Monday, August 30, 2010

GOP takes 10 point generic lead in Gallup

JournoList.serv America-haters take heed, we're taking our country back from Eastern European usurpers. Your gulags will be inside your sicko heads!!!

Misleader Obama blames "disinformation" campaign out to mislead the American People

Misleader-in-chief Commandante Zero claims a campaign of "disinformation" out there, and whines about another VRWConspiracy just like Hillary had. Wherever this Muslim apostate was born, Indonesia or Kenya or Hawaii, it was without much between those outsized ears and like his loathsome spouse, the Obamanation is another nanny-state affirmative-action DOA social-engineering glitch.

The Zero is "stuck on stupid" as the Louisiana National Guard Officer summed it up and continues to blame everybody and everything, including his own Demonrat Congress, for what goes wrong. This was helped along by terminal spermburper Bri-boy Williams in an interview where Williams stained his Marxist underwear in public by calling the Fifth Anniversary of Katrina a time to remember "race and class" issues.

Obama is stupid and Bri-boy is his sock-puppet! And while he's at it, give us a glimpse of:

Obamas’ hidden records: Why are these off limits?
Why has he paid out millions to lawyers to keep all this hidden???
1. Certified copy of original birth certificate
2. Columbia University transcripts sealed.
3. Columbia thesis paper sealed.
4. Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5. Harvard University transcripts sealed.
6. Illinois State Senate records limited access.
7. Illinois State Senate schedule limited access.
8. Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9. Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10. Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11. Occidental College Transcripts hidden.
12. Parent’s marriage Certificate not available.
13. Record of baptism14 Selective Service registration records
14. (Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0’s SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15. Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16. Passport records for all passports
17. Scholarly articles
18. SAT and LSAT test scores
19. Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20. List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21. Punahou grade school records
22/ Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23. Obama 1964 Divorce Papers - 13 Pages - Missing Pg 11
24. Why isn’t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25. Why isn’t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Conservatives Increase 2/1 ratio over Self-Defined "Liberals"

The WSJ has a good summary of the ridiculous situation the libturds now find themselves in:
In late 2008 and early 2009, in the wake of Mr. Obama's meteoric ascent, the idea that conservatism would enjoy any sort of revival in the summer of 2009 would have seemed to demoralized conservatives too much to hope for. To leading lights on the left, it would have appeared absolutely outlandish.

In late October 2008, New Yorker staff writer George Packer reported "the complete collapse of the four-decade project that brought conservatism to power in America." Two weeks later, the day after Mr. Obama's election, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne proclaimed "the end of a conservative era" that had begun with the rise of Ronald Reagan.

And in February 2009, New York Times Book Review and Week in Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, writing in The New Republic, declared that "movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead."

Terminal serial clinical moron Tanenhaus even wrote a book a few months ago trumpeting the last days of conservatism, which went straight to the "remainder" bin after the Tea Party demonstrated that the statist elites guided by Packer, Dionne & their criminally negligent Demoncrat weren't going to pull off the second-story burglary of the US Constitution the O'Bomber/Pelosi/Reid RICO team was planning.
Messrs. Packer, Dionne and Tanenhaus underestimated what the conservative tradition rightly emphasizes, which is the high degree of unpredictability in human affairs. They also conflated the flagging fortunes of George W. Bush's Republican Party with conservatism's popular appeal. Most importantly, they failed to grasp the imperatives that flow from conservative principles in America, and the full range of tasks connected to preserving freedom.

Progressives like to believe that conservatism's task is exclusively negative—resisting the centralizing and expansionist tendency of democratic government. And that is a large part of the conservative mission. Progressives see nothing in this but hard-hearted indifference to inequality and misfortune, but that is a misreading.

What conservatism does is ask the question avoided by progressive promises: at what expense? In the aftermath of the global economic crisis of 2008, Western liberal democracies have been increasingly forced to come to grips with their propensity to live beyond their means.

It is always the task for conservatives to insist that money does not grow on trees, that government programs must be paid for, and that promising unaffordable benefits is reckless, unjust and a long-term threat to maintaining free institutions.

However, WSJ writer Berkowitz is more eloquent in pointing out the moral hazard, something Progressives and Libturds appear to believe doesn't exist, in cramming big centralized bureaucratic chaos onto a self-governing, self-regulating populace.
But conservatives also combat government expansion and centralization because it can undermine the virtues upon which a free society depends. Big government tends to crowd out self-government—producing sluggish, selfish and small-minded citizens, depriving individuals of opportunities to manage their private lives and discouraging them from cooperating with fellow citizens to govern their neighborhoods, towns, cities and states.

Living in a statist dirigiste autocracy of ENA grads named France, the numbing effect of crushing social conformism after centuries of diktats from Paris have convinced me that the USA should not become another France, nor a UK beset by ridiculous administrative ukases arresting those violating Politically Correct behavior, down to ejecting ten-year olds for not mixing with non-English-speaking Muslim students, thereby exhibiting bigotry. If the AFTA/NEA commissars have their way, the USA will follow the same path and a cultural version of busing will spread hip-hop crime among kids who are forced to mix with young dope pushers and weapons dealers. Thankfully, the ringleaders of the RICO scam on global warming, healthcare boondoogles, and a Keynesian stimulus package that is proving to be destroying rather than building the economy are so transparently repulsive, they make Janet Reno look attractive:
The credit for galvanizing ordinary people and placing individual freedom and limited government back on the national agenda principally belongs to President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Their heedless pursuit of progressive transformation reinvigorated a moribund conservative spirit, just as in 1993 and 1994 the Clintons' overreaching on health care sparked a popular uprising resulting in a Republican takeover of Congress.

Gingrich sadly still considers himself electable in a national election, but some Mitt Romney or John Thune has got to assert the moral commanding heights along with the high ground of economic sanity without scaring independents silly. Otherwise, '12 will be a repeat of '96, when RINO Dole squandered the opportunity to decease the Beast Clinton.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Big Upset in Alaska in the Offing?

Lisa Murkowski may have sung her family's multi-generational last hurrah last night, and may have put her high-heeled foot in her pie-hole before she knew she was in electoral trouble. Last night, she was quoted early in the evening...
Murkowski on Tuesday night took a shot at Palin, saying that when Palin resigned as governor last summer she said she would use her new national role to help out Alaska. "I think she's out for her own self-interest. I don't think she's out for Alaska's interest," Murkowski said as she waited at her campaign headquarters for results to come in.

Catty, catty, and a cheap shot to boot, before Murkowski may have known her OWN goose may have been in the process of going into the rotisserie....!

I'm not the greatest Palin fan, but I detest her slime-slinging enemies which Lisa M seemed to be pandering to in a clumsy fashion. Maybe a Miller Senate win in AK & a Palin-supported Pam Bondi AG win in the FL primary will shut Maher's & Behar's sick pieholes & stop the ceaseless calumnies by sick, demented bloggers like Andrew Sullivan. Also, stop Levi Johnson's sick shenanigans in their tracks.....! Ha ha ha.... payback for his dirtball moves on Bristol!

Murkowski is a hack whose daddy appointed her, so if she goes, she deserves few tears… Indeed, it appears Lisa might have had a hand in instigating some of the spurious ethics suits against Palin using a law Sarah herself had sponsored for cleaner govt. Palin was spending so much time and money on these suits that she decided to step down, to the open derision of Lisa Murkowski.

If those allegations are true & Murkowski does actually bite the dust, the triumph for beleaguered Sarah will be rich indeed....!

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Venezuela Homocide rate Triples under Chavez.

Venz Murder rate Triple Iraq's

Chavez's has a big problem, says the NYT
In Iraq, a country with about the same population as Venezuela, there were 4,644 civilian deaths from violence in 2009, according to Iraq Body Count; in Venezuela that year, the number of murders climbed above 16,000. Even Mexico’s infamous drug war has claimed fewer lives. Venezuelans have absorbed such grim statistics for years. Those with means have hidden their homes behind walls and hired foreign security experts to advise them on how to avoid kidnappings and killings. And rich and poor alike have resigned themselves to living with a murder rate that the opposition says remains low on the list of the government’s priorities.

Blame the messenger and avert your gaze from the newpaper morgue photos!
Reasons for the surge are complex and varied, experts say. While many Latin American economies are growing fast, Venezuela’s has continued to shrink. The gap between rich and poor remains wide, despite spending on anti-poverty programs, fueling resentment. Adding to that, the nation is awash in millions of illegal firearms.

Police salaries remain low, sapping motivation. And in a country with the highest inflation rate in the hemisphere, more than 30 percent a year, some officers have turned to supplementing their incomes with crimes like kidnappings. But some crime specialists say another factor has to be considered: Mr. Chávez’s government itself. The judicial system has grown increasingly politicized, losing independent judges and aligning itself more closely with Mr. Chávez’s political movement. Many experienced state employees have had to leave public service, or even the country.

Here near Boca we gave Westonzuela with expensive homes acquired by expats fleeing the crime spree.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Krugman!

I'm even more stupid and greedy than I look!

Paul Krugman's mistakes on record as an economist is as bad as his ethical lapses as an Enron Consultant. Here is how Keith Hennessey, who actually wrote some of the origianl Bush tax cut legislation in 2000, deconstructs and utterly flays the remorseless socialist agitpreppie Krugman alive: In his New York Times column linked above, Dr. Paul Krugman
argues for raising the top marginal income tax rates on January 1. His polemic is useful because it encapsulates most of the Left's arguments.
Language trick #1: "We" (the government) should not "give money to the rich."
"But these [Republicans] are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country. ... And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. ... How can this kind of giveaway be justified ...?"

In this view of the world, revenues belong to the government and are allocated by policymakers as gifts to those who need or deserve them. When you hear that "we cannot afford to cut taxes" and "we should not give tax cuts to ______," you are hearing this philosophy.
Like a family or a business, the government does not "pay for," "finance," or "afford," its revenue stream or changes to it. You pay for your spending or you finance your spending. If your revenues are insufficient to meet your spending, then in all other contexts we say you cannot afford the amount you're spending. The same should be true for the government.
Money doesn't just magically appear in the government coffers. A private citizen or firm earns income and the government takes a portion of that income. The money initially belongs to he or she who earned it. Using "we" to refer to the government suggests the funds being spent by the government belong to the government. This matters because if the money belongs to the government, then elected officials should apply their moral principles to figure out who needs or deserves it most. If the money belongs first to he or she who earned it, then elected officials should apply their moral principles to figure out whether they should take it from the earner and spend it on something else or give it to someone else. Those are fundamentally different decisions. The first philosophy ignores the costs (moral and economic) of government taking something from someone who earned it.
While these may seem like small rhetorical differences, they represent two critical divides in the fiscal policy debate. You can learn a lot about how an elected official approaches spending, taxes, and deficits by listening to how he or she uses the pronoun "we" and whether he or she refers to "paying for government spending" or "paying for spending and tax cuts."
Language trick #2: "Extending the Bush tax cuts" is bad.
There are two tricks here - talking about "extending tax cuts" and labeling them with the Bush name.
At some point a policy flips from "extending a tax cut" to "preventing a tax increase." The top marginal income tax rate has been 35% for almost ten years. The top capital gains and dividend rates have been 15% for almost eight years. As a real-world policy matter if action is not taken, these tax rates will increase above where they have been for a long time. Most DC Democrats try to have it both ways - they talk about "preventing tax increases on the middle class" but oppose "extending tax cuts for the rich." This rhetorical inconsistency masks a parallel situation in law and policy. Either they're both extending tax cuts, or they're both preventing tax increases.
Most of the policies scheduled to expire December 31 were enacted in the bipartisan 2001 tax law. The only significant expiring changes from the Republican-only 2003 tax law are the lower rates on capital gains and dividends. The marginal income tax rate cuts, the new 10% income tax bracket, the estate tax repeal, and the marriage penalty reliefwere part of the 2001 law supported by current Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, sitting Democratic Senators Carnahan, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Ben Nelson, as well as twenty-eight House Democrats. You never hear anyone arguing against "extending the Baucus-Feinstein-Landrieu-Lincoln-Nelson tax cuts."
Revise history #1:
"Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation -- yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform -- while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits."

In 2001 I was Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's tax policy staffer and was deeply involved in the procedure and tactics of the 2010 sunset date. Dr. Krugman suggests that we Republicans "used" the 2010 sunset date "to disguise" their revenue effect. He has his facts wrong. We wanted the tax cuts to be permanent. Since we were using reconciliation with a 10-year budget window, had we extended the tax cuts even for "that last year [2011]," we would have given 41 Senate Democrats the ability to kill the bill on a Byrd Rule point of order. We ended the tax cuts after 2010 because we had to, not because we saw some rhetorical advantage to doing so.
There are two controversial uses of reconciliation: one is to cut taxes without offsets, since reconciliation had generally been used in the past to reduce deficits rather than to increase them. The other is to enact major non-budgetary policy changes outside of the Senate's regular order. The debates about the appropriateness of reconciliation are therefore different between the 01/03 tax cuts and the 09/10 health care laws. It appears twelve Senate Democrats and 28 House Republicans thought it was appropriate to use reconciliation for the '01 tax cuts, since they voted for the bill.
Revise history #2:
Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn't go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.
Actually, this was the plan, to wait until 2010 and then press for making these policies permanent, not to try to do so earlier. We knew in 2001 that a looming unpopular tax increase would maximize pressure on the fence-sitters, and that by ending them in an even-numbered year we would maximize the chance that in-cycle Members of Congress would vote to prevent a tax increase. Tax-increasing DC Democrats knew this as well, and they could have scheduled this vote last year when they would have had a better chance of winning. Or had they enacted a budget resolution conference report this year, they could have created a reconciliation bill that would have allowed them to get their policy win with only 50 Senate votes + the VP. Because they failed to enact a budget resolution and create a reconciliation bill, they must now wrestle with an Senate minority that has significant leverage. Democrats gave Senate Republicans this leverage by failing a basic task of governance.
Ignore the biggest part of the deficit effect:
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.
I'm not sure why he quotes the TPC's $680 B figure when the Administration's $970 B figure is larger. He focuses on the deficit delta between the two sides while ignoring the deficit-increasing effect of the tax policies President Obama has proposed. Setting aside the President's AMT policy for a moment, and using Dr. Krugman's language with Treasury's numbers, he also could have written that "the Obama proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the rich would cost the federal government $3.1 trillion over the next 10 years." The $680/$970 B delta between the two sides of this debate is a lot of money and an important policy difference. At the same time, if you're worried about budget deficits, you shouldn't ignore the much larger $3.1 trillion deficit effect that is not in dispute between the parties.
Focus on the super-rich while pushing a policy that also taxes the sort-of-rich:
And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 per year. ... the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent.
Yes, the super-rich make a lot more than the rich. This is a feature of pre-tax income, not of tax policy. Thanks to our progressive income tax structure, the post-tax distribution of income is more compressed than the pre-tax distribution. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts increased this compression. The post-tax distribution is still wide. The super-rich are still that way even after the government takes a greater share of their income than it does from the non-rich.
Multiplication tells us that if you raise their marginal tax rate by the same number of percentage points, you'll collect a lot more money from a super-rich person than from a sort-of-rich person. Dr. Krugman flips this on its head by saying policymakers are "giving" these people money, rather than "not taking it." It's different.
If this is a big concern to Dr. Krugman, he could propose a much higher marginal income tax rate on the super-rich. He instead proposes we also raise taxes on someone earning $260K per year. That's still a lot more than most people make, but there's a big difference between $260K of annual income and someone who earns millions per year.
Dismiss the small business argument:
[W]e're told that it's all about helping small business; but only a fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all.
True, but those are also the successful small business owners who are (a) employing people and (b) the ones we need to hire more people.
Dismiss the macro argument:
Or we're told that it's about helping the economy recover. But it's hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren't likely to spend a windfall.
Note that he does not reject the argument that tax increases will decrease economic activity. He instead argues it's inefficient - that the macroeconomic bang for the deficit increase buck is small. He argues that increased government spending is more cost-effective. Even if you think he's right, Congress is not going to enact another few hundred billion dollars of increased government spending as he proposes. The question is therefore not the one Dr. Krugman would like, which is "Do you prefer preventing tax increases or increasing government spending?" The question Members of Congress instead face is, "In isolation, do you want taxes to go up on anybody four months from now, including successful small business owners whom we hope will hire more workers?"
Demonize those who disagree with you
So what's the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class -- which is an expensive proposition in its own right -- but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.
And there's a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That's a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.
Dr. Krugman concludes by declaring it an outrage to oppose raising taxes in a weak economy because certain people whom he thinks are undeserving will get to keep more of their income. He ends with his usual view that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid, evil, and corrupt.

While it's clear that Krugman and the entire NYT editorial Op-Ed juggernaut are completely partisan and dishonest, it is refreshing to see a concerned and knowledgeable citizen like Hennessey audit the ridiculous half-baked, rhetorically skewed dog's breakfast of lies, damned lies and faked statistics [Krugman is too stupid even to use the stats that best support his dihonest "argument."].

Now the sophists and socialists at the NYT can watch as their influence follows their circulation in this election year---straight down the toilet!!!

Monday, August 23, 2010

CNN Half-wit Rick Sanchez Should Be Deported to Cuba

Sanchez is a proto libtard fascist who is as dumb as he sounds and uglier than sin.

He should be deported to Castro's Cuba and disappear into their dank dangerous prisons for saying what he says in the US and gets paid by a drunk-socialist deadbeat like Ted Turner.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

French & Indian War: Why they Make Natural Allies?

Okay, my map may be inaccurate, but I'm a scientist at "" and you're not! Plus forget about sunspots or other ET global warming hypotheses, We're doing it to ourselves and we have to pay the price [except China & India]

The Solutrean Theory keeps bugging me as during my long years in France, I was a certifiable archeology buff, reading books by Abbe Breuel and Teilhard de Chardin as well as visiting many small museums in the Lyon consular district where I was US Vice Consul during the '70s. The magnificent spearheads carved of stone called the Solutrean and Chancelade were especially intriguing, because they were more sophisticated than subsequent stone-headed axe and spear tips called the Magdelenean. Solutrean culture is associated with the Altamira and Lascaux cave paintings as well, and the high level of artistic and aesthetic development of these human artifacts hidden for millennia fascinated me no end. I have never been able to secure a visit to the caves in the Dordogne region where these caves are now almost totally inaccessible save for certifiable scientific expeditions.

But the Solutrean theory is much more intriguing, as the Clovis ax and spear points which appear in North America around 15,000 BC share very many of the uniquely sophisticated flaking and sharpening bifacial techniques of the slightly earlier {21K - 17K YA] found in southern France and northern Spain. A visit to the wikipedia site shows the maximum glaciation which appeared to cover the entire North Atlantic during parts of the millennia which could have enabled shore-boating Solutrean/Chancelade groups to follow the ice coast west to North America. Any sophisticated purveyors of advanced artistic methodologies could surely have managed technologies of adapting to the encroaching glacis from the North pushing southward across their ancestral hunting areas. Could isolated groups have willy-nilly got blow westward or even established a a two-way bridge from the southern French-Basque-Pyrennean Solutrean tribal units in North America?

Maybe the cover-ups by politically-correct American politicians benfitting from the vast rake-offs from casinos established in Indian tribal areas---the Seminole tribe just acquired all the Hard Rock franchises worldwide!---could halt enough to see whether the intriguing Caucasoid skulls of Kennewick man in Oregon and Spirit Cave Mummy in Nevada can be examined using advanced DNA techniques.

Wouldn't it be ironic if European settlers from the Pyrenees arrived in North America around the time the Beringia migrations from East Asia were occurring---and the beautiful Clovis points were a cultural/technological import from Western Europe?

The same "scientists" who conspire to disappear the Middle Age Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age from 1620-1750, caused by the Maunder Minimum in sunspot activity for twelve consecutive sunspot cycles are among the claque of PC purists who value their careerist research funding and herd-based political uniformity over any "search for scientific knowledge," a quest now sought only by outliers, eccentrics and real geniuses.

Most of the "scientists" nowadays follow the career aspirations if not the lethal single-mindedness of "Doctor Amy Bishop," currently denied bail in Alabama for shooting her three tenure committee to death after they denied this "Harvard intellectual" what she deemed was her rightful unfireable niche in academia. How many other Amy Bishops and Bernie Madoff and Mayor Bloomberg type PC nutjobs are willing to do anything to advance their agendas in the so-called East Coast elites?

In the meantime, don't expect any DNA permissions from the Department of the Interior for ancient skeletons and artifacts, except perhaps copralites, to clear up the multi-culti invasion of America from both East and West. You see, the so-called "Native Americans" deny any Beringia immigration since they're autochthonous, having sprung from the ground all by themselves, and been given the right for casinos by the great Wakan Tanka or whatever, if the right senators and governors are bought off. In exchange, they get to have their founder myths exempted from any scientific or rational inquiry, just like ObamaCare and other immense bill from the autocratic Left which have to be passed in order to see what's in them!!!!

Fidel Castro has told Cesar Chavez that he's making a big mistake in allowing even vestiges of democracy to remain in Venezuela rather than just declare a Communist take-over, a la the bearded Stalin/Hitler of Havana. Maybe he's telling Pelosi and Harry Reid the same advice, since they appear transfixed by his opaque, unaccountable approach to running the country.

Ditto Jug-ears in the Oval Office!

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Nancy Jumps into the Rabbit Hole and Becomes the Red Queen!

Slutty or Stupid, I can Play it Both Ways!

Leaker of the House Pelosi has finally overfilled her douche-bag, and in public, by threatening an investigation of the anti-Ground Zero Mosque phenomenon, which comprises about 75% of all Americans at last count, including Harry Reid, the Leaker of the House's counterpart in the Senate.

Gosh, maybe it's just "astro-turf" like Nancy said that pesky bunch of RNC financed Tea Party people were---just community organizers on the right like Obambi was on the left. For the botox-addled brain of this ideological moron, her paint-by-the-numbers politics means that the same "astro-turf" phenomenon is occurring with the anti-mosque crew, to her and her sh*t-for-brains fellow paranoids [Hilarious Clinton's VRWConspiracy comes to mind], there has got to be some sort of conspiracy.

Or perhaps this PMS-brain is entering the first stages of dementia, on the national political stage, demonstrating that her double-digit IQ is now overwhelmed with an emotional tsunami of hormonal dreck. Time for this over-the-hill specimen of feebleminded fascism her to throw in the towel and do the right thing, the thing that serial criminals like Rangel, Waters, and half of the Congressional Black Caucus still refuse to do.

Get all of their sorry asses out of Congress before the legal system puts them in jail. Cop a plea, granma Nancy, we know you're way too old for the job.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Muslim Leadership With Terrorist Ties and Sympathies Pushes Ground Zero Mosque


Politico Pundits are whining that the GOP ia lashing out at American Muslims.
"The president supports a mosque at ground zero led by a man who blamed America for 9/11, his top intelligence official preaches the true meaning of jihad, and his attorney general can't even say the words 'radical Islam,'" said Michael Goldfarb, an adviser to Keep America Safe. "You start to worry they don't understand who the enemy is, and so Republicans might understandably feel like they have to spell it out for them."

Congenital idiot Ibrahim Hooper blames the Tea Party and calls them bigots. I call Hooper a terrorist enabler. CAIR doesn't represent nor speak for the three million or so Muslims in the USA, and Andy McCarthy's book The Grand Jihad spells out how the American professional left and elites on campuses and newsrooms are encouraging Muslim radicals to incite hatred by provocative acts such as the Ground Zero Mosque. As an Arabist with State Dept credentials, I understand the inner violence that Islam's history of militaristic aggrandizements from the Prophet onward have made islam an intolerant and brutal religion.
Current terrorist enablers like Hooper and his leftist allies push relentlessly for a hopeless mishmash of the sort which has encouraged terrorism in Europe. Only France, with its draconian edicts against the wearing of burkas in public, has escaped a successful terrorist attack. Meanwhile, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK and Sweden have daily attacks on Christians by Muslim thugs. And GWB is partly to blame for the impudence of terrorist enablers like Hooper and CAIR.
Leading New York Republicans acknowledge a shift from the Bush years, but say Muslim leaders, not Republicans, are to blame. "George Bush made every attempt to reach out," said Rep. Pete King, a leading critic of the mosque project. "The Muslim community did not reciprocate, did not respond. After Sept. 11, some of them became entrenched and really didn't know how to cope.

"Somehow the leadership in the community does not impel them forward to be more part of the community. That's my reading of it," said King, who also noted that sensitivities involving the site are far deeper, and more real, than many are willing to recognize beyond the boundaries of New York.

The Republicans will further slaughter the vestiges of Demoncrat credibility and look for a huge change in government as the discredited POTUS Zero and his henchcritters, Pelosi & Reid, lose their power in Congress.
"There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia," wrote former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a day later.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, though he represents a relatively heavily Muslim state, rebuffed pleas from local Muslim leaders to back off his suggestion that the mosque would "degrade and disrespect" the Trade Center site. A spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cited both "the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda" in opposing it.

Reciprocity is the rule for any negotiations, even when basic religious principles apply.

The sophomoric tyro in the Oval Office would understand this were he not an ideological fruitcake baked in Alinsky's ovens.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Gallup Shows 25% of Americans Trust Media

Gallup continues to show the growing disdain Americans demonstrate toward the MSM:
No matter the cause, it is clear the media as a whole are not gaining new fans as they struggle to serve and compete with growing demand for online news, social media, and mobile platforms. The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual report on the State of the News Media, released in March, found for a third straight year, only digital and cable news sources growing in popularity, while network news, local news, and newspaper audiences shrink. These findings align with a similar 2008 Gallup poll that found cable and Internet news sources growing in popularity while all others held steady or declined

And it's evident that cable news is dominated by FoxNEWS which regularly outdraws all the other cable news programs lumped together.

No surprise that POTUS Zero has lost a point in his approval ratings and is just above 40% approval---pretty rapid fall for 18 months, but no surprise.

Deutschland Ueber Alles as POTUS Zero Ruins US Economy

Let's raise the taxes on tea! And cut back on foodstamps!

Angela Merkel has a real PhD, not an affirmative action Ivy League PC gold-star mulatto award from Columbia & Harvard Law.
..[Germany's] strong growth figures will also bolster the conviction here that German workers and companies in recent years made the short-term sacrifices necessary for long-term success that Germany’s European partners did not. And it will reinforce the widespread conviction among policy makers that they handled the financial crisis and the painful recession that followed it far better than the United States, which, they never hesitate to remind, brought the world into this crisis.

A vast expansion of a program paying to keep workers employed, rather than dealing with them once they lost their jobs, was the most direct step taken in the heat of the crisis. But the roots of Germany’s export-driven success reach back to the painful restructuring under the previous government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

By paring unemployment benefits, easing rules for hiring and firing, and management and labor’s working together to keep a lid on wages, Germany ensured that it could again export its way to growth with competitive, nimble companies producing the cars and machine tools the world’s economies — emerging and developed alike — demanded.

Very unlike the bloated hiring of public sector workers, stipulations that stimulus projects be done by SEIU & other thuggish unions, and the cowardly cringing political spendthrift policies of the feckless eff-up in the US Oval Office. Not to mention the increase in taxes and the ridiculous paperwork monster health care program disliked by over 60% of the American people.

To absolutely no one's surprise,lGallup released a poll this weekend that said the sagging US economy is the uppermost worrisome problem in the minds of the average American now convinced the country made a mistake two years ago electing an untested, untriec amateur.

The Problem lies deeper, however, as Americans are now becoming convinced as a majority that Obama is not only simply not up to the job, and lacks a work ethic and strength of character to personally surmount the daunting tasks his whilrwind & virtually unexamined political past has ill-prepared him for, but indeed has added a myriad of imbecilities besetting the country siimply by being a clueless dolt. Here's the prestigious Telegraph's view from across the pond:
"Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

The Daily Caller may sum up Obama's problems in a nutshell:
On Tuesday, the president’s approval had fallen to 44.4 percent. Disapproval had jumped to 50.4 percent.

The graph illustrating the movement is stark. After muddling through the past year in parallel lines, the black line for approval has taken a nose dive and the red line for disapproval has shot up.

This movement coincides with growing fears that the economic recovery hoped for and heralded by Obama and Democrats has fallen far short of expectations and may be dissolving in the face of another downturn. The Federal Reserve’s signal of reduced confidence in the economy on Tuesday caused anxiety on Wall Street Wednesday, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 265 points.

“Malaise and stagnation are the best case and a second collapse is the worst case. You can’t take a second collapse off the table,” said market and financial analyst Jim Rickards, of Omnis.

“Those numbers are going to get worse for Obama because the economy is going to get worse,” Rickards said. “This is a depression. It’s a depression that began in 2007, and it will probably run until at least 2012, maybe 2013.”

Gallup’s daily tracking poll, which formulates its numbers differently than Real Clear Politics, shows less fluctuation. But even there, Obama has gone from 47 percent approval and 46 percent disapproval a month ago to a 45/48 spread.

“It’s clearly not where the president hoped he’d be — or thought he’d be — after passing the stimulus, health care reform, and Wall Street reform,” said Dee Dee Myers, former White House press secretary to President Bill Clinton. “And it just confirms what presidents who govern in bad economic times all know (or learn): they’re lashed to those job numbers like Ahab to Moby Dick.”

As Michelle Obama is beginning to prove to be another Marie Antoinette in her spendthrift trip to Spain and as her anti-obesity program is being funded by cutbacks in food stamps, Obama may begin to resemble Louis XVI with a political guillotine metaphorically just two & a half short years away!

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Poor Now Disapprove of Obama: Rosa Di Lauro Whines

BowWow Di Lauro [D-Middle Earth] guffaws behind two Master Criminals

Ugliest Congresscritter Rosa Di Lauro whined that the $26 billion pay extension for 300,000 public employees union layabouts was a "Sophie's Choice" because the money came out of food stamps!

Di Lauro's fine whine is here.

Jerry Brown Pension Shenanigans Outed by OC Register

The Orange County Register is to the LATimes what the Wall Street Journal & the NY Post is to the NYT---a truth teller to the state-controlled media organs co-opted by the DNC:
The [OC] Watchdog got to wondering: How much will the Democrat for Governor make in retirement?
That, as it turns out, is a very difficult question to answer. After more than a month of investigation, the Watchdog can only say for certain that Brown and a handful of other top officials are eligible for generous benefits under a special pension fund so obscure that few people in government know how it works and many thought it had been eliminated 20 years ago by outraged voters.
Under the law, Brown should have accrued, at most, 16 years of service credit in this special fund, known as the Legislators’ Retirement System, or LRS. Actuarial statements produced by LRS, however, indicate that an unnamed person of Brown’s age and earning Brown’s exact salary has been credited with 25 to 29 years of service. The difference would mean tens of thousands of dollars in additional pension payments for Brown each year.
Brown’s campaign staff acknowledge the unnamed person sure looks like the gubernatorial candidate but have been unable to explain the discrepancy over service.
Officials at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which manages LRS, have similarly refused to cooperate, saying the law forbids them from answering questions about specific individuals. Meanwhile, The Watchdog has sought help from the offices of seven state lawmakers, one constitutional officer and one state department as well three outside pension experts and not one has been able to explain the discrepancy.

Hmm.... I hope Meg Whitman outs this petty functionary getting rich off a bankrupt state CALPERS system that Bill Clinton and others have used as a political weapon.
UPDATE Jerry Brown is a former Jesuit novice and I met him at the Westwood Eugene McCarthy HQ near UCLA during the '68 Cal Primary campaign---long before he became a byword for mystical brainfog hiding crooked pension schemes tp make himself and his progeny wealthy. Read the link about this righteous dude's indignation over pension benefits for a tiny town named Bell, CA.

Friday, August 06, 2010

Is CBC "Conscience of Congress" or Standing Wave of Crime?

John McWhorter in TNR does note that there is a huge contradiction concerning the fact that:
Not so long ago, all eight of the members of Congress being investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics were black.

and the fact that
The CBC traditionally calls itself “the conscience of Congress,” and in its public statements and activities often functions as a kind of alternate NAACP rather than as a generator of legislation.

Of course, he comes to the wrong conclusions or dampens the fires of indignation that should be warming the taxpayers' anger at the scoundrels in power.
Other cases of black congressmen under the ethical spotlight of late are due, really, to chance. Roland Burris and Jesse Jackson, Jr. happened to get pulled into the slimy realm of Rod Blagojevich’s grubby quest to become an old-style city boss, of a once-in-a-generation "Who'd-a-thunk-it?" shamelessness. Chicago has long had a substantial contingent of black lawmakers—which I assume we consider a good thing in itself. But black lawmakers will be playing The Game as much as white ones, and if a freakish phenomenon like Blagojevich happens into a drivers’ seat, then big surprise, some of the people who get their toes run over may be black.

No mention of Cong. "Cold Cash" Jefferson of New Orleans, or the dozens of black elected criminals in Congress in the past, indicted and unindicted [I worked for one in St. Louis named Clay.]?
Heather MacDonald has the REAL story in her excellent piece in the City Journal on Chicago Crime: the time Obama arrived in Chicago in 1984, an Alinskyite diagnosis of South Side poverty was doubly irrelevant. Blacks had more political power in Chicago than ever before, yet that power had no impact on the tidal wave of dysfunction that was sweeping through the largest black community in the United States. Chicago had just elected Harold Washington, the city’s first black mayor; the heads of Chicago’s school system and public housing were black, as were most of their employees; black power broker Emil Jones, Jr. represented the South Side in the Illinois State Senate; Jesse Jackson would launch his 1984 presidential campaign from Chicago. The notion that blacks were disenfranchised struck even some of Obama’s potential organizees as ludicrous. “Why we need to be protesting and carrying on at our own people?” a prominent South Side minister asked Obama soon after he arrived in Chicago. “Anybody sitting around this table got a direct line to City Hall.”

Pace Alinsky, such political clout could not stop black Chicago’s social breakdown. Crime was exploding. Gangs ran the housing projects—their reign of thuggery aided by ACLU lawsuits, which had stripped the housing authority of its right to screen tenants. But the violence spread beyond the projects. In 1984, Obama’s first year in Chicago, gang members gunned down a teenage basketball star, Benjy Wilson.

The citywide outcry that followed was heartfelt but beside the point. None of the prominent voices calling for an end to youth violence—from Mayor Washington to Jesse Jackson to school administrators—noted that all of Wilson’s killers came from fatherless families (or that he had fathered an illegitimate child himself). Nor did the would-be reformers mention the all-important fact that a staggering 75 percent of Chicago’s black children were being born out of wedlock. The sky-high illegitimacy rate meant that black boys were growing up in a world in which it was normal to impregnate a girl and then take off. When a boy is raised without any social expectation that he will support his children and marry his children’s mother, he fails to learn the most fundamental lesson of personal responsibility. The high black crime rate was one result of a culture that fails to civilize men through marriage.

As long as their constituents refuse to take even the first steps toward civilization and man up enough to be responsible for the upbringing and education of their own offspring, the Congressional Black Caucus ["Good Time Charlie" Rangel had five illegitimate kids by five different mothers as of ten years ago] won't bother to police themselves or attempt to curb the blood diamond trade of exchanging the crime wave of illegitimate black youth for their own enrichment.

The CBC has disgraced the legacies of MLK Jr. and previous black thinkers and idealists. Waters and Rangel should be evicted from office. Mark Foley is nothing compared with these black mafiosi and yet McWhorter limp-dickly explains that the Sherrod-Breitbart contretemps is a "Teachable Moment" [his caps, not mine!]

The CBC is not the only leftist entity unable to man up and take responsibility for its penchant to lie, cheat, and cut corners.

Dutch Finally See the Light on Islamic Terrorism=Koran

Geert Wilders "far-right" Freedom Party will be included in the new coalition government in Holland. In the Economist's opinon:
"For a country used to the smack of firm government, this unstable construction is a risky venture. And yet in a way it encapsulates Dutch politics. For almost a decade many Dutch voters have supported various anti-immigration, anti-Muslim parties, while mainstream politicians have struggled to purge them from the system. With the economic crisis blowing in his sails, Mr Wilders may soon wield the influence they sought."

And unlike the ridiculous socialist nonsense being peddled by the Demoncrat Party in the USA, soon to be a minority party itself, the new coalition plans to REDUCE TAXES and REDUCE THE DEFICIT:
The fragile governing structure being put in place is motivated by a feeling in the VVD and the CDA that the economy needs emergency treatment. The parties share a vision of recovery based on tax cuts and reductions in benefits spending. These measures, they hope, should reduce the budget deficit by €18 billion ($23.7 billion). But the only party willing, in principle, to back this approach was Mr Wilders’s.

The JournoLista juicebox pre-schoolers will soon be shoved into the corner and forced to wear the dunce caps already worn by the networks---bozo bitch Couric & volunteer fireboy Brianna Williams, & tea-bagger inventor Anderson ["360-rimjob"] Cooper & the Mess-NBC crews, all led by the ring in their snouts by the NYT & its pilot fish.

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Jobless Rate Springs Upward Higher than highest estimates

Bloomberg has the bad news:
More Americans than projected filed applications for unemployment insurance last week, indicating firings remain elevated as the recovery moderated. Initial jobless claims climbed by 19,000 to 479,000 in the week ended July 31, the most since April and exceeding the highest estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving unemployment benefits dropped, while those getting extended payments rose.

Bloomberg softens the news above the fold, but deep into the story comes just how badly the economy is misfiring:
Economists forecast claims would fall to 455,000, according to the median of 43 projections. Estimates ranged from 444,000 to 470,000. The government revised the prior week’s total to 460,000 from a previously reported 457,000
Instead, 479,000. Hmmm...... Of course, Bloomberg keeps whistling past the graveyard in the final paragraphs, quoting "experts" that the bad numbers don't mean anything........

Canuck Judge Worse Than US Variety of Scofflaw Judges

woof, I'm a cowardly Muslim dog, Canadian version.

Monkey-face Abdullah Khadr was accused of buying weapons for al-Qaeda. The Canadian was in a Canuck jail since 2005 and extradition proceedings to get him to the US for prosecution were underway. Then,
The judge said statements made by Mr Khadr and used as the basis for the case against him were "unreliable".
Mr Khadr was arrested in Pakistan in October 2004 after the CIA offered Pakistani authorities a $500,000 (£314,000) bounty.
The US accused him of procuring weapons, including mine components and rocket-propelled grenades, for al-Qaeda to use against coalition forces in Afghanistan. He returned to Canada after about a year in Pakistani custody, and in December 2005 was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at US request. The US sought to extradite him to face charges. On Wednesday, Superior Court Judge Christopher Speyer halted extradition proceedings, effectively denying the US bid.

The Canadian government has yet to decide whether to appeal.

I was ready to splutter with righteous rage at our moronic northern neighbor, but then remembered that, unlike the cowardly Dutch, the Canadians still have troops fightiing in Afghanistan, and in places where they can take casualties, unlike, say, the pussy Germans.

Still, someone should have "Judge Christ-bearer" Speyer excommunicated, although given he's a Canuck judge, he's probably gay and atheist anyway.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

POTUS ZERO Sliding toward below 40%

USATODAY/Gallup tells the upside of the numbers.

Only 41% of those surveyed Tuesday through Sunday approved of the way Obama is handling his job, his lowest rating in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll since he took office in January 2009. In Gallup's separate daily tracking poll, his approval was at 45% Monday.

Rasmussen checks Likely Voters, who are always less happy about POTUS Zero than the usually DemonRat-biased polls of NYT, Time, Newsweak, et al.

Looks like a one-termer more and more........

Mistaking Gilded for Golden, and Vice Versa

Journalista Michael Tomasky is beginning to feel the hot [he would paradoxically call it "cold"] breath of the demographic 42% Gallup-registered self-regarding conservatives breathing on the backs of the 19% self-confessed liberal elite autocracy soon to be demolished. The title of his piece in is "Against Despair:" Key takeaway:
I started to ask myself: What if all these presumptions I grew up with were wrong? What if Reagan wasn’t an aberration? What if Roosevelt and Johnson were the aberrations? True, we had Bill Clinton in the meantime. Poor Clinton never plays a central role in these narratives, and I think today we’re gaining enough historical distance that he is starting to deserve better: His presidency may not have constituted a golden age of progressivism in the way selected Roosevelt and Johnson years did, which remains the reason we focus more on those two, but it was certainly a comparative golden age for the country. Still, as we know, the right marched onward during the Clinton years. And then of course came Bush. The idea we young people of the 1980s once entertained–the idea that the Age of Reagan was somehow false, anomalous, a torn page in an otherwise seamless development of plot–had now to be reexamined, in light of the speed with which Bush and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove undid so many (thankfully not all) of the ideas and policies we had been raised to believe were inviolate.
The historians Nick Salvatore and Jefferson Cowie of Cornell University published a brilliant paper in 2008 in the journal International Labor and Working-Class History called "The Long Exception: Rethinking the Place of the New Deal in American History." In their Abstract, they write:

The New Deal was more of an historical aberration–a byproduct of the massive crisis of the Great Depression–than the linear triumph of the welfare state. The depth of the Depression undoubtedly forced the realignment of American politics and class relations for decades, but, it is argued, there is more continuity in American politics between the periods before the New Deal order and those after its decline than there is between the postwar era and the rest of American history. Indeed, by the early seventies the arc of American history had fallen back upon itself. While liberals of the seventies and eighties waited for a return to what they regarded as the normality of the New Deal order, they were actually living in the final days of what Paul Krugman later called the "interregnum between Gilded Ages."

Read how this self-deluding "man of the left" explains why and how the light at the end of the liberals' tunnel isn't an onrushing locomotive. Mental gymnastics of a high order!

Monday, August 02, 2010

Palestine is Alone, The Arabs Don't Care

Efraim Karsh states the truth that every long-time observer of the Middle East [I am an ex-State Dept. Arabist who lived in three countries there for a decade] knows if he is honest and discerning: The Arabs don't really, deep down in their heart of hearts, give a sh*t about Palestine. Here is Karsh's text:
What, then, are we to make of a recent survey for the Al Arabiya television network finding that a staggering 71 percent of the Arabic respondents have no interest in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks? “This is an alarming indicator,” lamented Saleh Qallab, a columnist for the pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat. “The Arabs, people and regimes alike, have always been as interested in the peace process, its developments and particulars, as they were committed to the Palestinian cause itself.”

But the truth is that Arab policies since the mid-1930s suggest otherwise. While the “Palestine question” has long been central to inter-Arab politics, Arab states have shown far less concern for the well-being of the Palestinians than for their own interests.
For example, it was common knowledge that the May 1948 pan-Arab invasion of the nascent state of Israel was more a scramble for Palestinian territory than a fight for Palestinian national rights. As the first secretary-general of the Arab League, Abdel Rahman Azzam, once admitted to a British reporter, the goal of King Abdullah of Transjordan “was to swallow up the central hill regions of Palestine, with access to the Mediterranean at Gaza. The Egyptians would get the Negev. Galilee would go to Syria, except that the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to the Lebanon.”

From 1948 to 1967, when Egypt and Jordan ruled the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the Arab states failed to put these populations on the road to statehood. They also showed little interest in protecting their human rights or even in improving their quality of life — which is part of the reason why 120,000 West Bank Palestinians moved to the East Bank of the Jordan River and about 300,000 others emigrated abroad. “We couldn’t care less if all the refugees die,” an Egyptian diplomat once remarked. “There are enough Arabs around.”

It's a little-known fact that after the '67 War, Israel victorious offered to return Gaza just captured in the hostilities back to Egypt. The Egyptians demurred, leaving the Israelis with the impression that among other reasons, Nasser and the boys didn't want to be bothered with Gaza [as Israeli strategists also wished to not be vexed with the teeming hotspot.]

Perhaps Gaza is the metaphor of the Palestinians, truly unwanted, a pawn on the Arab chessboard that means nothing to the Arabs except as a reason not to admit their defeats by Israel.

Obama Iraq Speech Echoed in NYT, NBC

NYT's article on the lack of progress in Iraq was echoed by an NBC hack named Engel who actually said that "Iraq now has electricity only 12 hours a day as opposed to under Saddam Hussein when it had 24-hour/day electricity."

Engel is the rat-pussy who lied about American soldiers when he was stationed in-country two years ago, exaggerating, according to others in the units he said were suffering from low morale, in order to make a political point. This was under GWB, when Engel and his fellow Taliban-sympathizers [including perhaps Amanpour] were shoveling loads of stuff like Petraeus=Betray Us into the journalistic fog bank. As long as fellow com-symp Brian Williams is in charge of the newsroom, agitprop and corporation-bashing [NBC managed to have its clueless Anne Thompson completely mistate about a half-dozen facts on the BP spill tonite] will proceed.

When I was in Vietnam, a custom called "fragging" occasionally took true believers of both ends of the spectrum off the roster. Maybe Engel might remember that when he and other creeps [Daniel Ellsberg, the sex pervert child molester comes to mind] when they get into the gunsight range of real patriots.

Why Bob Herbert Represents the NYT's double-digit IQ

Bob Herbert give affirmative action journalism a bad name, but the NYT gives corporate malfeasance a place to hang its hat, all the while hiding behind Baghdad Bob's usual marxist dither. When the NYT goes the route of Newsweek, which shouldn't be long, there will be plenty of forensic evidence on how NYT accomplished its own demise.

• "After weeks of labor tension and 12 hours of suspenseful voting, members of the Newspaper Guild at The Boston Globe narrowly rejected a proposed package of wage and compensation cuts. As a result, the newspaper's owner, The New York Times Company, said it would proceed with its threat to unilaterally impose a 23 percent salary cut."--news story, New York Times, June 9, 2009

• "The treatment of workers by American corporations has been worse--far more treacherous--than most of the population realizes. There was no need for so many men and women to be forced out of their jobs in the downturn known as the great recession. Many of those workers were cashiered for no reason other than outright greed by corporate managers. And that cruel, irresponsible, shortsighted policy has resulted in widespread human suffering and is doing great harm to the economy."--Bob Herbert column, New York Times, July 31, 2010

Higher Taxes Reduce Government Income

Arthur Laffer quotes JFK to this effect.
"Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,

January 1963"

The new Socialist brand of Democrat has no clue of the moral abyss that his leaders are hypocritically leading him into---e.g.:
Just look at Sen. John Kerry's recent yacht brouhaha if you don't believe me. He bought and housed his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich, avoiding some $437,500 in state sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

Howard Metzenbaum, the former Ohio senator and liberal supporter of the death tax, chose to change his official residence to Florida just before he died because Florida does not have an estate tax while Ohio does. Goodness knows what creative devices former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has used to avoid paying taxes.

Laffer bitch-slaps phony "econotards" like Paul Krugboy in this piece, which makes the case JFK was trying to make before his party made a hard-left turn and took a run over the cliff into economic hell.