into the U.S. and giving them our money?
Here is the story from Breitbart.com:
President Barack Obama's intelligence chief confirmed Thursday that some Guantanamo inmates may be released on US soil and receive assistance to return to society.
"If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," said National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair at his first press conference.
"You can't just put them on the street," he added. "All that is work in progress."
Bottom of Form
Obama has vowed to close the controversial prison camp by next January and has ordered individual reviews for cases against each of the over 240 remaining prisoners.
Blair told reporters that the review of Guantanamo cases was still underway, and that the government was "building dossiers on each of the detainees."
The Obama administration is currently evaluating what could be done with the prisoners, he said, but pledged that if they are sent to another country, "we have to be sure that that country will treat them in a humane fashion."
Twenty men detained at the remote US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in southern Cuba have been cleared of terrorism charges, including 17 Chinese Uighurs ordered released by a US court in June, seven years after their arrest. But the US says they may face persecution if returned to China.
In an executive order signed days after he took office in January, Obama also promised to uphold the Geneva Conventions for the remaining prisoners until the detention center is closed.
Blair touched on the controversial interrogation techniques used on terror suspects under the administration of president George W. Bush, saying that those methods -- including waterboarding, or simulated drowning -- would not be used under his tenure.
But Blair, a retired US admiral, added that his team was examining other "enhanced interrogation techniques" for high-value detainees that comply with international conventions on prisoners of war.
He did not elaborate on what methods would be used, but said such interrogations should be carried out by "government employees; they shouldn't be contractors; they should be highly trained, very supervised."
First, what kind of assistance are they talking about? So, we are going to give taxpayer’s money to terrorists to start a new life in country they want to destroy.
That is irony. This is just wrong.
Just when we thought the government had gone to far and we were furious, they do this. The Tea Parties just took on a whole other dimension.
Next, the Administration claims these are terrorists that have been cleared but cannot find countries to take them. First, that is lie. Ireland and some other European countries have agreed to take some. One of the groups that Obama says is safe are 17 Chinese Uighurs.
Who are Uighurs? They were mostly new recruits at the time of their capture. They are all affiliated with and/or members of a designated terrorist organization, received training at a training camp in the al Qaeda/Taliban stronghold of Tora Bora, and have admitted that two known terrorists trained them. And, on top of that, the group that trained them threatened to attack the Olympic Games in China last year. Sound safe to you?
If Obama claims they are safe, who else are they releasing into the U.S. and giving them our money?
Here is the story from Breitbart.com:
President Barack Obama's intelligence chief confirmed Thursday that some Guantanamo inmates may be released on US soil and receive assistance to return to society.
"If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," said National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair at his first press conference.
"You can't just put them on the street," he added. "All that is work in progress."
Bottom of Form
Obama has vowed to close the controversial prison camp by next January and has ordered individual reviews for cases against each of the over 240 remaining prisoners.
Blair told reporters that the review of Guantanamo cases was still underway, and that the government was "building dossiers on each of the detainees."
The Obama administration is currently evaluating what could be done with the prisoners, he said, but pledged that if they are sent to another country, "we have to be sure that that country will treat them in a humane fashion."
Twenty men detained at the remote US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in southern Cuba have been cleared of terrorism charges, including 17 Chinese Uighurs ordered released by a US court in June, seven years after their arrest. But the US says they may face persecution if returned to China.
In an executive order signed days after he took office in January, Obama also promised to uphold the Geneva Conventions for the remaining prisoners until the detention center is closed.
Blair touched on the controversial interrogation techniques used on terror suspects under the administration of president George W. Bush, saying that those methods -- including waterboarding, or simulated drowning -- would not be used under his tenure.
But Blair, a retired US admiral, added that his team was examining other "enhanced interrogation techniques" for high-value detainees that comply with international conventions on prisoners of war.
He did not elaborate on what methods would be used, but said such interrogations should be carried out by "government employees; they shouldn't be contractors; they should be highly trained, very supervised."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
North Korea Tests Clinton and Obama with Missile Launch
North Korea is saber rattling again. This is nothing new for them and shows it doesn’t matter who our President and Secretary of State is. This rogue regime (a term Obama no longer uses) is going to test the U.S. and the U.N. at every turn.
North Korea “says” it is launching a satellite. Regional powers, South Korea, Japan, and others, say North Korea is testing a long-range ballistic missile.
One problem here is that no one knows what the truth is, because North Korea has lied in the past when they tested missiles. So, no one knows what they are doing. This shows how limited our intelligence capabilities are.
As a side note, this is why a missile defense system is so imporant. We need it to defend us and our allies from rogue regimes like this.
Now, this shows that you cannot negotiate with rogue regimes. They will always test other until they are defeated, not negotiated with. We have tried to talk to North Korea, since the Clinton administration about their nuclear program and technically have not ended the Korean War, which hostilities ended in 1953.
North Korea said if the U.N. uses sanctions for the missile test they would restart their nuclear program. Since they now have the nuclear program, they can use it as leverage. This is what Syria and Iran are trying to do.
North Korea has all this negotiating leverage with a nuclear program. They will now always use it to get what they want until someone calls their bluff or destroys it.
This is a huge test for Obama/Clinton on how to deal with North Korea. North Korea did this to Bush and would have done this no matter who is our President.
What is important to see is if Obama/Clinton has the diplomacy savvy to deal with North Korea. The Left criticized Bush on North Korea no matter what he did. I will hold mine to see how Obama deals with them.
This serious though. Japan is “freaking out!” The missile trajectory goes directly over them and everyone is worried about what is on top of the missile. Obama/Clinton has their hands full with North Korea and the region as tensions rise.
We really need to stop catering to these regimes. North Korea has all this leverage from the mistakes for Carter and Clinton. We need to stop sitting down with them and talking. It just empowers them. You set our demands and conditions. Give these regimes these conditions to talk and deal with us. Then, go from there.
But, this is not how the Left uses diplomacy. You do the opposite of what Obama has done with Iran. You don’t lend a hand to our enemy to talk. You are in a position of weakness then. When they say no, which is what they did, you are now compromising your leverage and look weak. The Left’s diplomacy capitulates and shies away from confrontation. It shows weakness, which is not what the United States stands for.
Here is the story from Fox News
North Korea “says” it is launching a satellite. Regional powers, South Korea, Japan, and others, say North Korea is testing a long-range ballistic missile.
One problem here is that no one knows what the truth is, because North Korea has lied in the past when they tested missiles. So, no one knows what they are doing. This shows how limited our intelligence capabilities are.
As a side note, this is why a missile defense system is so imporant. We need it to defend us and our allies from rogue regimes like this.
Now, this shows that you cannot negotiate with rogue regimes. They will always test other until they are defeated, not negotiated with. We have tried to talk to North Korea, since the Clinton administration about their nuclear program and technically have not ended the Korean War, which hostilities ended in 1953.
North Korea said if the U.N. uses sanctions for the missile test they would restart their nuclear program. Since they now have the nuclear program, they can use it as leverage. This is what Syria and Iran are trying to do.
North Korea has all this negotiating leverage with a nuclear program. They will now always use it to get what they want until someone calls their bluff or destroys it.
This is a huge test for Obama/Clinton on how to deal with North Korea. North Korea did this to Bush and would have done this no matter who is our President.
What is important to see is if Obama/Clinton has the diplomacy savvy to deal with North Korea. The Left criticized Bush on North Korea no matter what he did. I will hold mine to see how Obama deals with them.
This serious though. Japan is “freaking out!” The missile trajectory goes directly over them and everyone is worried about what is on top of the missile. Obama/Clinton has their hands full with North Korea and the region as tensions rise.
We really need to stop catering to these regimes. North Korea has all this leverage from the mistakes for Carter and Clinton. We need to stop sitting down with them and talking. It just empowers them. You set our demands and conditions. Give these regimes these conditions to talk and deal with us. Then, go from there.
But, this is not how the Left uses diplomacy. You do the opposite of what Obama has done with Iran. You don’t lend a hand to our enemy to talk. You are in a position of weakness then. When they say no, which is what they did, you are now compromising your leverage and look weak. The Left’s diplomacy capitulates and shies away from confrontation. It shows weakness, which is not what the United States stands for.
Here is the story from Fox News
Obama Renames War; Does not Change Anything
On NewsMax, there is an interview with Former top military commander General Richard Myers. Myers served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 2001 until September 2005.
His interview gives an unusual insight on the issue that faced Bush and what faces Obama now. He says mistakes were made, which happens and are understandable, especially dealing with an enemy like terrorism.
The one thing he reiterates is that the enemy is ruthless and wants to end our way of life and will use a WMD when they get one.
It doesn’t matter who the President is. It doesn’t matter what we do. It is not our foreign policy in the Middle East or our support of Israel. It is “our way of life.” We are Christian and free. Islamofascist terrorists want us dead, because we of that and no other reason. They distract the discourse with other issues, but it comes down to freedom and our belief in God.
We could leave them along and they will still come for us, because we, America, represent the land of free and the brave. We are the shining city on the hill. The world looks to us as the example of freedom. As long as we exist, the world has something to aspire to and an antidote to the oppression of the Islamofascist.
Our terrorist enemies and their allies know in order to win the war and create a global caliphate, we must be defeated. So, we must be relentless and not capitulate. We must keep fighting and destroy them, or they will destroy us. That is what is at stake and rename it doesn’t change a thing.
Here is the article and the interview has even more:
Former top military commander Gen. Richard Myers tells Newsmax that America’s enemies in the war on terror are “ruthless” and “relentless” and will not hesitate to use nuclear or biological weapons if they obtain them.
“They want to do away with our way of life,” Myers tells Newsmax TV’s Ashley Martella. “They could bring great harm to this country and our friends and allies.”
Myers, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 2001 until September 2005, tells Newsmax that the U.S. focused too narrowly on tactical battles and failed to develop a long-rang strategy to battle terrorism.
“After 9/11 we had some things we had to do right away,” said Myers, author of the new book, “Eyes on the Horizon: Serving on the Front Lines of National Security.”
“Afghanistan was one of them. Then we went into Iraq. But the development of a strategy to deal with the whole issue of violent extremism — we didn’t take the time to do that because we were so busy with the day to day.
Myers said the further America gets from the events of 9/11, the more complacent it gets, and the more danger the country is in.
“I’m not an alarmist but I did spend four years right after 9/11 looking at all this intelligence from violent extremists,” he says. “ They could [attack America] through biological weapons. God forbid if they get their hands on nuclear materials, they could do it that way as well. And they’re ruthless so we know they’d use them.”
Martella asked Myers about a new official British government report warning that the threat of a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction, such as a nuclear or biological weapon, on a major city is higher than ever.
“I don’t see the intelligence on a daily basis anymore, but I do think the threat is very high,” Myers responded.
“It wasn’t that long ago, just a little more than a year ago, when that plot to bring airliners down over the North Atlantic [was thwarted]. I think there were 10 or 20 airliners involved in that plot. If that hadn’t been thwarted we’d be talking about 2,000 dead potentially from that.
“So like I said, they’re relentless, they’re ruthless. If they can get their hands on dangerous material, nuclear material, biological weapons, they wouldn’t hesitate to use them. They want to bring down the United States in particular and the West in general.”
Martella asked Myers for his assessment of the current situation in Iraq.
“I think things in Iraq are going extremely well right now,” said Myers. “But I think, as all the leaders in Iraq and General Petraeus himself say, it’s reversible…
“I think there is real reason for optimism. I think we have to be very careful, though. There are people who would like it not to be a success. The al-Qaida are part of that. They are pretty much decimated in Iraq, but they never give up.
“And there are other factions inside Iraq, and of course Iran. You never know exactly how they’re going to want to influence events inside Iraq.”
On the Iranian threat, Myers declared: “Any country that sponsors terrorism, which Iran does, that doesn’t believe in the existence of the state of Israel, that is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons — this is not a good thing.”
Martella asked if it would be a mistake for the Barack Obama administration to abandon plans for a U.S. missile defense system in Eastern Europe.
“One thing is for certain: The only country in the world that can build an effective missile defense system is the United States of America,” said Myers, a former fighter pilot who also served as Commander in Chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
“Implicit in that is the obligation to at least offer our allies and our friends our ability to protect them from the rogue nations that can develop missiles now and could possibly threaten them.”
Martella asked: “With the every-escalating drug violence along the Mexican border, how do you feel about sending U.S. troops there?”
Myers responded: “Active-duty U.S. troops? I think it would have to get a heck of a lot worse before you’d want to send U.S. troops under congressional or presidential decree to go down there. U.S. troops are not trained for law enforcement action. That would be an extreme action.
“The other option is that you could send the National Guard. I know the Texas and Arizona governors have talked about that potential. They can go and act in a law enforcement capacity … If they need more manpower on the border the National Guard is an option. but active duty troops I think would be a big mistake.”
His interview gives an unusual insight on the issue that faced Bush and what faces Obama now. He says mistakes were made, which happens and are understandable, especially dealing with an enemy like terrorism.
The one thing he reiterates is that the enemy is ruthless and wants to end our way of life and will use a WMD when they get one.
It doesn’t matter who the President is. It doesn’t matter what we do. It is not our foreign policy in the Middle East or our support of Israel. It is “our way of life.” We are Christian and free. Islamofascist terrorists want us dead, because we of that and no other reason. They distract the discourse with other issues, but it comes down to freedom and our belief in God.
We could leave them along and they will still come for us, because we, America, represent the land of free and the brave. We are the shining city on the hill. The world looks to us as the example of freedom. As long as we exist, the world has something to aspire to and an antidote to the oppression of the Islamofascist.
Our terrorist enemies and their allies know in order to win the war and create a global caliphate, we must be defeated. So, we must be relentless and not capitulate. We must keep fighting and destroy them, or they will destroy us. That is what is at stake and rename it doesn’t change a thing.
Here is the article and the interview has even more:
Former top military commander Gen. Richard Myers tells Newsmax that America’s enemies in the war on terror are “ruthless” and “relentless” and will not hesitate to use nuclear or biological weapons if they obtain them.
“They want to do away with our way of life,” Myers tells Newsmax TV’s Ashley Martella. “They could bring great harm to this country and our friends and allies.”
Myers, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 2001 until September 2005, tells Newsmax that the U.S. focused too narrowly on tactical battles and failed to develop a long-rang strategy to battle terrorism.
“After 9/11 we had some things we had to do right away,” said Myers, author of the new book, “Eyes on the Horizon: Serving on the Front Lines of National Security.”
“Afghanistan was one of them. Then we went into Iraq. But the development of a strategy to deal with the whole issue of violent extremism — we didn’t take the time to do that because we were so busy with the day to day.
Myers said the further America gets from the events of 9/11, the more complacent it gets, and the more danger the country is in.
“I’m not an alarmist but I did spend four years right after 9/11 looking at all this intelligence from violent extremists,” he says. “ They could [attack America] through biological weapons. God forbid if they get their hands on nuclear materials, they could do it that way as well. And they’re ruthless so we know they’d use them.”
Martella asked Myers about a new official British government report warning that the threat of a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction, such as a nuclear or biological weapon, on a major city is higher than ever.
“I don’t see the intelligence on a daily basis anymore, but I do think the threat is very high,” Myers responded.
“It wasn’t that long ago, just a little more than a year ago, when that plot to bring airliners down over the North Atlantic [was thwarted]. I think there were 10 or 20 airliners involved in that plot. If that hadn’t been thwarted we’d be talking about 2,000 dead potentially from that.
“So like I said, they’re relentless, they’re ruthless. If they can get their hands on dangerous material, nuclear material, biological weapons, they wouldn’t hesitate to use them. They want to bring down the United States in particular and the West in general.”
Martella asked Myers for his assessment of the current situation in Iraq.
“I think things in Iraq are going extremely well right now,” said Myers. “But I think, as all the leaders in Iraq and General Petraeus himself say, it’s reversible…
“I think there is real reason for optimism. I think we have to be very careful, though. There are people who would like it not to be a success. The al-Qaida are part of that. They are pretty much decimated in Iraq, but they never give up.
“And there are other factions inside Iraq, and of course Iran. You never know exactly how they’re going to want to influence events inside Iraq.”
On the Iranian threat, Myers declared: “Any country that sponsors terrorism, which Iran does, that doesn’t believe in the existence of the state of Israel, that is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons — this is not a good thing.”
Martella asked if it would be a mistake for the Barack Obama administration to abandon plans for a U.S. missile defense system in Eastern Europe.
“One thing is for certain: The only country in the world that can build an effective missile defense system is the United States of America,” said Myers, a former fighter pilot who also served as Commander in Chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
“Implicit in that is the obligation to at least offer our allies and our friends our ability to protect them from the rogue nations that can develop missiles now and could possibly threaten them.”
Martella asked: “With the every-escalating drug violence along the Mexican border, how do you feel about sending U.S. troops there?”
Myers responded: “Active-duty U.S. troops? I think it would have to get a heck of a lot worse before you’d want to send U.S. troops under congressional or presidential decree to go down there. U.S. troops are not trained for law enforcement action. That would be an extreme action.
“The other option is that you could send the National Guard. I know the Texas and Arizona governors have talked about that potential. They can go and act in a law enforcement capacity … If they need more manpower on the border the National Guard is an option. but active duty troops I think would be a big mistake.”
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Senate now Wants to Save Newspapers
On Reuters, there is this story about a bill that has been introduced in the Senate to save the newspapers. It does not have any sponsors yet. The bill proposes that the newspapers would act as non-profit organizations and be tax exempt.
After attempting to save the auto industry, banks, and insurance companies, the government is now going to try to save the newspapers. Well, they didn't save any of them, so why would they try this. The government cannot help itself at this point. It is drunk with power.
Here is a concept. LET THEM FAIL!
This is Capitalism at work. Newspapers are failing, because no one reads them. Since no one reads them, no advertises in them. They are obsolete. Cable news, talk radio, Internet, and others industries and technologies have replaced them. The sun has set on the newspaper. Please, let them fade away.
On top on that, their product stinks. They are not producing something anyone wants to buy. The news is usually a day or two old. It is wrong, contrived, made up, or biased. Again, no one wants to read Liberal tripe every day, not even Liberals.
The government should not try to help an industry that is obsolete and let this dead wood go. That is what Capitalism does. It lets industries that are slowing down the economy to die off.
For example, look at what digital cameras did to Kodak. Kodak did not get a bailout. They changed their company’s focus. Look at what CDs did to cassettes. Look at what cassettes did to 8-tracks. Look at what DVDs did to VCRs. Look at what VCR did to BETA. The list goes on and on. These companies did not get bailouts. They changed or disappeared because the business environment changed.
So, let newspapers fail. They can go digital or find another niche in our society. They need to change and stop hanging onto past ideas that no longer work. Hey, that sounds familiar. Isn’t that what Liberals do?
Here is the story:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.
"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.
A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.
Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.
Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.
Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible.
Because newspaper profits have been falling in recent years, "no substantial loss of federal revenue" was expected under the legislation, Cardin's office said in a statement.
Cardin's office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations. His bill would also let a non-profit buy newspapers owned by a conglomerate.
"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.
Newspaper subscriptions and advertising have shrunk dramatically in the past few years as Americans have turned more and more to the Internet or television for information.
In recent months, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle have ceased daily publication or announced that they may have to stop publishing.
In December the Tribune Company, which owns a number of newspapers including The Baltimore Sun, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times filed for bankruptcy protection.
Two newspaper chains, Gannett Co Inc and Advance Publications, on Monday announced employee furloughs. It will be the second furlough this year at Gannett.
Obama Renames the War on Terror
On the Washington Post, there is story about Obama change another term about terrorism
Political correctness has reared its ugly head again. A few weeks ago, it was reported that the term “enemy combatant” is no longer permitted. Now, the term “Global War on Terror” is no longer permitted. The Obama administration will now use the term “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
I guess the war has changed and needs a new term. Maybe, the Islamic terrorists have changed. No. The President has changed and their philosophy of what terrorism has changed.
Clinton treated Islamic terrorism as a legal issue and not a war issue. Clinton tried to capture, try, and jail terrorists. He did this while they declared war on the U.S. and attacked us. They bombed the World Trade Centers with a Ryder truck. They bombed embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. They bombed the USS Cole.
After 911, Bush changed this policy and declared war on Islamic terrorism and fought back against them. He started to kill terrorists all over the world. He attacked and killed them in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and all over Africa. There are probably other missions that we don’t even know about. During this time, the U.S. has not been attacked. There have been attempts, but no successful attacks.
Now, Obama is changing the philosophy again, except we really don’t know what his philosophy is. Most likely, it is going to revert to mostly what Clinton did and try to downplay and capitulate to Islamic terrorists. They are going to try to arrest and jail them again.
All this does is show our enemy weakness, which is what encourages them to attack. It emboldens them. This is going to make us less safe and encourage future attacks. Again, Obama is showing his naïveté in a dangerous new world. They want to kill us no matter what we do. This is what they have said to us. So, I would say take their word for it and not take them lightly.
That means we need to stay on the offensive and stay on a war stance, not cower behind some new Political correct words.
Here is the Post story:
The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead.
"Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail. "OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"Riedel asked recipients to "Please pass on to your speech writers and try to catch this change before the statements make it to OMB."
An OMB spokesman took issue with the interpretation of OMB's wishes. "There was no memo, no guidance," said Kenneth Baer. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."
Referring to the phrase "global war on terror," Baer said, "I have no reason to believe that would be stricken" from Hill testimony.
By way of history, senior Bush administration officials several years ago wanted to stop using the phrase and switch to something many felt might better reflect the realities of the fight against international terrorism.
One leading option was to change the name to GSAVE, or Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. This was not as catchy an acronym as GWOT, but officials felt it more accurately described the battle. Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld even used the GSAVE abbreviation publicly.
But, in a White House meeting, President Bush ruled that it was still a war for him, and Rumsfeld and everyone else went back to GWOT.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Geithner Reverts to Paulson's Plan for "Legacy" Assets
Geithner finally released his plan to deal with the “toxic assets” that banks have from the housing bust. These assets are supposedly the reason why banks are not lending.
It becomes apparent earlier that it’s not looking good for the plan when political correctness rears its ugly head. They are no longer “toxic assets” but “legacy assets.” Guess what, they are still bad, no matter what you call them.
So, after reviewing some articles some interesting points arise. First, this plan was Paulson’s and they decided it would not work and private investors would not buy into it. So, Geithner, the only guy who was capable of handling this “crisis”, so ignore his IRS issues, is stealing rejected ideas from the Bush administration. Another scary thought is the price tag, over another trillion dollars.
Lastly, the government is giving private investors loans that they don’t have to pay back. The private investors then will buy the "legacy" assets. If they assets go up in value, the investors keep the money. If they assets go down, they keep the money.
Huh? Isn’t that a bailout?
The government is giving the money to risk. Where is the risk? Can I be a private investor and buy some of the “legacy” assets?
Then, the Communist economist on the NY Times, Paul Krugman said he doesn’t agree with it. You know things are bad when he is jumping of the Obama bandwagon. But he makes some valid points in a piece on NewMax:
"The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt," the Princeton University economist said, citing weekend reports outlining the plan.
"This isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets," he added.
Krugman called it a recycled idea of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who later abandoned the "cash for trash" proposal.
"But the real problem with this plan is that it won't work," he says, adding that bad loans may be undervalued because there is too much fear in the current climate.
"But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus -- for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to -- will change that fact," Krugman wrote.
While the real economy is being hurt by the meltdown of the financial system itself, Krugman says this is not the first or the last time this has happened. And there are lots of roadmaps to get us out.
"It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books," Krugman said.
"If this plan fails - as it almost surely will - it's unlikely that he'll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place," he wrote.
Hate to say it, but Paul Krugman is right. Obama is running out of time and with each blunder he is worsening the situation. I am not saying do nothing. There are so many free market principles he and the government could have done and be doing now, but they aren’t and now are the problem.
They could be cutting government spending and stop driving up the deficits. They could have infused the economy with money by giving back the People their money to spend in the market. Instead, they took money out of the economy.
Obama is making FDR and Hoover look like geniuses at this point.
It becomes apparent earlier that it’s not looking good for the plan when political correctness rears its ugly head. They are no longer “toxic assets” but “legacy assets.” Guess what, they are still bad, no matter what you call them.
So, after reviewing some articles some interesting points arise. First, this plan was Paulson’s and they decided it would not work and private investors would not buy into it. So, Geithner, the only guy who was capable of handling this “crisis”, so ignore his IRS issues, is stealing rejected ideas from the Bush administration. Another scary thought is the price tag, over another trillion dollars.
Lastly, the government is giving private investors loans that they don’t have to pay back. The private investors then will buy the "legacy" assets. If they assets go up in value, the investors keep the money. If they assets go down, they keep the money.
Huh? Isn’t that a bailout?
The government is giving the money to risk. Where is the risk? Can I be a private investor and buy some of the “legacy” assets?
Then, the Communist economist on the NY Times, Paul Krugman said he doesn’t agree with it. You know things are bad when he is jumping of the Obama bandwagon. But he makes some valid points in a piece on NewMax:
"The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt," the Princeton University economist said, citing weekend reports outlining the plan.
"This isn't really about letting markets work. It's just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets," he added.
Krugman called it a recycled idea of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who later abandoned the "cash for trash" proposal.
"But the real problem with this plan is that it won't work," he says, adding that bad loans may be undervalued because there is too much fear in the current climate.
"But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus -- for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to -- will change that fact," Krugman wrote.
While the real economy is being hurt by the meltdown of the financial system itself, Krugman says this is not the first or the last time this has happened. And there are lots of roadmaps to get us out.
"It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books," Krugman said.
"If this plan fails - as it almost surely will - it's unlikely that he'll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place," he wrote.
Hate to say it, but Paul Krugman is right. Obama is running out of time and with each blunder he is worsening the situation. I am not saying do nothing. There are so many free market principles he and the government could have done and be doing now, but they aren’t and now are the problem.
They could be cutting government spending and stop driving up the deficits. They could have infused the economy with money by giving back the People their money to spend in the market. Instead, they took money out of the economy.
Obama is making FDR and Hoover look like geniuses at this point.
We Should Love the Rich
With the vilifying of the AIG executives, something came to mind. Why does the Democratic Party demonize the wealthy? What is so wrong with people with money?
Before the 1930s, the wealthy were venerated. They were the people who created these great empires of wealth and contributed to society in countless ways. They donated huge sums of money to universities, churches, and health causes. They founded universities, private philanthropic organizations, and hospitals.
The wealthy founded influential companies and corporations that lead America to global prominence. They invented products, processes, and whole industries that became the cornerstone of America. They started the companies that provided steel, railroads, automobile, chemicals, energy, lumber, banking, and on and on without governmental help. They took insurmountable risks and Capitalism rewarded them.
Then, they reciprocated their vast wealth back to society, not because it was a tax write off or because they were forced to, but because they felt it was their duty. It was good for the public interest. It was the right thing to do. These great men of industry had honor. I would say they still do.
Now, I am not a fan of Wikipedia but the list of Robber Barons serves its purpose here. The list is just a small list of men that founded great industries and companies in America. Their legacies are mentioned as well. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt are the well-known names but there are so many others. Think of your town and the streets and neighborhoods named after these men. Schools, buildings, and hospital wings are named for the wealthy as well. The list goes on and on. These men provide so much to their communities and America without being ask, but because they thought that they should.
When you look at another aspect, there is even more the wealthy provide. First, they employ workers and pay them competitive wages. This provides endless benifits to the society at large. These businesses provide goods and services used all around the world that aid the public interest. They purchase the products and services that start at a high prices, but as they purchase them, they drive down the prices so the less fortunate can afford them. Think of how plasma TVs, computers, hybrid cars, DVD players, etc. came down in price as these goods made it through society. The wealthy made this possible.
The point here is that the rich provide so much to our society and they are vilified. Why?
In the 1930s during the Great Depression, FDR used the wealthy to get elected and started something called class warfare. He used the same political tactic that Hitler, Mussolini, and Lenin used to take power.
They all vilified the have’s (wealthy, landowners, and/or businessmen) and won the votes or the support of the have not’s (poor, workers, farmers.) By splitting the society on the false premise that wealth is limited and playing these groups off each other, these leaders said they would take from the have’s and give to the have not’s, since there is only so much to go around. With the society splitting their votes and support, these leaders were elected or supported by the minority.
Gee, sound familiar? Look at what Obama and the Democrats are doing today.
This class warfare by FDR changed how America looked at their wealthy class forever. No longer were they worshipped but now characterized as greedy, ruthless, and dishonorable, even though they were not. Wealth was no longer look as unlimited and boundless, but as a limited resource that had a finite value. This was and is still completely false.
Look at Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Jim Walton. These men provide great products or services to the world and donate huge sums of money to countless causes. Yet, they are vilified for their greatest sin, wealth. Keep in mind, Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus to name just a few were extremely wealthy men from the Bible. I am quite sure they were not sinning and vilified for it.
As a side note, wealth is not a sin. Envy (covetness) is. That is what all this class warfare is. Think about it.
To this day, the Democrats use this Marxist tactic to create divisions in America to gain power. The have not’s fall for it every time, not realizing they are killing the golden goose. The wealthy provides jobs, services, most of the tax revenue, most of the donations to philanthropies, and countless other things for the common good of society. Most importantly, they create and generate wealth for the rest of us to use, earn, and aspire to.
So, the next time the Democrats start playing this Marxist game, remember that the rich provide jobs, services, products, wealth, and on and on to society. The government and the Democrats do the exact opposite. They ALWAYS destroy it.
Obama's Approval Rating is Now 50-50
It is still amazing to see how far Obama’s star has fallen, since Inauguration. Granted, Obama has trashed the dollar, spent the country into bankruptcy, destroyed the Democratic Party, and then there are the public gaffes.
He sent a letter to the wrong French President, the "overpriced" button to Russia, the comment on Leno, his actions on”60 Minutes,” and the list goes on and on. I have not even gotten to his foreign diplomacy blunders. After all this, no wonder his approval rating has plummeted.
According to Jules Crittenden:
"Zogby poll due out in the morning will be reporting the Obama admin’s latest grim milestone. As many people don’t like him as do. Boston Herald:
The honeymoon is over, a national poll will signal tomorrow as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.
The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”
Pollster John Zogby said his poll out in the morning will show Americans split on the president’s performance. He said the score factors out to “about 50-50.”
Some polls show Obama coasting with a 65 percent job approval, but not in Zogby’s tally.
“The numbers are going down,” Zogby told the Herald. “It’s not because of the gaffes, but a combination of high expectations and that things aren’t moving fast enough with the economy.”
Maybe, but the vast presidential gaffe repository Obama is amassing can’t be helping. The guy’s only been in 60-odd days and he’s tripped more than Ford.*
As for the president’s love of the limelight, it could backfire, according to a media watcher.
“I thought he overexposed himself weeks ago,” said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication.
“I wonder when the public will say ‘Instead of being in front of the camera, be in front of a spreadsheet.’ ”
To judge by Falcone’s reaction, soon, if not already. But we won’t know until the media organizes itself to do some gaffe polling. What’s the holdup?
* All Ford ever bonked was his head. Obama’s stubbed his toe on disabled kids, backed into bonuses, tripped over mullahs, and walked right into the Ivans."
He sent a letter to the wrong French President, the "overpriced" button to Russia, the comment on Leno, his actions on”60 Minutes,” and the list goes on and on. I have not even gotten to his foreign diplomacy blunders. After all this, no wonder his approval rating has plummeted.
According to Jules Crittenden:
"Zogby poll due out in the morning will be reporting the Obama admin’s latest grim milestone. As many people don’t like him as do. Boston Herald:
The honeymoon is over, a national poll will signal tomorrow as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.
The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”
Pollster John Zogby said his poll out in the morning will show Americans split on the president’s performance. He said the score factors out to “about 50-50.”
Some polls show Obama coasting with a 65 percent job approval, but not in Zogby’s tally.
“The numbers are going down,” Zogby told the Herald. “It’s not because of the gaffes, but a combination of high expectations and that things aren’t moving fast enough with the economy.”
Maybe, but the vast presidential gaffe repository Obama is amassing can’t be helping. The guy’s only been in 60-odd days and he’s tripped more than Ford.*
As for the president’s love of the limelight, it could backfire, according to a media watcher.
“I thought he overexposed himself weeks ago,” said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication.
“I wonder when the public will say ‘Instead of being in front of the camera, be in front of a spreadsheet.’ ”
To judge by Falcone’s reaction, soon, if not already. But we won’t know until the media organizes itself to do some gaffe polling. What’s the holdup?
* All Ford ever bonked was his head. Obama’s stubbed his toe on disabled kids, backed into bonuses, tripped over mullahs, and walked right into the Ivans."
Monday, March 23, 2009
Tea Parties are growing; the People Want to be Heard
This weekend Orlando had a gathering of 4,000 American exercising their First Amendment rights. It was a beautiful sight. The Founders would be proud. There was a story in the Orlando Sentinel, but, nothing really mentioned in the mainstream media.
Unlike Americans marching peacefully in Orlando expressing their disdain for the all the spending and deficits in Washington, maybe 40 angry Leftists with ACORN expressing some anti-American thuggery showed up at some homes of AIG executives. This, of course, is all over the media about a small few, envious groups targeting private citizens over their salaries. They are falling for this lame class warfare ploy by the Left.
This Tea Party drew as many as the Cincinnati Tea Party last weekend. There was a story in Cincinnati Enquire. Again, the media has ignored this gathering of another 4,000 Americans protesting the excesses of our government.
These Tea Parties are growing and spreading all over the nation. They are planning simultaneous marches on Tax Day, April 15th, which is a great idea and symbolic. Then, there is Glenn Beck and his “We Surround Them” and his 912 Project. He has over 190,000 members and growing.
These exemplify how Americans have had it with their arrogant and hubris government and their irresponsibility. This crosses party lines, classes, races and occupations. We are all mad. Obama said he would unite us and he did—in opposition to him and his policies. And, this is great thing, as long as it stays peaceful and orderly.
When you look at how the AIG employees are treated and then look at Orlando, Cincinnati and so many other Tea Parties, they’re huge differences. We must take notice and learn that the AIG protestors are not what we want to become. We want to march and speak our peace about the “government,” not private citizens who just doing their job.
Another interesting point, the Left high jacked the peace marches in the 1960s. The Communists infiltrated and subverted many of the peace groups and filled their heads withMarxist tripe that many, such as Bill Ayers, still believe and preach. Conservatives lead these Tea Parties. They are preaching the principles of Reagan, Goldwater, and others. Ladies and gentlemen, this is irony.
We are peacefully marching and chanting limited government, less spending, and lower deficits. We are demanding the founding principles. We are demanding American values.We want our government, our nation, and our freedoms back from the overbearing government.
Just, when you heard the RINOs saying the GOP needs to change and look to moderate. Just, when the critics say the GOP is in trouble, dying, without a voice, and without a leader. Just, when they said the “Age of Reagan” was dead. Boy, I think there have been at least 8,000 people in the last two weeks who have a voice and know what they believe. They don’t see the GOP dying and they are Conservatives who know what they believe.
I remember only a month ago people were lost and did not know what to do. People did not know how to stop what the Liberals are doing to this nation. Since then, moderate Democrats are breaking from their leadership and the GOP in both Houses of Congress are united. The moderate Democrats are standing up for fiscal responsibilty, gun rights, proper debate of cap and trade and healthcare reform. The People have spoken and have been heard.
Remember, we outnumber them. Only 4-8% of America is the far Left. We who 60-70% are Conservative leaning or solid Conservative. I am not a betting man, but I like those odds.
So, what we are doing is working. We need to still keep spreading the word. We still need to explain to others Conservative principles and values. We can show that they work and Liberalism doesn’t.
We still need to march and gather to show Liberals and the government we no longer are going to take this. We need not be the thugs who are vilifying AIG. We need to stay peaceful and lead by example in how “true” Conservatives act and believe. We need to show how we lead our lives and that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bible still means something.
We run this nation, not them, and we are taking it back.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Obama Wants to Regulate Salaries
On Drudge, there is the headline, “Regulate!”
Obama wants to regulate executive pay of for all financial institutions, Wall Street firms, and other companies. This move could bankrupt an entire city.
“The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
So, Obama now wants to control the salaries of executives of companies. He has commented that these CEOs and other executives receive too much money and are too wealthy.
Who is he to tell us who is too wealthy and gets paid too much? He is the government and hearing that from him is chilling. This something you would hear out of Communist Russia or China.
If they can “regulate” their salaries, who is next? Well, with their attempt at targeting the AIG bonuses has shown, anybody is next, including you. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
The government has been giving certain people everything with entitlements, bailouts, and the like. Now, it is time for the government to start taking something back. When the People give the government the power to do something, the People lose control over it. They lose that right or freedom.
By opening the door to these bailouts, the government took control over these companies and they lost their freedoms. The government, as it always does, is now expanding their power from the companies they control to all of them.
So, what is going to happen to these companies, if the government regulates their salaries? Well, the worst scenario is all the talent that would have taken these jobs will go elsewhere to find better salaries. So, the place that the economy needs the best talent at the most crucial time would not have it.
The other scenario, which is the most likely, is what happened in the 90s when Clinton regulated executive salaries. He made it that only up to $1 million of executive salary could be a tax deduction. Anything above that could not be deducted as a business expense. The strategy was that these companies would not pay as much. Fat chance.
This gave birth to the stock option and the executive compensation was still high. The market found a creative way to compensate the best talent to stay competitive and still get the tax deduction.
So, Obama’s plan will just force the market to find another creative way to circumvent the government and still compensate the best talent to stay competitive.
Now, there is always the unintended consequence to Liberal policies. What could be the problem here?
Remember a few weeks ago when New York City Mayor Bloomberg was going to create a bunch of new taxes but then suddenly stopped. He reported that they could not raise all the taxes, because it would scare off the taxpayers of NYC. It was revealed that only 40,000 of the over 8 million people of NYC pay the taxes for the entire city. If those 40,000 would leave, NYC would lose their entire tax base.
Who makes up that 40,000 that pay taxes, you may ask? It is not taxi cab drivers, waiters, and bellhops. It is not managers, salespeople, or accountants. Could it be executives of major companies, financial institutions, and Wall Street firms? Why, yes.
Good job, Obama. You lied and the economy died. Now, you regulate and eradicate, an entire city.
Hey Obama voters, is this the “change” you voted for, a bankrupt New York City?
Obama wants to regulate executive pay of for all financial institutions, Wall Street firms, and other companies. This move could bankrupt an entire city.
“The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
So, Obama now wants to control the salaries of executives of companies. He has commented that these CEOs and other executives receive too much money and are too wealthy.
Who is he to tell us who is too wealthy and gets paid too much? He is the government and hearing that from him is chilling. This something you would hear out of Communist Russia or China.
If they can “regulate” their salaries, who is next? Well, with their attempt at targeting the AIG bonuses has shown, anybody is next, including you. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
The government has been giving certain people everything with entitlements, bailouts, and the like. Now, it is time for the government to start taking something back. When the People give the government the power to do something, the People lose control over it. They lose that right or freedom.
By opening the door to these bailouts, the government took control over these companies and they lost their freedoms. The government, as it always does, is now expanding their power from the companies they control to all of them.
So, what is going to happen to these companies, if the government regulates their salaries? Well, the worst scenario is all the talent that would have taken these jobs will go elsewhere to find better salaries. So, the place that the economy needs the best talent at the most crucial time would not have it.
The other scenario, which is the most likely, is what happened in the 90s when Clinton regulated executive salaries. He made it that only up to $1 million of executive salary could be a tax deduction. Anything above that could not be deducted as a business expense. The strategy was that these companies would not pay as much. Fat chance.
This gave birth to the stock option and the executive compensation was still high. The market found a creative way to compensate the best talent to stay competitive and still get the tax deduction.
So, Obama’s plan will just force the market to find another creative way to circumvent the government and still compensate the best talent to stay competitive.
Now, there is always the unintended consequence to Liberal policies. What could be the problem here?
Remember a few weeks ago when New York City Mayor Bloomberg was going to create a bunch of new taxes but then suddenly stopped. He reported that they could not raise all the taxes, because it would scare off the taxpayers of NYC. It was revealed that only 40,000 of the over 8 million people of NYC pay the taxes for the entire city. If those 40,000 would leave, NYC would lose their entire tax base.
Who makes up that 40,000 that pay taxes, you may ask? It is not taxi cab drivers, waiters, and bellhops. It is not managers, salespeople, or accountants. Could it be executives of major companies, financial institutions, and Wall Street firms? Why, yes.
Good job, Obama. You lied and the economy died. Now, you regulate and eradicate, an entire city.
Hey Obama voters, is this the “change” you voted for, a bankrupt New York City?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)