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!

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.

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:

...by 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.

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
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.

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 Democracy.org 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!

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.

Were Bradley Manning & Daniel Ellsberg Both Sexual Identity Pervs?

Gawker posits the weirdness of Pfc Manning. TNR's Marty Peretz has this interesting turn of phrase in his condemnation of Ellsberg, the psycho perv:

I recognize the importance of Ellsberg's turning. After all, he had been in the small Washington entourage of Robert McNamara and later in the Vietnam circle of Edwin Landsdale. He was an obsessive, of course. And an obsessive on both sides of the issue. The sudden arrival of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and his documents immediately reminded me of Ellsberg, who in very short order also arrived from wherever he was and whatever he was doing to inform us that Assange also reminded him of himself. And, of course, Pfc. Bradley Manning was hovering in the background with his leak of a rocket attack in Afghanistan. While drawing distinctions, Ellsberg relates the two others to himself.

Ellsberg and Manning may be two huge warning signs not to hire sexual deviants. While the Gawker post is only suggestive, I have memories of my time in the State Department when I served with a fellow who was in the Landsdale inner circle in Vietnam and got to become friends with Ellsberg [I am keeping his name anonymous, as he was and in some circles still is a well-known public figure] This highly reliable friend told me he got to know Ellsberg so well that from time to time he would get envelopes with Polaroid photos from Ellsberg, who spent a lot of time in Bangkok and who more than once would send my colleague Polaroid snaps of Danny-boy himself with Thai boys less than ten years old. Ellsberg seemed to be proud of his "conquests," an attitude which the senior USG official related to me with open disgust.

Ellsberg was sort of like those "Streakers" of that era who would run naked across college campuses, including the University of Michigan where I studied from '66 to '69. Proud of his perversion. And an inveterate attention-seeker, as Marty P so subtlely hints at!

Assange also looks as though he might be a gender-conflicted type, but in this case both Ellsberg, whose psychiatrists' records should have been subpoenaed rather than stolen by Nixon plumbers, and Manning who is a run-of-the-mill confused young tranny-in-the-making, as one Gawker phrase speculates, are both evidence of the hazards of letting pervs into the senior levels of the US government. John Foster Dulles is probably laughing with justification as an attention-whore like Ellsberg once more tries to get into the Hollyweird/academia/MSM good graces and maybe get the klieg lights on his sorry self one more time.

And the Demonrats just suck this sort of shit up and call it Hershey bars!

DCCC Whistling Past Its November Next Graveyard?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a convincing argument for why it will retain control of the House by the arcane arithmetic of the inside-the-beltway know-it-alls like Bob Shrum, but one Dem begs to differ:

The DCCC certainly has history on its side, but polls in modern times also have never shown Republicans with as large a lead in generic ballot contests for the House. What's more, though the memo makes a persuasive case on several points, much of its thinking on the Tea Party is happy talk.

The DCCC argues the Tea Party is a huge liability for the GOP because it has resulted in the nomination of extreme candidates who can't win, forced candidates to take radical positions and fueled the presence of some 100 third-party candidacies that will drain support from the GOP nominee. However, Bill Galston, a former deputy domestic policy adviser to President Clinton, begs to differ. He argues in the New Republic that voters more closely identify with the Tea Party than liberals acknowledge, which could mean a surprise in November.

He points to a new survey from the Pew Center that asked voters to position themselves in relation to the two parties. "Voters now place themselves much closer to the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party on this left-right continuum," Mr. Galston writes. "And, startlingly, the electorate places itself a bit closer to the Tea Party movement (which is well to the right of the Republican Party) than to the Democratic Party. All this represents a major shift from five years ago, when mean voters placed themselves exactly halfway between their ideological perceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties."

Galston correctly predicted the Repub victory in 1994 when working in the Clinton WH, but he should also have included the victory of the National League in the All Star Game this year, which always means huge Republican gains in an election year!

Baghdad Bob Gibbs As Stupid as Harry Reid?

A couple weeks back, Harry Reid demonstrated why he should keep his mouth shut. He explained how Ford Motors workers should be grateful for the USG bailout last year. Of course, Ford had managed its business well, and didn't need union jobs to be saved by government intervention---indeed, a bankruptcy might have been better for GM to get them away from their bloated bureaucracy and gigantic mob of union layabouts. Maybe they should emulate Japanese automakers stateside and avoid unions, which are parasitic to a company's profit margins. But yesterday, Obama's clueless oaf of a spokesboy showed how stupid he is by calling out Rush Limbaugh on the issue:

“I’ll let those that sat in the cheap seats a year-and-a-half ago and wanted to walk away” from a milion workers, he continued, “explain to every one of those workers why they made that decision.”

Finally, he wrapped it up: “And then you should ask Mr. Limbaugh — I don’t know what kind of car he drives, but I bet it’s not an F-150.”

The F-150 truck, we should note, is made by Ford, which didn’t get federal rescue funds.

Gibbs shows on a daily basis why Obama is going to be a one-term wonder.

And explaining to the clueless reporters what Rush was actually getting at, which would entail scaling back union-stuffed payrolls through Chapter 11 would be beyond Gibbs ability to explain and the reporters' ability to comprehend.
UPDATE: RUSH responds:

“Gibbs launched into me. You know, folks, I don’t like talking about myself. You are well aware of this. I find it, with this regime, next to impossible. They’re always out attacking me, and Gibbs did yesterday on my remarks about the Obama Volt. We’re going to bury Gibbs today. “
“So Robert Gibbs says ‘Rush Limbaugh and others wanted to walk away.’ We didn’t want to walk away. In fact, I was spokesman for General Motors at the time Obama took over the company. You all remember. They were giving us cars every month — a different kind of car, General Motors products to test drive — and we were driving them around and recommending them.”
“The domestic automobile manufacturers have been forced to design and make cars that fewer and fewer people wanted because the environmentalist wackos had taken control of the regulatory agencies at the federal government — and now, what does Gibbs do? To go out and defend the administration’s car companies, you have to come out and attack me.”
“So you want to buy a Volt, you go right ahead. I am not trying to discourage sales of the product. I’m not trying to be harmful at all, except to this administration. I am trying to expose this administration for what it is and who they are.”
“The Chevrolet Volt is a political statement. When President Obama is driving around in a limousine that has every protection and has the same weight that his current gasoline-powered limousine has and when it’s powered by a battery, then I’ll think about it.”

Gibbs stinks up the entire WH message, so if Obama takes Rush's advice, BHO should bury him. And BHO should get a limo that runs on batteries, or else he remains Stephen Q. Urkel in my POV.

NYT Flubs Becoming Chronic

James Taranto points out the absolute hypocrisy and DNC-controlled bias of The Newspaper of Discord rapidly losing paid circulation through its complete subservience to one party, the Crime Spree called the Democrat Party.

Here's the lead paragraph of a New York Times story from Washington:
S

enate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, in a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party's leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments ahead of November's midterm elections.

But when you read the story, you find out that the GOP blocked the bill because the Democrats refused to consider amendments on topics "including the estate tax, nuclear loan guarantees, border security and the expiring Bush tax cuts":
Senator George LeMieux, Republican of Florida, who helped draft the bill, said Democrats had taken a bipartisan measure and created a partisan fight over it.

"This small-business bill should pass, and it should pass with relevant amendments," Mr. LeMieux said. "Before I am a Republican, I am a Floridian and an American, and this bill is good for our country."

With tensions running high, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, noted that "if just one" Republican had voted with the Democrats--a pointed reference to Mr. LeMieux--the bill would move forward.
Mr. LeMieux shot back, "Half the truth is no truth at all."
LeMieux has a point. The claim in the lead of the Times story that Republican leaders are "fiercely determined . . . to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments ahead of November's midterm elections" may or may not be true, but it certainly isn't proved by anything in this story.

LeMieux is the Crist-appointed Senator who has since rejected his fallen crony and is doing a better job in some ways than Mel Martinez, who inexplicably sought early retirement, showed in four years in the Senate. LeMieux is bad for offshore oil drilling, but otherwise a capable Senator.

Hopefully, Mario Rubio will be much better!

Some JournoList.serv members aren't TOTAL LEFTIST HACKS & actually appreciate Rush

The Daily Caller is Tucker Carlson's revenge on Jon Stewart, as he effectively defangs Journolist just as Andrew Breitbart declawed the criminal ACORN operation. One example of an exception to the usual nasty third-rate mindset of the 400 Dwarfs is singled out by DCaller:

...when Sarah Spitz, a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW, fantasized aloud about watching Rush Limbaugh’s “eyes bug out” if he had a heart attack in front of her (Spitz apologized following TheDC’s reporting on the incident), Toobin defended Limbaugh.

“Rush cannot be replaced. What people miss about Rush is that he is just astonishingly good as a broadcaster. He is compelling, funny, entertaining. I haven’t heard Thompson often, but he’s probably pretty lame. Ingraham is ok. I never listen to Hannity on the radio. But Rush is the man,” he said.

On another occasion, Toobin warned against likening Tea Partiers to Nazis: “For what it’s worth, I think it’s better to stay away from any use of the Nazis in discussions of contemporary politics. I know you weren’t saying conservatives-are-Nazis, but people just shut down when they hear that analogy drawn.”

There were other examples, and Toobin came across as one of the least caustic members of the list.

My daughter had introduced me to Jon Stewart whom I liked because he occasionally took shots at corrupt Dems and did have some interesting book author interviews---even of Republican and Conservative authors. But I only got interested in Rush after a distinguished PhD specialist in social sciences mentioned that Limbaugh was incredible, even prophetic, in his analysis of how the media would react in a given political situation. I started listening and found that Toobin was spot-on, indeed, compared to Rush, guys like Air America's Franken and even Fred Thompson, whom I somewhat liked, came across as very unprepared, and in Franken's case, catastrophically unfunny. Worse than Chevy Chase on his 29-day stint as a late-night talk show host in the early nineties.

Good to see that the usual JournoList agitprop from creeps like Ambinder and the Kleins, including the freak from Time Inc. who blames American stupidity for not accepting Obama's tax-and-spend socialism, are leavened with occasional outbursts of truth and honesty

BP Spill Huge Hype-Fest

The MSM hyped the tragic aspects of the BP oil leak as "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced," [OOPS, that was the ZERO, AKA POTUS
#44]. Of course, no one really listens to Obama any more except Joy Behar and her intellectual equals [down there at the 80 IQ level].

The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.
Well, Limbaugh has a point. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.

Time Mag's article linked above does more than ungraciously give Rush Limbaugh credit for being right when everyone else was howling at the moon, it basically pulls the rug out from under the pious frauds like Anderson Cooper and Brian Williams who've been whining adenoidally for months about an ecological Armageddon. Whereas honest scientists have a different perspective:

scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year. The disappearance of more than 2,000 sq. mi. of coastal Louisiana over the past century has been a true national tragedy, ravaging a unique wilderness, threatening the bayou way of life and leaving communities like New Orleans extremely vulnerable to hurricanes from the Gulf. And while much of the erosion has been caused by the re-engineering of the Mississippi River — which no longer deposits much sediment at the bottom of its Delta — quite a bit has been caused by the oil and gas industry, which gouged 8,000 miles of canals and pipelines through coastal wetlands. But the spill isn't making that problem much worse. Coastal scientist Paul Kemp, a former Louisiana State University professor who is now a National Audubon Society vice president, compares the impact of the spill on the vanishing marshes to "a sunburn on a cancer patient."

Back to Katrina, and the ultimate cause of the disaster that hit the Big Easy. Time Mag eventually discovered that after two years of investigative journalism [remember what that used to be?], FEMA was the fall guy and the real villain was the US Corps of Engineers. Of course, anyone familiar with New Orleans politics and the crooked Democratic crime wave {Cong. Jefferson's "cold cash," anyone?] that has been running the sub-sealevel disaster waiting to happen knows that the Corps was suborned by the crooked Dem pols, over decades of kickbacks and subletting projects to their cronies, that eventually made the city vulnerable.

It was the discredited MSM, the same that refused to investigate a completely inadequate Dem candidate in '08, which in '05 made the Bush Administration the Fall Guy, instead of the Democrat crooks and liars who ran the city for nearly a century.

Obama Disapproval Three Points Higher than Approval

No comments :

FSB to become new KGB: Minority Report Put Into Action?

I have Deputized Tiger-Boy Putin as My Living Representative

Dmitri Medvedev has decided to INCREASE the powers of the Soviet-style secret police, the FSB, because of criticism of its anti-terrorism efforts!!! But no, not to increase the FSB's effectiveness against terrorists, but to quash and quell critics of its own incompetence!!! Back to Stalin, who may represent the true spirit of Russia after all. Except now, the FSB's chief target are the Communists, it would seem!

"Officers of law enforcement agencies have long talked about the necessity of switching from investigating crimes to their prevention," Mikhail Margelov, the Kremlin-connected head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russian parliament, said in a statement. "The amendments do not turn FSB into a new edition of once-almighty KGB but protect Russian citizens from outrages by men in uniform."
Some of the law's articles, including ones that toughen control over media for "extremist statements" and allow FSB to publish warnings in the press, were removed or toned down following severe criticism from opposition and even Kremlin loyalists.
However, a lawmaker with the Communist party that remains the largest opposition force in Russia's rubber-stamp parliament, said the amendments did not change the law's repressive character.
"Despite all the promises to correct the most odious articles, by the second reading nothing has been changed in the text," Viktor Ilykhin told The Associated Press.
A Kremlin loyalist from a nationalist party praised the law for its "preventative measures."
"This is not a repressive law," Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the nationalist Liberal Democratic party, told Gazeta.ru online daily. "We're only talking about preventive measures."
Kremlin critics say, however, that the new measures could be used to violate the rights of opposition, and its obscure wording would leave the legislation open to interpretation.
"It's an ugly law with obscure formulas," independent political analyst Yulia Latynina told AP. "In case a drunken FSB officer is shooting at you, and there have been many such cases, you might end up getting jailed for 15 days for merely trying to escape."
The opposition has accused the Kremlin of turning Russia into a Soviet-style police state, and many Russians say they have experienced or fear abuse at the hands of FSB officers. Government critics say corruption among the FSB and other agencies stifles business activity and stunts the economy.
Some rights activists say the law simply legalizes practices FSB officers have been using for years.
"I don't think it adds anything to what FSB has been doing without any laws," former Soviet dissident and head of the Moscow Helsinki group Lyudmila Alexeyeva told AP. "But it's very sad when a law approves the outrage of such a dangerous service as FSB."
The legislation continues a trend under former President Vladimir Putin, blamed by the opposition and the West for rolling back Russia's democratic reforms of the 1990s. The former KGB officer and FSB head allowed the security services to regain power and influence at the expense of Russia's democratic institutions.

Like the film Minority Report, which describes a gnostic government's pre-emptive arrests for crimes not yet committed, it seems that in the new Russia, the law comes from God's lips to Putin's ear!

Real Clear Poll: Americans Disapprove of Zero by 48-45%

No comments :

Krugman Lies on NYT Op-Ed Page [This Time on Climate-Warming Hoax Fraud

He used to be Rove, but now he's Rahm-bo!

James Taranto thrashes phony Nobel, ex-Enron Advisor Paul Krugboy, and from the redness of Pauly-boy's bottom, it appears that no more heat need be applied to this fake perfesser's feet.

Paul Krugman delivers the good news that 2010 is "the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died." Needless to say, he thinks this is bad news, but that's not why we're highlighting his column in yesterday's New York Times. Instead, it is for this passage:

You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers--allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of "Climategate," and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media

.
Now, it would be one thing for Krugman to argue--wrongly, in our opinion--that the "supposedly damning e-mail messages of 'Climategate' " were not actually damning. But no one has denied that they are genuine. Krugman's description of them--and every other accusation "leveled against climate researchers"--as "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action" is flatly false.

Read the rest of Taranto's emasculation of this pathetic thimblewit, and remember the good news that the NYT is hemorrhaging paid circulation by about 8-9% per year---pretty soon Krugboy and Chuckie Blow & other flatulent a$$holes on the Op-Ed page will have to look elsewhere to peddle their poisoned pablum---including the unctious ninny, David Brooks, a personification of how spectacularly silly this self-described "center-right" person can be when he allows us for one moment to see his inner confusion.