The GOP’s curious allegiance to tax cuts is clouding its judgment about enacting entitlement reform.
Maybe President Obama never would, or could, have delivered enough congressional Democrats to pass a “grand bargain” to tame the long-term deficit. But as the prospects for a big deal dwindle, a combination of ideological rigidity and political hubris is preventing Republicans from putting him to that test.
The ideological excess concerns taxes. House Speaker John Boehner this week insisted, “The American people understand that tax hikes destroy jobs.” In fact, there is simply no evidence that every tax cut creates jobs or that every tax increase destroys them.
That’s a big lesson of the past three decades. In 1981, President Reagan massively cut taxes with his supply-side reductions in income-tax rates. Still sluggish at first, the economy eventually soared for the remainder of his presidency. By the fourth year after Reagan signed the tax cut, the economy had created 6.3 million new jobs (an increase of 6.8 percent); eight years on, the economy had created 16.5 million new jobs, up 18 percent.
Sounds like a pretty good case for tax cuts. But the economy produced even more jobs after President Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993. Four years after Clinton’s tax increase—which Republican opponents at the time denounced as a certain job-killer—the economy had produced 11.8 million new jobs, an increase of nearly 11 percent. Eight years after the tax increase, the economy had added 20.6 million jobs, up 18.6 percent. Measured in both absolute and percentage terms, the economy produced more jobs after Clinton raised taxes than after Reagan cut them.
Then, after President George W. Bush’s massive 2001 tax cut, the economy recorded its most dismal decade for job creation since the Great Depression. Eight years after Bush signed his cut (and added another round of reductions in 2003), nearly 1.6 million fewer Americans were at work. And although the median income for average families rose by about 12 percent in the eight years after both the Reagan tax cuts and the Clinton tax increase, income for average families declined almost $1,400 (or 2.7 percent) in the equivalent period after Bush signed his reductions.
If that experience doesn’t demolish the idea that tax cuts always produce prosperity, consider more recent history. The big deal that Obama and congressional Republicans reached in late 2010 was to extend the Bush tax cuts through 2012—and to turbocharge them with a new payroll-tax reduction. Despite those incentives, job growth has collapsed this year.
Many other factors (led by rising gas prices) contributed to this slowdown. But other factors always affect the economy. The message is that all of those other factors usually matter more than tax policy does. In the past three decades, job growth has thrived after tax cuts and after tax increases, and it has stagnated after tax cuts. If there’s a pattern, it’s that tax policy typically isn’t the decisive factor in driving a machine as complex as the U.S. economy.
Given those precedents, tax policy ought to be seen not as the secret to growth but, more modestly, as one part of the fiscal policy toolbox. And on that front, the case against including some revenue in a comprehensive deficit-reduction package is even weaker. Federal revenue, as a share of the overall economy, is at its lowest level since 1950. That was not only before Medicare and Medicaid, but also before the interstate highway system. Especially as our society ages, Washington will need significantly more revenue than that to support even the minimal level of government that most Americans will accept.
Here’s where the hubris comes in. Republicans are right that our graying society won’t stabilize its finances without controlling entitlement spending, particularly for Medicare. But they are vastly overestimating their ability to impose such changes without bipartisan cover.
In these negotiations, Obama has belatedly but beneficially acknowledged that Democrats cannot preserve funding for public investments such as education and research if entitlements swallow the budget. Republicans want deeper cuts than he has offered and are betting that the 2012 results will allow them to impose edgier ideas such as converting Medicare into a premium-support, or voucher, program. But even if Republicans do win control of Congress and the White House next year, they would likely find it impossible to persuade their majorities to approve big entitlement reform on a party-line basis—as Bush discovered when his Social Security restructuring plan failed to reach a floor vote in either chamber despite unified GOP control in 2005.
“If we win the next election … Democrats will have no incentive to compromise on entitlement reform whatsoever, and we’ll pay the full price,” veteran GOP lobbyist Vin Weber warns.
Obama’s willingness to provide a heat shield (and corral some Democratic votes) offers the GOP a historic opportunity to lock in necessary changes to the social-safety net that would be more sustainable precisely because they are bipartisan. But the Republicans will deny themselves—and the country—that chance if they maintain an ossified opposition to taxes that prizes ideology over experience.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Government spending is one giant bluff.
The Great Charade
The spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with.
There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.
Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.
On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.
Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.
When the 44th president took office, he made a decision that it was time for the already unsustainable levels of government spending finally to break the bounds of reality and frolic and gambol in the magical fairy kingdom of Spendaholica: This year, the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, a ratio that is unprecedented. Barack Obama would like this to be, as they say, “the new normal” — at least until that 43 cents creeps up a nickel or so, and the United States government is spending twice as much as it takes in, year in, year out, now and forever. If the Republicans refuse to go along with that, well, then the negotiations will collapse and, as he told Scott Pelley on CBS the other night, Gran’ma gets it. That monthly Social Security check? Fuhgeddabouddit. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” declared the president. “Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
But hang on. I thought the Social Security checks came out of the famous “Social Security trust fund,” whose “trustees” assure us there’s currently $2.6 trillion in there. Which should be enough for the August 3rd check run, shouldn’t it? Golly, to listen to the president, you’d almost get the impression that, by the time you saw the padlock off the old Social Security lockbox, there’s nothing in there but a yellowing IOU and a couple of moths. Indeed, to listen to Obama, one might easily conclude that the whole rotten, stinking edifice of federal government is an accounting trick. And that can’t possibly be so, can it?
For the Most Gifted Orator in Human History, the president these days speaks largely in clichés, most of which he doesn’t seem to be quite on top of. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” he sternly reprimanded the GOP’s Eric Cantor. Usually, if you’re bluffing, the trick is not to announce it upfront. But, in fact, in his threat to have Granny eating dog food by Labor Day, Obama was calling his own bluff. The giant bluff against the future that is government spending.
How many of “the wealthy” do you require to cover a one-and-a-half trillion-dollar shortfall every single year? When you need this big a fix, there aren’t enough people to stick it to. “We are not broke,” insists Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and bespoke Communist. “We were robbed, we were robbed. And somebody has our money!”
The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his “green jobs” racket. How’s the “green jobs” scene in your town? Going gangbusters, is it? Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. By that, I don’t mean that an American government that raises $2 trillion but spends $4 trillion has outspent America, but that it’s outspent the planet. In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I discuss a study published last year by John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin. Its very title is a testament to where we’re headed:
“Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money In The World — And At What Cost?”
The authors’ answer is yes, technically, there is enough money in the world — in the sense that, on current projections, by 2020 all it will take to finance the government of the United States is for the rest of the planet to be willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. Which Kitchen and Chinn say is technically doable. Yeah. In the same sense that me dating Scarlett Johansson is technically doable.
Unfortunately, neither Scarlett nor the rest of the planet is willing to do it. It’s not 2020 and we’re not yet asking the rest of the planet for a fifth of its GDP. But already the world is imposing its own debt ceiling. Most of the debt issued by the Treasury so far this year has been borrowed from the Federal Reserve. That adds another absurd wrinkle to the D.C. charade: Washington is negotiating with itself over how much money to lend itself.
Meanwhile, the World’s Greatest Orator bemoans the “intransigence” of Republicans. Okay, what’s your plan? Give us one actual program you’re willing to cut, right now. Oh, don’t worry, says Barack Obluffer. To demonstrate how serious he is, he’s offered to put on the table for fiscal year 2012 spending cuts of (stand well back now) $2 billion. That would be a lot in, say, Iceland or even Australia. Once upon a time it would have been a lot even in Washington. But today $2 billion is what the Brokest Nation in History borrows every ten hours. In other words, in less time than he spends sitting across the table negotiating his $2 billion cut, he’s already borrowed it all back. A negotiation with Obama is literally not worth the time.
In order to fund Obamacare and the other opiates of Big Government dependency, the feds need to take 25 percent of GDP, now and forever: The “new normal.” It can’t be done. Look around you. The new normal’s already here: flatline jobs market, negative equity, the dead-parrot economy. What comes next will be profoundly abnormal. His name was Obamandias, King of Kings. Look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.
Do they still teach Shelley in high school? Or just the “diversity manual” about “social justice” the Omaha Public Schools paid for with $130,000 of “stimulus” funding?
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2011 Mark Steyn.
The spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with.
There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.
Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.
On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.
Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.
When the 44th president took office, he made a decision that it was time for the already unsustainable levels of government spending finally to break the bounds of reality and frolic and gambol in the magical fairy kingdom of Spendaholica: This year, the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, a ratio that is unprecedented. Barack Obama would like this to be, as they say, “the new normal” — at least until that 43 cents creeps up a nickel or so, and the United States government is spending twice as much as it takes in, year in, year out, now and forever. If the Republicans refuse to go along with that, well, then the negotiations will collapse and, as he told Scott Pelley on CBS the other night, Gran’ma gets it. That monthly Social Security check? Fuhgeddabouddit. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” declared the president. “Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
But hang on. I thought the Social Security checks came out of the famous “Social Security trust fund,” whose “trustees” assure us there’s currently $2.6 trillion in there. Which should be enough for the August 3rd check run, shouldn’t it? Golly, to listen to the president, you’d almost get the impression that, by the time you saw the padlock off the old Social Security lockbox, there’s nothing in there but a yellowing IOU and a couple of moths. Indeed, to listen to Obama, one might easily conclude that the whole rotten, stinking edifice of federal government is an accounting trick. And that can’t possibly be so, can it?
For the Most Gifted Orator in Human History, the president these days speaks largely in clichés, most of which he doesn’t seem to be quite on top of. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” he sternly reprimanded the GOP’s Eric Cantor. Usually, if you’re bluffing, the trick is not to announce it upfront. But, in fact, in his threat to have Granny eating dog food by Labor Day, Obama was calling his own bluff. The giant bluff against the future that is government spending.
How many of “the wealthy” do you require to cover a one-and-a-half trillion-dollar shortfall every single year? When you need this big a fix, there aren’t enough people to stick it to. “We are not broke,” insists Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and bespoke Communist. “We were robbed, we were robbed. And somebody has our money!”
The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his “green jobs” racket. How’s the “green jobs” scene in your town? Going gangbusters, is it? Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. By that, I don’t mean that an American government that raises $2 trillion but spends $4 trillion has outspent America, but that it’s outspent the planet. In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I discuss a study published last year by John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin. Its very title is a testament to where we’re headed:
“Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money In The World — And At What Cost?”
The authors’ answer is yes, technically, there is enough money in the world — in the sense that, on current projections, by 2020 all it will take to finance the government of the United States is for the rest of the planet to be willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. Which Kitchen and Chinn say is technically doable. Yeah. In the same sense that me dating Scarlett Johansson is technically doable.
Unfortunately, neither Scarlett nor the rest of the planet is willing to do it. It’s not 2020 and we’re not yet asking the rest of the planet for a fifth of its GDP. But already the world is imposing its own debt ceiling. Most of the debt issued by the Treasury so far this year has been borrowed from the Federal Reserve. That adds another absurd wrinkle to the D.C. charade: Washington is negotiating with itself over how much money to lend itself.
Meanwhile, the World’s Greatest Orator bemoans the “intransigence” of Republicans. Okay, what’s your plan? Give us one actual program you’re willing to cut, right now. Oh, don’t worry, says Barack Obluffer. To demonstrate how serious he is, he’s offered to put on the table for fiscal year 2012 spending cuts of (stand well back now) $2 billion. That would be a lot in, say, Iceland or even Australia. Once upon a time it would have been a lot even in Washington. But today $2 billion is what the Brokest Nation in History borrows every ten hours. In other words, in less time than he spends sitting across the table negotiating his $2 billion cut, he’s already borrowed it all back. A negotiation with Obama is literally not worth the time.
In order to fund Obamacare and the other opiates of Big Government dependency, the feds need to take 25 percent of GDP, now and forever: The “new normal.” It can’t be done. Look around you. The new normal’s already here: flatline jobs market, negative equity, the dead-parrot economy. What comes next will be profoundly abnormal. His name was Obamandias, King of Kings. Look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.
Do they still teach Shelley in high school? Or just the “diversity manual” about “social justice” the Omaha Public Schools paid for with $130,000 of “stimulus” funding?
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2011 Mark Steyn.
American Left Infiltrating Arab Spring
According to "Mideast Youth" (http://www.mideastyouth.com/)in a recently published article entitled "Human rights advocates attacked by Israeli forces after detention at airport", the following accusation appeared.
Palestinians in the “Welcome to Palestine” coalition condemn in the strongest possible terms the attack by Israeli forces on dozens of detained human rights activists. One of those detained reported (before his phone was apparently removed) how 32 people were held together in one room and then attacked, forcefully handcuffed and dragged into separate transfer vehicles. They were then forcefully transferred to the Ramle detention facility by the forces of the apartheid regime.
All of this from an organization upset that while waiting for a plane to go and overthrow the Israeli government instead were apprehended! Cry me a freakin' river you Code Pink fruitcakes!
CR Original
Palestinians in the “Welcome to Palestine” coalition condemn in the strongest possible terms the attack by Israeli forces on dozens of detained human rights activists. One of those detained reported (before his phone was apparently removed) how 32 people were held together in one room and then attacked, forcefully handcuffed and dragged into separate transfer vehicles. They were then forcefully transferred to the Ramle detention facility by the forces of the apartheid regime.
All of this from an organization upset that while waiting for a plane to go and overthrow the Israeli government instead were apprehended! Cry me a freakin' river you Code Pink fruitcakes!
CR Original
Rep. Tom McClintock: Obama Rendering the Constitution Meaningless
“The unprovoked attack on Libya was not authorized by this Congress and it’s accordingly unconstitutional and illegal.”
“If this act is allowed to stand unchallenged, it means that the checks and balances painstakingly built into the Constitution on the supreme question of war and peace have been rendered meaningless.”
“Once we’ve attacked another country without provocation, we have created an agreed belligerent that now has cause to pursue that war, regardless of what the Congress later decides. That’s why this president is so dangerous. That’s why the president’s actions are so devastating to our very form of government. And that’s why we need to speak clearly and unequivocally….”
Video, “Tom McClintock ‘That’s Why This President Is So Dangerous,’” July 7, 2011
Also shown in Noisy Room and New Zeal.
More on the Libyan aggression and the anti-American, UN-ista “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine:
http://gulagbound.com/tag/responsibility-to-protect-globalism/
“If this act is allowed to stand unchallenged, it means that the checks and balances painstakingly built into the Constitution on the supreme question of war and peace have been rendered meaningless.”
“Once we’ve attacked another country without provocation, we have created an agreed belligerent that now has cause to pursue that war, regardless of what the Congress later decides. That’s why this president is so dangerous. That’s why the president’s actions are so devastating to our very form of government. And that’s why we need to speak clearly and unequivocally….”
Video, “Tom McClintock ‘That’s Why This President Is So Dangerous,’” July 7, 2011
Also shown in Noisy Room and New Zeal.
More on the Libyan aggression and the anti-American, UN-ista “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine:
http://gulagbound.com/tag/responsibility-to-protect-globalism/
Unconstitutional DHS Actions at New Level
Unconstitutional DHS Actions at New Level: VIPR Exercizes ‘Dominate, Intimidate, Control’ July 16, 2011, 7:56 am By Arlen Williams
Immediately after we saw the new nuke-and-porn-you or feel-you-up policy of the TSA under the Obama/Napolitano DHS, we published “Airline Flight, Nude Scanning, Groping, Terrorism & Operant Conditioning.” It identified this unnecessary and constitutionally unwarranted practice as a classic B.F. Skinner-style operation of “behavior modification” on the People of the United States of America.
But beyond outward behavior, it is meant to cast a spell over us — to break down our internal sense of popular sovereignty and to make us believe on a subliminal level that we are subject to government, as we effectively prove that point to ourselves by obeying and being sharply humiliated, or by acceding our freedom to travel by air.
Doug Book of the Coach is Right blog has now delineated further psyops and commando ops which condition both the practitioner and the populace in the art of Marxist/fascist authoritarianism. Administratively, they are further steps taken in the nationalizing and militarizing of our police forces.
We excerpt but suggest the entire article, “Napolitano’s V.I.P.R. Vows to ‘Dominate, Intimidate, and Control’ the American People.”
It is the TSA’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response task force — or VIPR. Organized into mobile swat teams,VIPR has executed some 8,000 highly public searches in the past 12 months.
And what meaningful operations they have been.
In a Georgia Amtrac station,VIPR personnel “patted down”all travelers,children and adults,both entering AND LEAVING the station.
In Santa Fe,New Mexico,teams of VIPR agents were assigned to conduct searches at a high school prom.
In Texas,agents thoroughly “…searched all private and commercial vehicles entering and exiting… ”the port of Brownsville. EACH AND EVERY VEHICLE was searched even though the task force was not responding to any known or reported threat!
In April, VIPR staged a raid at a Tampa bus station. Once again,the teams were not responding to any particular threat. Rather, Homeland Security official Gary Milano said the purpose of the exercise was to “…invent the wheel in advance, in case we have to, if there is ever specific intelligence requiring us to be here.”
And two months later, VIPR targeted 5,000 square miles bordering West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. Four hundred agents representing 70 federal agencies appeared in Black Hawk helicopters, small planes and Coast Guard craft. Once again this was a “training exercise.” As usual, no threat had been suspected or reported. TSA official Michael Cleveland stated, “…the purpose of the exercise was to have a visible presence and let people know we’re out here. IT CAN BE A DETERRENT.”
But who is being deterred, intimidated and threatened by these unnecessary shows of force — certainly not terrorists.
“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government… Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart,” said Justice Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg.
(this part continued HERE)
Surely by now, lawsuits against the DHS’ unreasonable searches and seizures can be compiled. Anyone besides Jesse Ventura?
And by now there should be a headcount in Congress, of those who are interested in carrying out their Oath of Office, by upholding the U.S. Constitution in this grave matter. Mr. Book suggests we communicate with them by means of contactingthecongress.org. That is necessary, but we must also set about replacing most of them, with haste.
We suggest putting all office holders and candidates to the test with the three Sovereignty Now questions, drafted in 2010.
Immediately after we saw the new nuke-and-porn-you or feel-you-up policy of the TSA under the Obama/Napolitano DHS, we published “Airline Flight, Nude Scanning, Groping, Terrorism & Operant Conditioning.” It identified this unnecessary and constitutionally unwarranted practice as a classic B.F. Skinner-style operation of “behavior modification” on the People of the United States of America.
But beyond outward behavior, it is meant to cast a spell over us — to break down our internal sense of popular sovereignty and to make us believe on a subliminal level that we are subject to government, as we effectively prove that point to ourselves by obeying and being sharply humiliated, or by acceding our freedom to travel by air.
Doug Book of the Coach is Right blog has now delineated further psyops and commando ops which condition both the practitioner and the populace in the art of Marxist/fascist authoritarianism. Administratively, they are further steps taken in the nationalizing and militarizing of our police forces.
We excerpt but suggest the entire article, “Napolitano’s V.I.P.R. Vows to ‘Dominate, Intimidate, and Control’ the American People.”
It is the TSA’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response task force — or VIPR. Organized into mobile swat teams,VIPR has executed some 8,000 highly public searches in the past 12 months.
And what meaningful operations they have been.
In a Georgia Amtrac station,VIPR personnel “patted down”all travelers,children and adults,both entering AND LEAVING the station.
In Santa Fe,New Mexico,teams of VIPR agents were assigned to conduct searches at a high school prom.
In Texas,agents thoroughly “…searched all private and commercial vehicles entering and exiting… ”the port of Brownsville. EACH AND EVERY VEHICLE was searched even though the task force was not responding to any known or reported threat!
In April, VIPR staged a raid at a Tampa bus station. Once again,the teams were not responding to any particular threat. Rather, Homeland Security official Gary Milano said the purpose of the exercise was to “…invent the wheel in advance, in case we have to, if there is ever specific intelligence requiring us to be here.”
And two months later, VIPR targeted 5,000 square miles bordering West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. Four hundred agents representing 70 federal agencies appeared in Black Hawk helicopters, small planes and Coast Guard craft. Once again this was a “training exercise.” As usual, no threat had been suspected or reported. TSA official Michael Cleveland stated, “…the purpose of the exercise was to have a visible presence and let people know we’re out here. IT CAN BE A DETERRENT.”
But who is being deterred, intimidated and threatened by these unnecessary shows of force — certainly not terrorists.
“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government… Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart,” said Justice Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg.
(this part continued HERE)
Surely by now, lawsuits against the DHS’ unreasonable searches and seizures can be compiled. Anyone besides Jesse Ventura?
And by now there should be a headcount in Congress, of those who are interested in carrying out their Oath of Office, by upholding the U.S. Constitution in this grave matter. Mr. Book suggests we communicate with them by means of contactingthecongress.org. That is necessary, but we must also set about replacing most of them, with haste.
We suggest putting all office holders and candidates to the test with the three Sovereignty Now questions, drafted in 2010.
Libs protest Obama at Chicago campaign HQ
Video: Libs protest Obama at Chicago campaign HQ
A group of liberals calling themselves the Progressive Change Campaign Committee protested outside the Barack Obama campaign headquarters in downtown Chicago this afternoon. They say they have 200,000 signed pledges from other libs declaring they won't contribute cash or volunteer for the 2012 Cult of Change if the president cuts Medicare or Social Security benefits.
WLS-AM Chicago has the video:
The station says the protest was comprised volunteers and contributors to the 2008 Obama campaign.
Keep it up, folks, keep it up.
A group of liberals calling themselves the Progressive Change Campaign Committee protested outside the Barack Obama campaign headquarters in downtown Chicago this afternoon. They say they have 200,000 signed pledges from other libs declaring they won't contribute cash or volunteer for the 2012 Cult of Change if the president cuts Medicare or Social Security benefits.
WLS-AM Chicago has the video:
The station says the protest was comprised volunteers and contributors to the 2008 Obama campaign.
Keep it up, folks, keep it up.
“The Undefeated” Roars to Big Opening Day… Theaters Sell Out From Atlanta to Orange County
“The Undefeated” Roars to Big Opening Day… Theaters Sell Out From Atlanta to Orange County
The much anticipated Sarah Palin documentary, “The Undefeated”, which chronicles Sarah Palin’s rise from mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to national prominence, will play exclusively in AMC Theatres starting today. You can vote for the movie to play in your town at The Undefeated website.
The Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” opened to a huge opening day. They are selling out from Atlanta to Orange County.
Opens Friday, July 15th!
Grapevine, TX
Houston, TX
Highlands Ranch, CO
Indianapolis, IN
Independence, MO
Kennesaw, GA
Oklahoma, OK
Orange, CA
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Reserve Your Seats Now!
There are several reports that the audiences are standing and cheering in the theaters.
Conservatives 4 Palin reported:
Here’s a nice round-up of The Undefeated tweets put together by Josh Painter over at Texans for Sarah Palin.
Theater manager in Phoenix reports “Only Harry Potter beating ‘The Undefeated’…
Atlanta, GA ‘The Undefeated’ is Number 1 in theater out performering ‘Transformers’…
4pm showing of ‘The Undefeated’ ends with five minute standing ovation in Atlanta!
Atlanta – 7pm showing of ‘The Undefeated’ sold out 3 hours in advance!
“The #Undefeated” 4pm showing in #OrangeCounty is packed full except for the “stiff neck seats” that nobody wants ever.
The Undefeated is Number 1 in #Atlanta #GA out performing Transformers
AMC Ahwatukee theatre mgr told me they sold so many tickets for #Undefeated that they had to move it to a bigger screen!
Undefeated sold out 7:10 and 10:04 showings in Kennesaw. #1 movie in this theater tonight!
People in the theater CHEERED when they saw Palin at the tea party rally.
Kenesaw GA 3 showings sold out!!
PalinUndefeated attitude is spreading like wild fire. Watch the Dems start eating themselves
How come nobody in the MSM is RTing that @PalinUndefeated is selling out and getting standing Os?! Aren’t they “objective” RTers?!?
Full House at Universal Cineplex Orlando, FL for ‘The Undefeated’!
MSM – Where are the “empty theaters” now?
just got back from the movie. My 3 skeptics will now be a part of Sarah’s Army.
People around me are saying, “WOW” about the frivolous ethics complaints. They didn’t know.
Houston showing is almost full except for the lower 2 rows.
Audience applauding Sarah’s inaugural address in #Undefeated in Kennesaw!
Drove 8 Hours To See The #Undefeated! Very Well Made, Exhilarating & Inspirational
Watch for a major media meltdown if this continues.
Mark Levin interviewed director Steve Bannon here.
The much anticipated Sarah Palin documentary, “The Undefeated”, which chronicles Sarah Palin’s rise from mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to national prominence, will play exclusively in AMC Theatres starting today. You can vote for the movie to play in your town at The Undefeated website.
Opens Friday, July 15th!
Grapevine, TX
Houston, TX
Highlands Ranch, CO
Indianapolis, IN
Independence, MO
Kennesaw, GA
Oklahoma, OK
Orange, CA
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Reserve Your Seats Now!
There are several reports that the audiences are standing and cheering in the theaters.
Conservatives 4 Palin reported:
Here’s a nice round-up of The Undefeated tweets put together by Josh Painter over at Texans for Sarah Palin.
Theater manager in Phoenix reports “Only Harry Potter beating ‘The Undefeated’…
Atlanta, GA ‘The Undefeated’ is Number 1 in theater out performering ‘Transformers’…
4pm showing of ‘The Undefeated’ ends with five minute standing ovation in Atlanta!
Atlanta – 7pm showing of ‘The Undefeated’ sold out 3 hours in advance!
“The #Undefeated” 4pm showing in #OrangeCounty is packed full except for the “stiff neck seats” that nobody wants ever.
The Undefeated is Number 1 in #Atlanta #GA out performing Transformers
AMC Ahwatukee theatre mgr told me they sold so many tickets for #Undefeated that they had to move it to a bigger screen!
Undefeated sold out 7:10 and 10:04 showings in Kennesaw. #1 movie in this theater tonight!
People in the theater CHEERED when they saw Palin at the tea party rally.
Kenesaw GA 3 showings sold out!!
PalinUndefeated attitude is spreading like wild fire. Watch the Dems start eating themselves
How come nobody in the MSM is RTing that @PalinUndefeated is selling out and getting standing Os?! Aren’t they “objective” RTers?!?
Full House at Universal Cineplex Orlando, FL for ‘The Undefeated’!
MSM – Where are the “empty theaters” now?
just got back from the movie. My 3 skeptics will now be a part of Sarah’s Army.
People around me are saying, “WOW” about the frivolous ethics complaints. They didn’t know.
Houston showing is almost full except for the lower 2 rows.
Audience applauding Sarah’s inaugural address in #Undefeated in Kennesaw!
Drove 8 Hours To See The #Undefeated! Very Well Made, Exhilarating & Inspirational
Watch for a major media meltdown if this continues.
Mark Levin interviewed director Steve Bannon here.
GOP Votes To Defund EPA On Light Bulb Enforcement
Friendly persuasion meets Leverage!
Funny how this news was lost in the shuffle Friday, and I had to go to a British newspaper to find out
Republicans claimed to have struck a blow for freedom on Friday when the House of Representatives voted to strip all funding from government programmes promoting energy-saving lightbulbs.
The measure, brought as an amendment to an energy spending bill by the Texas Republican Michael Burgess, bars the federal government from using any funds to enforce improved lighting efficiency standards.
In his remarks, Burgess cast the conservation of the old-fashioned 100 watt lightbulb as a burning issue of personal freedom.
“The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of lightbulb to use at home. It is our right to choose,” he told the House.
Obama and Senate Democrats have already stated that they prefer to come down on the side of Big Government and reduced freedoms, and will not support the measure.
The Guardian also attempts to turn this into some sort of sop to the TEA Party, rather than Republicans simply standing up for consumer choice. But, remember, for the Left, choice is only good when it comes to giving women the power to abort babies.
Funny how this news was lost in the shuffle Friday, and I had to go to a British newspaper to find out
Republicans claimed to have struck a blow for freedom on Friday when the House of Representatives voted to strip all funding from government programmes promoting energy-saving lightbulbs.
The measure, brought as an amendment to an energy spending bill by the Texas Republican Michael Burgess, bars the federal government from using any funds to enforce improved lighting efficiency standards.
In his remarks, Burgess cast the conservation of the old-fashioned 100 watt lightbulb as a burning issue of personal freedom.
“The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of lightbulb to use at home. It is our right to choose,” he told the House.
Obama and Senate Democrats have already stated that they prefer to come down on the side of Big Government and reduced freedoms, and will not support the measure.
The Guardian also attempts to turn this into some sort of sop to the TEA Party, rather than Republicans simply standing up for consumer choice. But, remember, for the Left, choice is only good when it comes to giving women the power to abort babies.
ATF did not inform Honduran government of "walked" firearms
The latest from Proceso Digital: ATF did not inform Honduran government of "walked" firearms.
Original article HERE
Translation:
Guns Trafficking: Defense and Security Unknown Operation in Honduras
July 14, 2011
Tegucigalpa – In Honduras, the Ministers of Defense and of Security, Marlon Pascua and Oscar Alvarez, said they had no idea that there was present in this Central American country the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) which had organized an operation to infiltrate guns into Honduras using the same tactics of “Operation Fast and Furious” in Mexico.
“We have no idea of the truth of the same, but I can assure you, and we have been insisting for some time, is that the guns that have been appearing here in Honduras and the guns that have been directed to the drug cartels in Mexico and in Colombia, are not guns that have originated from armories of the armed forces nor of the police.”
Reports from the Fox News Network earlier this week indicate that there are reports that the ATF established an operation using the same techniques and tactics as in “Operation Fast and Furious.” The journalistic history by Mike Vanderboegh indicates that his sources in the ATF in Tampa indicate that 1,000 of these guns were sold to gang members in Honduras.
On this subject, Security Minister Oscar Alvarez said that they were not advised of the operation that the ATF would have carried out in Honduras in which, he said, there never was any coordination, either.
“At no time have we been advised, nor have we had any request for any kind of coordination much less have I been in communication with the embassy of the United States here in Tegucigalpa, he emphasized.
Regarding the seizures of arsenals in Honduras, he said that they are going “to analyze the serial numbers and check with technicians in the United States so we can find out where these batches of guns came from,” said Alvarez, in a way that left room for not ruling out the ATF operation in Honduras.
In September of 2010, A. Brian Albritton, an attorney from the United States, held a press conference dealing with those charged in Operation Castaway (four of them Hondurans). At the same time he affirmed that the investigation revealed that guns were trafficked to Honduras so that they could later be distributed to drug trafficking cartels and paramilitary groups.
Albritton affirmed that he did not know if the gun trafficking in question was part of an ATF operation.
[a link in the article goes to the article below]
Department 19
Honduras – United States: Unveil Details of Gun Trafficking
July 12, 2011
Author of the article: Digital Process
Tegucigalpa – According to a Fox News report on Sunday, July 10, there are reports that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its Tampa division, organized an operation to infiltrate guns into Honduras using the techniques and tactics of “Operation Fast and Furious.”
In the article, Mike Vanderboegh, the journalist who uncovered the history [link to Sipsey Street’s current page], said that his sources in the Tampa office of the ATF indicate that 1,000 guns were sold to members of Honduran gangs.
(MBV: 1000 is an overall guess by one source. 200 is certain.)
On September 21, 2010, attorney A. Brian Albritton had a news conference dealing with those charged in Operation Castaway (four of them Hondurans). At the same time he revealed that guns were trafficked to Honduras so they could later be distributed to drug trafficking gangs and paramilitary groups.
Albritton affirmed that he did not know that the trafficked guns in question were part of the ATF operation.
Following is a rough translation by Digital Process of the relevant extracts of the press conference:
The United States Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) announce the results of an international investigation into the trafficking of firearms.
…
According to court records, a group of accused connected with Hugh Crumpler III engaged in an important gun trafficking operation. Crumpler has trafficked over five years 1,000 guns to various groups and the accused have exported these guns in Central and South America and Puerto Rico.
Original article HERE
Translation:
Guns Trafficking: Defense and Security Unknown Operation in Honduras
July 14, 2011
Tegucigalpa – In Honduras, the Ministers of Defense and of Security, Marlon Pascua and Oscar Alvarez, said they had no idea that there was present in this Central American country the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) which had organized an operation to infiltrate guns into Honduras using the same tactics of “Operation Fast and Furious” in Mexico.
“We have no idea of the truth of the same, but I can assure you, and we have been insisting for some time, is that the guns that have been appearing here in Honduras and the guns that have been directed to the drug cartels in Mexico and in Colombia, are not guns that have originated from armories of the armed forces nor of the police.”
Reports from the Fox News Network earlier this week indicate that there are reports that the ATF established an operation using the same techniques and tactics as in “Operation Fast and Furious.” The journalistic history by Mike Vanderboegh indicates that his sources in the ATF in Tampa indicate that 1,000 of these guns were sold to gang members in Honduras.
On this subject, Security Minister Oscar Alvarez said that they were not advised of the operation that the ATF would have carried out in Honduras in which, he said, there never was any coordination, either.
“At no time have we been advised, nor have we had any request for any kind of coordination much less have I been in communication with the embassy of the United States here in Tegucigalpa, he emphasized.
Regarding the seizures of arsenals in Honduras, he said that they are going “to analyze the serial numbers and check with technicians in the United States so we can find out where these batches of guns came from,” said Alvarez, in a way that left room for not ruling out the ATF operation in Honduras.
In September of 2010, A. Brian Albritton, an attorney from the United States, held a press conference dealing with those charged in Operation Castaway (four of them Hondurans). At the same time he affirmed that the investigation revealed that guns were trafficked to Honduras so that they could later be distributed to drug trafficking cartels and paramilitary groups.
Albritton affirmed that he did not know if the gun trafficking in question was part of an ATF operation.
[a link in the article goes to the article below]
Department 19
Honduras – United States: Unveil Details of Gun Trafficking
July 12, 2011
Author of the article: Digital Process
Tegucigalpa – According to a Fox News report on Sunday, July 10, there are reports that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its Tampa division, organized an operation to infiltrate guns into Honduras using the techniques and tactics of “Operation Fast and Furious.”
In the article, Mike Vanderboegh, the journalist who uncovered the history [link to Sipsey Street’s current page], said that his sources in the Tampa office of the ATF indicate that 1,000 guns were sold to members of Honduran gangs.
(MBV: 1000 is an overall guess by one source. 200 is certain.)
On September 21, 2010, attorney A. Brian Albritton had a news conference dealing with those charged in Operation Castaway (four of them Hondurans). At the same time he revealed that guns were trafficked to Honduras so they could later be distributed to drug trafficking gangs and paramilitary groups.
Albritton affirmed that he did not know that the trafficked guns in question were part of the ATF operation.
Following is a rough translation by Digital Process of the relevant extracts of the press conference:
The United States Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) announce the results of an international investigation into the trafficking of firearms.
…
According to court records, a group of accused connected with Hugh Crumpler III engaged in an important gun trafficking operation. Crumpler has trafficked over five years 1,000 guns to various groups and the accused have exported these guns in Central and South America and Puerto Rico.
Seven Myths About the Looming Debt-Ceiling ‘Disaster'
If Congress and the president don’t raise the debt ceiling, the consequences will be disastrous, politicians and pundits tell us, — the equivalent of an economic Armageddon. And President Obama warns that the consequences are so dire that he cannot possibly tolerate any delay in making an agreement. He announced yesterday that any debt deal must be completed by July 15th (lololol)
According to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, failure to raise the limit will cause the US to default and “cause a financial crisis potentially more severe than the crisis from which we are only now starting to recover.” On Thursday, he renewed these warnings. And President Obama alarmed retired Americans this week: “I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
But the list of terrible things to come, if the government is stopped from continued deficit spending, goes on. Failure to raise the ceiling, it is warned, will dramatically raise mortgage interest rates, cause housing sales to plunge, create panic on world financial markets, and destroy the value of the dollar.
Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s head of his Counsel of Economic Advisers, went so far this week as to blame the continued slow economic recovery on those few politicians who are against raising the debt ceiling. “[I]t’s important we remove this wet blanket of uncertainty that is permeating the private sector where they don’t know that the government — there are people actively advocating that the government declare it’s not going to pay its bills,” he told MSNBC. Yet, the slow recovery has been going on for over two years, well before Republicans obtained control of the House of Representatives.
A new CBS News poll shows that Americans oppose increasing the debt ceiling, by a 69 to 24 percent margin. Mr. Obama dismissed this and, as usual, believes he knows better. According to him, Americans just don’t understand the complexities of the arguments: “Let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury (bond) auction goes. They shouldn’t. . . . They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it. . . . Now, I will say that some of the professional politicians know better. And for them to say that we shouldn’t be raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. They know better.”
But the general public is right. There is an overload from all the doomsday predictions. Earlier this year, before the debt limit was hit on May 21st, the Obama administration already used the same scare tactics.
Take seven myths that the Obama administration is pushing:
1) Not increasing the debt ceiling means the US government will default on its debt.
This is probably the biggest lie that almost all other claims arise from. Default occurs if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes. Not increasing the debt ceiling only means that the government can’t borrow more money and that spending is limited to the revenue the government brings in. And, with interest payments on the debt making up less than a ninth of revenue, there is no reason for any risk of insolvency.
Time after time, congress and the president have failed to agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August 1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007.
Indeed, this really shouldn’t even be a point of debate. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending.
For the rest of the myths see this discussion available here at Fox News.
According to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, failure to raise the limit will cause the US to default and “cause a financial crisis potentially more severe than the crisis from which we are only now starting to recover.” On Thursday, he renewed these warnings. And President Obama alarmed retired Americans this week: “I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
But the list of terrible things to come, if the government is stopped from continued deficit spending, goes on. Failure to raise the ceiling, it is warned, will dramatically raise mortgage interest rates, cause housing sales to plunge, create panic on world financial markets, and destroy the value of the dollar.
Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s head of his Counsel of Economic Advisers, went so far this week as to blame the continued slow economic recovery on those few politicians who are against raising the debt ceiling. “[I]t’s important we remove this wet blanket of uncertainty that is permeating the private sector where they don’t know that the government — there are people actively advocating that the government declare it’s not going to pay its bills,” he told MSNBC. Yet, the slow recovery has been going on for over two years, well before Republicans obtained control of the House of Representatives.
A new CBS News poll shows that Americans oppose increasing the debt ceiling, by a 69 to 24 percent margin. Mr. Obama dismissed this and, as usual, believes he knows better. According to him, Americans just don’t understand the complexities of the arguments: “Let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury (bond) auction goes. They shouldn’t. . . . They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it. . . . Now, I will say that some of the professional politicians know better. And for them to say that we shouldn’t be raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. They know better.”
But the general public is right. There is an overload from all the doomsday predictions. Earlier this year, before the debt limit was hit on May 21st, the Obama administration already used the same scare tactics.
Take seven myths that the Obama administration is pushing:
1) Not increasing the debt ceiling means the US government will default on its debt.
This is probably the biggest lie that almost all other claims arise from. Default occurs if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes. Not increasing the debt ceiling only means that the government can’t borrow more money and that spending is limited to the revenue the government brings in. And, with interest payments on the debt making up less than a ninth of revenue, there is no reason for any risk of insolvency.
Time after time, congress and the president have failed to agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August 1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007.
Indeed, this really shouldn’t even be a point of debate. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending.
For the rest of the myths see this discussion available here at Fox News.
FOUND: A Winning Campaign Theme for the GOP!
Hitting Obama’s nerve: A gaping chink in the armor opened up by a Cantor offer reveals what the debt ceiling fight is really about
Amazing how the Democratic majority Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over two years. Wait a minute, they haven’t even presented one. They just vote down whatever budget comes out of the House and don’t present any alternative to avoid taking tough votes because there are 23 Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012. And now suddenly President Obama is very, very anxious to get something big put together and stop kicking the can down the road. Anyone find that ironic? I didn’t think so. We’ve become so used to this since he was inaugurated that it is no surprise to us.
For all the pressure, coaxing, and persuading the GOP to give in to Obama’s demands and let him get re-elected compromise and forget their pledges prior to the 2010 elections, the GOP has hit Obama’s nerve. I don’t know if anyone has picked up on this, the GOP has known it all along but didn’t know how to exploit it until now, or suddenly the chink in Obama’s armor has been in plain sight all along.
Let’s think about this. Remember Obamacare? It really doesn’t start kicking in until 2013…the year after the 2012 elections. Why didn’t the President and the Democratic Congress write the bill to get Obamacare rolling right off the bat in 2010 and not 2013? After all, if the legislation was so good that Americans would see the benefits and Democrats would reap the laurels of political gain, where was the confidence of the Democratic party to get Obamacare started right away? Because it was a bad, bad bill that was going to cause a tremendous amount of damage to the American economy as a whole and would imperil their hold on the presidency and their congressional majorities. So they wrote the legislation to shield themselves as best they could from the political ramifications of their bad legislation. Whether President Obama and Democrats in Congress want to face this fact or not, when Obamacare was passed, business hiring became stagnant at best, cutting their work forces because the uncertainty the legislation has created, and have been hoarding capital to shield themselves from the hurricane that will devastate this country’s wealth in a few years. This could be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in President Obama. So long as Obamacare is law, it will be this way. Job hiring is going to remain anemic, unemployment will remain high, and a sizeable portion of people will be miserable and mired in despair. The GOP presidential nominee will rightly point out to the American people “It doesn’t have to be this way.”
Fast forward to now. The same thing is happening again. Obama is all about keeping his presidency. He and the Democrats know what a crushing disadvantage having the debt ceiling and the economy, with a side salad of Obamacare and other government regulation hindering job creation being the main course for the American people to eat and ponder before voting in 2012. A short term fix and making this an issue in the 2012 elections is their nightmare scenario. The only way he can keep the presidency is by the GOP caving, raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes while cutting spending. He is becoming unnerved at the GOP’s steadfast insistence (let’s hope this lasts) about cutting spending, not raising the debt ceiling and getting our financial house in order. It all became apparent with Eric Cantor’s offer of a short term solution that would put the debt ceiling issue back on the table next year prior to the 2012 elections and his temper tantrum that followed.
No Grand Bargain
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the whole ball game of the debt ceiling debate. The Democrats know that they are going to lose the Senate and will not win back the House. Their only hope of having any power in the legislative and executive branches after 2012 is for the GOP to give it to them by caving. They can’t stomach a plan that cuts government because that would imperil their left wing base from showing up in November 2012. The MSM is trying their best to aid the Democrats any way they can by framing the GOP as the ones who are willing to take down the country by defaulting. As Erick Erickson rightly pointed out earlier, people don’t blame Congress for the calamities that fall upon our nation, the lion’s share of the blame always falls on the president. Barack Obama knows this and is engaged in a liar’s poker game for his presidency’s survival.
The GOP would be wise to remember that if there is no deal done and a catastrophe ensues, Barack Obama would put himself in a class by himself. He would have a presidential legacy of being Herbert Hoover plus Jimmy Carter combined together. He would have a legacy so infamous that the mere mention of his name would be odious to a vast majority of Americans.
Just as George W. Bush went along with TARP in fear of having a legacy of becoming Herbert Hoover, Barack Obama finds him in the same predicament as President Bush was in 2008. The GOP has all the cards here minus the media as the Democrats did in 2008. Either Barack Obama goes along with cutting government spending so that there is a zero net increase in the debt ceiling (69% of Americans agree with the GOP on the debt ceiling issue and spending in a CBS(!) poll) or he validates a portion of Americans who believe that his motive for attaining the presidency was to destroy our country and becomes the American version of Nero. Mark Levin is right. It is a no win situation for him if the GOP doesn’t cave.
The way I see this playing out is the GOP will pass a reasonable package in the House when something will need to be passed shortly before August 2nd that cuts spending and has a zero net increase in the debt ceiling and send it up to the Senate for a vote, putting the onus on Harry Reid and Barack Obama to squawk and stomp their feet about how bad this is but in the end, will have to take a vote on this or worse, do something that Harry Reid doesn’t want to do: Actually offer up a bill of their own which would require vulnerable Democratic Senators who are up for election to take a vote on. If they vote the GOP bill down without offering any plan of their own, the anger of the American people against Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate will be so great that it could yield a 60 plus majority in the Senate for the GOP in 2012. If they pass the bill and send it to Obama’s desk…oh boy…now that will be something I will want to see Obama trying to explain his way out of by means of a veto, thus incurring the wrath that the Senate would have had if the bill had been voted down. If they vote the GOP bill down and take a vote on their bill which will be tax increases, bigger government, and incurring more debt and send to the House, just imagine the squirming of those vulnerable Democratic Senators and Harry Reid.
Finally, whomever the GOP winds up nominating for President, they can start right now by taking their case and the 2012 campaign to the public.
LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE THE FATE OF THIS COUNTRY
If you are for exploding deficits, more debt, more spending, less jobs, more taxes, then vote for our current president.
If you are for less debt, less spending, less taxes, more jobs, fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, then join us.
It’s that simple. We can only hope that the GOP doesn’t go the way of a Mitch McConnell a couple of days ago (he redeemed himself today) and be persuaded by the MSM and Obama’s game of liar’s poker.
Amazing how the Democratic majority Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over two years. Wait a minute, they haven’t even presented one. They just vote down whatever budget comes out of the House and don’t present any alternative to avoid taking tough votes because there are 23 Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012. And now suddenly President Obama is very, very anxious to get something big put together and stop kicking the can down the road. Anyone find that ironic? I didn’t think so. We’ve become so used to this since he was inaugurated that it is no surprise to us.
For all the pressure, coaxing, and persuading the GOP to give in to Obama’s demands and let him get re-elected compromise and forget their pledges prior to the 2010 elections, the GOP has hit Obama’s nerve. I don’t know if anyone has picked up on this, the GOP has known it all along but didn’t know how to exploit it until now, or suddenly the chink in Obama’s armor has been in plain sight all along.
Let’s think about this. Remember Obamacare? It really doesn’t start kicking in until 2013…the year after the 2012 elections. Why didn’t the President and the Democratic Congress write the bill to get Obamacare rolling right off the bat in 2010 and not 2013? After all, if the legislation was so good that Americans would see the benefits and Democrats would reap the laurels of political gain, where was the confidence of the Democratic party to get Obamacare started right away? Because it was a bad, bad bill that was going to cause a tremendous amount of damage to the American economy as a whole and would imperil their hold on the presidency and their congressional majorities. So they wrote the legislation to shield themselves as best they could from the political ramifications of their bad legislation. Whether President Obama and Democrats in Congress want to face this fact or not, when Obamacare was passed, business hiring became stagnant at best, cutting their work forces because the uncertainty the legislation has created, and have been hoarding capital to shield themselves from the hurricane that will devastate this country’s wealth in a few years. This could be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in President Obama. So long as Obamacare is law, it will be this way. Job hiring is going to remain anemic, unemployment will remain high, and a sizeable portion of people will be miserable and mired in despair. The GOP presidential nominee will rightly point out to the American people “It doesn’t have to be this way.”
Fast forward to now. The same thing is happening again. Obama is all about keeping his presidency. He and the Democrats know what a crushing disadvantage having the debt ceiling and the economy, with a side salad of Obamacare and other government regulation hindering job creation being the main course for the American people to eat and ponder before voting in 2012. A short term fix and making this an issue in the 2012 elections is their nightmare scenario. The only way he can keep the presidency is by the GOP caving, raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes while cutting spending. He is becoming unnerved at the GOP’s steadfast insistence (let’s hope this lasts) about cutting spending, not raising the debt ceiling and getting our financial house in order. It all became apparent with Eric Cantor’s offer of a short term solution that would put the debt ceiling issue back on the table next year prior to the 2012 elections and his temper tantrum that followed.
No Grand Bargain
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the whole ball game of the debt ceiling debate. The Democrats know that they are going to lose the Senate and will not win back the House. Their only hope of having any power in the legislative and executive branches after 2012 is for the GOP to give it to them by caving. They can’t stomach a plan that cuts government because that would imperil their left wing base from showing up in November 2012. The MSM is trying their best to aid the Democrats any way they can by framing the GOP as the ones who are willing to take down the country by defaulting. As Erick Erickson rightly pointed out earlier, people don’t blame Congress for the calamities that fall upon our nation, the lion’s share of the blame always falls on the president. Barack Obama knows this and is engaged in a liar’s poker game for his presidency’s survival.
The GOP would be wise to remember that if there is no deal done and a catastrophe ensues, Barack Obama would put himself in a class by himself. He would have a presidential legacy of being Herbert Hoover plus Jimmy Carter combined together. He would have a legacy so infamous that the mere mention of his name would be odious to a vast majority of Americans.
Just as George W. Bush went along with TARP in fear of having a legacy of becoming Herbert Hoover, Barack Obama finds him in the same predicament as President Bush was in 2008. The GOP has all the cards here minus the media as the Democrats did in 2008. Either Barack Obama goes along with cutting government spending so that there is a zero net increase in the debt ceiling (69% of Americans agree with the GOP on the debt ceiling issue and spending in a CBS(!) poll) or he validates a portion of Americans who believe that his motive for attaining the presidency was to destroy our country and becomes the American version of Nero. Mark Levin is right. It is a no win situation for him if the GOP doesn’t cave.
The way I see this playing out is the GOP will pass a reasonable package in the House when something will need to be passed shortly before August 2nd that cuts spending and has a zero net increase in the debt ceiling and send it up to the Senate for a vote, putting the onus on Harry Reid and Barack Obama to squawk and stomp their feet about how bad this is but in the end, will have to take a vote on this or worse, do something that Harry Reid doesn’t want to do: Actually offer up a bill of their own which would require vulnerable Democratic Senators who are up for election to take a vote on. If they vote the GOP bill down without offering any plan of their own, the anger of the American people against Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate will be so great that it could yield a 60 plus majority in the Senate for the GOP in 2012. If they pass the bill and send it to Obama’s desk…oh boy…now that will be something I will want to see Obama trying to explain his way out of by means of a veto, thus incurring the wrath that the Senate would have had if the bill had been voted down. If they vote the GOP bill down and take a vote on their bill which will be tax increases, bigger government, and incurring more debt and send to the House, just imagine the squirming of those vulnerable Democratic Senators and Harry Reid.
Finally, whomever the GOP winds up nominating for President, they can start right now by taking their case and the 2012 campaign to the public.
LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE THE FATE OF THIS COUNTRY
If you are for exploding deficits, more debt, more spending, less jobs, more taxes, then vote for our current president.
If you are for less debt, less spending, less taxes, more jobs, fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, then join us.
It’s that simple. We can only hope that the GOP doesn’t go the way of a Mitch McConnell a couple of days ago (he redeemed himself today) and be persuaded by the MSM and Obama’s game of liar’s poker.
Left-wing opposition to Net Neutrality shows up at the Huffington Post.
Why Liberals Should Think Twice About Net Neutrality
The Federal Communications Commission is due to publish a new set of "net neutrality" rules in the Federal Register, after a six month wait. The rules' arrival will revive an ongoing debate in which "liberals" want to regulate the broadband Internet and "conservatives" want to liberate it.
As a card-carrying, knee-jerk, and scarred-in-battle liberal -- I was Undersecretary to Ron Brown, Mickey Kantor, and Bill Daley in the Clinton Administration -- I can't for the life of me understand why my fellow-travelers want to impose this burden on the burgeoning broadband Internet. Let me use this space to explain why the Left should back off this "neutrality" charade and move on to a better agenda.
First, "neutrality" means simply that everything on the Internet must travel at the same speed, whether it's the Bluetooth device that connects my cardiac monitor to a hospital or a kid downloading a video of a cat playing the xylophone. It's an awkward proposition, but proponents say it's needed to protect broadband providers from cutting off some sites and content, and to allow "the little guy" to challenge the Big Websites -- Google, Facebook, Netflix and the like.
Frankly, these explanations are hooey. For one, broadband providers -- cable, telco, wireless, and other companies who have paid tens of billions for the privilege of competing for your allegiance -- know that their job is to bring you everything the Internet offers. Would you subscribe to an ISP that gave you Fox News but not Olbermann, or gave iTunes an exclusive on music, or only allowed Warner Brothers movies on their system? It's a ridiculous proposition (and one that could be addressed with anti-trust law if I'm entirely wrong, which I'm not).
And, second, the Internet isn't "neutral" right now! Big websites cache their content in server farms around the world, like squirrels burying nuts for the winter. That way, they reach you faster than the "little guy," even though the net is allegedly "neutral." But this takes the kind of resources only the Big Websites can generate. Want proof? Well, who's funding the "neutrality" push to protect the "little guy?" It's the Big Websites themselves!
When you get down to it, "neutrality" isn't about "open" versus "closed" Internet or the "big guy" versus the "little guy." It's about one bunch of Big Businesses -- Google/YouTube, Netflix, and the other Big Websites, who want to travel the Internet at no cost (even if their videos and other content hog bandwidth) and the infrastructure providers, who are looking for ways to cover the costs of the growing demand for bandwidth. YouTube and Netflix now account for almost half the system's use at peak periods! Not only does video hog bandwidth, it has to be managed much more carefully if consumers are going to enjoy watching Internet video as much as they like reading emails that arrive in a burst. What's the "left's" view on a battle between these business interests? Frankly, we favor these "congestion charges" in every other environment -- why not here?
And allowing any website that wants a faster, uninterruptable connection to its users to buy it at posted prices would lead to a new wave of broadband innovation -- telemedicine and remote education, live sports and entertainment events, on-line gaming and exploration. Rather than defending innovators, "neutrality" retards these innovations.
There are plenty of places where competition leads to ruination that demands regulation -- banks whose bad bets bring the system down, or polluters whose actions threaten the planet's sustainability. But competition is giving us a burgeoning, innovative broadband network that creates jobs even as it enriches our experience -- where was the multi-billion "aps" industry five years ago? The real, progressive broadband agenda is expanding the network into schools, the health care sector, and underserved rural and urban neighborhoods while protecting our privacy, not regulating it to no productive end. There's no good reason for us to get stuck in "neutral."
The Federal Communications Commission is due to publish a new set of "net neutrality" rules in the Federal Register, after a six month wait. The rules' arrival will revive an ongoing debate in which "liberals" want to regulate the broadband Internet and "conservatives" want to liberate it.
As a card-carrying, knee-jerk, and scarred-in-battle liberal -- I was Undersecretary to Ron Brown, Mickey Kantor, and Bill Daley in the Clinton Administration -- I can't for the life of me understand why my fellow-travelers want to impose this burden on the burgeoning broadband Internet. Let me use this space to explain why the Left should back off this "neutrality" charade and move on to a better agenda.
First, "neutrality" means simply that everything on the Internet must travel at the same speed, whether it's the Bluetooth device that connects my cardiac monitor to a hospital or a kid downloading a video of a cat playing the xylophone. It's an awkward proposition, but proponents say it's needed to protect broadband providers from cutting off some sites and content, and to allow "the little guy" to challenge the Big Websites -- Google, Facebook, Netflix and the like.
Frankly, these explanations are hooey. For one, broadband providers -- cable, telco, wireless, and other companies who have paid tens of billions for the privilege of competing for your allegiance -- know that their job is to bring you everything the Internet offers. Would you subscribe to an ISP that gave you Fox News but not Olbermann, or gave iTunes an exclusive on music, or only allowed Warner Brothers movies on their system? It's a ridiculous proposition (and one that could be addressed with anti-trust law if I'm entirely wrong, which I'm not).
And, second, the Internet isn't "neutral" right now! Big websites cache their content in server farms around the world, like squirrels burying nuts for the winter. That way, they reach you faster than the "little guy," even though the net is allegedly "neutral." But this takes the kind of resources only the Big Websites can generate. Want proof? Well, who's funding the "neutrality" push to protect the "little guy?" It's the Big Websites themselves!
When you get down to it, "neutrality" isn't about "open" versus "closed" Internet or the "big guy" versus the "little guy." It's about one bunch of Big Businesses -- Google/YouTube, Netflix, and the other Big Websites, who want to travel the Internet at no cost (even if their videos and other content hog bandwidth) and the infrastructure providers, who are looking for ways to cover the costs of the growing demand for bandwidth. YouTube and Netflix now account for almost half the system's use at peak periods! Not only does video hog bandwidth, it has to be managed much more carefully if consumers are going to enjoy watching Internet video as much as they like reading emails that arrive in a burst. What's the "left's" view on a battle between these business interests? Frankly, we favor these "congestion charges" in every other environment -- why not here?
And allowing any website that wants a faster, uninterruptable connection to its users to buy it at posted prices would lead to a new wave of broadband innovation -- telemedicine and remote education, live sports and entertainment events, on-line gaming and exploration. Rather than defending innovators, "neutrality" retards these innovations.
There are plenty of places where competition leads to ruination that demands regulation -- banks whose bad bets bring the system down, or polluters whose actions threaten the planet's sustainability. But competition is giving us a burgeoning, innovative broadband network that creates jobs even as it enriches our experience -- where was the multi-billion "aps" industry five years ago? The real, progressive broadband agenda is expanding the network into schools, the health care sector, and underserved rural and urban neighborhoods while protecting our privacy, not regulating it to no productive end. There's no good reason for us to get stuck in "neutral."
Media Matters is breaking the law
The MSM’s ‘Media Matters’ Blackout
While they scramble to bury Rupert Murdoch, they ignore the blatant violation of tax-exempt status by George Soros' pet outfit.
The MSM is enjoying a very quiet laugh at the expense of one of their competitors: the Fox News Channel. They’re not saying a word about the all-encompassing, possibly illegal abuse Fox News is experiencing at the hands of the George Soros-funded (to the tune of $1M) Media Matters for America.
Media Matters was co-founded by current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, something which she proudly proclaims. Her fellow founder is David Brock, the fallen conservative journalist who thereafter drifted leftward. Media Matters is an alleged media “monitor,” describing itself on its website thusly:
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation (emphasis mine).
Around March of this year, Brock announced Media Matters was dramatically diminishing said “cross section” by openly declaring “war on Fox.” (The official announcement came just after Soros’ $1M check cleared.) The above link is to the only mainstream outlet I could find that mentions this story.
Brock says Media Matters will hound Fox News with “guerrilla warfare and sabotage.” For instance:
Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy, or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor.
This isn’t “media analysis.” This is a multi-million dollar leftist PR hit squad. Brock is doing all of this because he claims Fox News has become the titular head of the Republican Party.
And herein lies a legal problem for Media Matters.
Media Matters is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 organization. Esteemed attorney C. Boyden Grey explains what that means:
(T)hat is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”
What (Media Matters for America) MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets.
MMA’s activities should disallow its tax-exempt status in two fundamental ways. First, IRS rulings make clear that attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts, and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status. Second, in declaring “guerrilla warfare” on Fox as the “leader” and “mouthpiece” of the Republican Party and in developing a sophisticated Democratic-leaning media training boot camp, MMA has transformed itself into an aggressive advocate for Democratic and progressive causes and thus produced a second deviation from exempt educational activities.
Per Brock’s own words, if he views Fox News as the head of the Republican Party and has publicly dedicated his organization to going after it, than Media Matters has ceased to be an “educational” entity and has become a political one.
Yet will an investigation commence under President Obama’s IRS? Please don’t halt respiratory activity waiting for that to occur. Racialist shakedown artist Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition — another tax-exempt organization — looks to be a serial violator of IRS law. But as Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly pointed out way back in 2001, that has hardly mattered:
(I)n 1998, the Rainbow Push Coalition cited 1.2 million dollars in travel expenses. But no receipts were provided in the Illinois tax return. You try that.
In 1982, the IRS reviewed Jackson’s nonprofit status. About one million dollars was unaccounted for. Jackson was ordered to repay about seven hundred thousand to the government. It took him years to do it. The IRS did not charge him interest or a penalty. You try to get that deal.
Jesse Jackson is a millionaire but does not have a full-time job. He gets paid to speak and apparently has a steady income flow. He provided his mistress with $40,000 in moving expenses, a $365,000 house and $10,000 a month in child support. Was any of that tax-exempt money? Enquiring minds would like to know.
The government seems to be afraid of Jesse Jackson. He has not been audited since 1982, even though he was a million light. The press is afraid of Jackson, as well. The New York Times played the mistress story on page 26.
Back to Media Matters: the Washington Post reported on Brock last December, but completely by accident. From the article “Outfoxed by Fox News? No Way”:
It takes only an instant for a visitor to Media Matters for America’s headquarters in downtown Washington to sense its mission, if not its methods. A few steps into its modern offices, which resemble a newspaper newsroom, a pair of prominently displayed signs spell out the basics: “Fox Keeps Fear Alive,” reads one; “Restore Sanity, Fight Fox,” reads its companion.
Fighting Fox is what Media Matters does, relentlessly and obsessively. In the six years since its founding, the watchdog group has evolved from an all-purpose scourge of the conservative media into Fox News Channel’s veritable shadow and constant irritant. From well before sunrise to long after it each day, teams of young researchers sift through video clips and transcripts of programs hosted by Fox stars such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly to find dubious facts, logical contradictions, and poisonous — at least to Media Matters’ liberal sensibilities — rhetoric.
Juxtapose this gigantic MSM mess with the very recently breaking story of Fox News Channel owner Rupert Murdoch’s problems with his British paper News of the World, which he has now shut down after it came to light that they had hacked telephones in pursuit of stories.
Like Media Matters’ illegal behavior, this too is a big story, and it deserves coverage. Which it has received in heaps.
The media has for months missed that the government should probably yank Media Matters’ tax-exempt status. But they were lightning quick to point out potential government action against Murdoch and Fox News. On ABC’s This Week, Stephen Brill helpfully pointed out:
Well, there is an issue here in the United States. … News Corp has a lot of FCC licenses. There is still a clause in the federal communications law that requires that you have to be of good character to have such a license. And I was reading last night just in the approval that they gave to Comcast to take over NBC, there was actually some guy who challenged the character of Comcast, because when they installed a cable system somewhere they had hurt his building and hadn’t paid for it. And this became a big legal proceeding, actually.
So, here, I am reasonably certain that someone, you know, maybe someone from the political left or whoever, is going to make a big deal of, you know, whether they are fit to have their FCC licenses under the current management.
Yet another opportunity for leftists to improperly and irresponsibly slam their opponents with the massive hammer of government — and it’s the Jurassic Press pointing out the opening. But when leftists are in apparent violation of the law and government action is actually warranted … again, don’t hold your breath.
While they scramble to bury Rupert Murdoch, they ignore the blatant violation of tax-exempt status by George Soros' pet outfit.
The MSM is enjoying a very quiet laugh at the expense of one of their competitors: the Fox News Channel. They’re not saying a word about the all-encompassing, possibly illegal abuse Fox News is experiencing at the hands of the George Soros-funded (to the tune of $1M) Media Matters for America.
Media Matters was co-founded by current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, something which she proudly proclaims. Her fellow founder is David Brock, the fallen conservative journalist who thereafter drifted leftward. Media Matters is an alleged media “monitor,” describing itself on its website thusly:
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation (emphasis mine).
Around March of this year, Brock announced Media Matters was dramatically diminishing said “cross section” by openly declaring “war on Fox.” (The official announcement came just after Soros’ $1M check cleared.) The above link is to the only mainstream outlet I could find that mentions this story.
Brock says Media Matters will hound Fox News with “guerrilla warfare and sabotage.” For instance:
Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy, or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor.
This isn’t “media analysis.” This is a multi-million dollar leftist PR hit squad. Brock is doing all of this because he claims Fox News has become the titular head of the Republican Party.
And herein lies a legal problem for Media Matters.
Media Matters is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 organization. Esteemed attorney C. Boyden Grey explains what that means:
(T)hat is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”
What (Media Matters for America) MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets.
MMA’s activities should disallow its tax-exempt status in two fundamental ways. First, IRS rulings make clear that attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts, and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status. Second, in declaring “guerrilla warfare” on Fox as the “leader” and “mouthpiece” of the Republican Party and in developing a sophisticated Democratic-leaning media training boot camp, MMA has transformed itself into an aggressive advocate for Democratic and progressive causes and thus produced a second deviation from exempt educational activities.
Per Brock’s own words, if he views Fox News as the head of the Republican Party and has publicly dedicated his organization to going after it, than Media Matters has ceased to be an “educational” entity and has become a political one.
Yet will an investigation commence under President Obama’s IRS? Please don’t halt respiratory activity waiting for that to occur. Racialist shakedown artist Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition — another tax-exempt organization — looks to be a serial violator of IRS law. But as Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly pointed out way back in 2001, that has hardly mattered:
(I)n 1998, the Rainbow Push Coalition cited 1.2 million dollars in travel expenses. But no receipts were provided in the Illinois tax return. You try that.
In 1982, the IRS reviewed Jackson’s nonprofit status. About one million dollars was unaccounted for. Jackson was ordered to repay about seven hundred thousand to the government. It took him years to do it. The IRS did not charge him interest or a penalty. You try to get that deal.
Jesse Jackson is a millionaire but does not have a full-time job. He gets paid to speak and apparently has a steady income flow. He provided his mistress with $40,000 in moving expenses, a $365,000 house and $10,000 a month in child support. Was any of that tax-exempt money? Enquiring minds would like to know.
The government seems to be afraid of Jesse Jackson. He has not been audited since 1982, even though he was a million light. The press is afraid of Jackson, as well. The New York Times played the mistress story on page 26.
Back to Media Matters: the Washington Post reported on Brock last December, but completely by accident. From the article “Outfoxed by Fox News? No Way”:
It takes only an instant for a visitor to Media Matters for America’s headquarters in downtown Washington to sense its mission, if not its methods. A few steps into its modern offices, which resemble a newspaper newsroom, a pair of prominently displayed signs spell out the basics: “Fox Keeps Fear Alive,” reads one; “Restore Sanity, Fight Fox,” reads its companion.
Fighting Fox is what Media Matters does, relentlessly and obsessively. In the six years since its founding, the watchdog group has evolved from an all-purpose scourge of the conservative media into Fox News Channel’s veritable shadow and constant irritant. From well before sunrise to long after it each day, teams of young researchers sift through video clips and transcripts of programs hosted by Fox stars such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly to find dubious facts, logical contradictions, and poisonous — at least to Media Matters’ liberal sensibilities — rhetoric.
Juxtapose this gigantic MSM mess with the very recently breaking story of Fox News Channel owner Rupert Murdoch’s problems with his British paper News of the World, which he has now shut down after it came to light that they had hacked telephones in pursuit of stories.
Like Media Matters’ illegal behavior, this too is a big story, and it deserves coverage. Which it has received in heaps.
The media has for months missed that the government should probably yank Media Matters’ tax-exempt status. But they were lightning quick to point out potential government action against Murdoch and Fox News. On ABC’s This Week, Stephen Brill helpfully pointed out:
Well, there is an issue here in the United States. … News Corp has a lot of FCC licenses. There is still a clause in the federal communications law that requires that you have to be of good character to have such a license. And I was reading last night just in the approval that they gave to Comcast to take over NBC, there was actually some guy who challenged the character of Comcast, because when they installed a cable system somewhere they had hurt his building and hadn’t paid for it. And this became a big legal proceeding, actually.
So, here, I am reasonably certain that someone, you know, maybe someone from the political left or whoever, is going to make a big deal of, you know, whether they are fit to have their FCC licenses under the current management.
Yet another opportunity for leftists to improperly and irresponsibly slam their opponents with the massive hammer of government — and it’s the Jurassic Press pointing out the opening. But when leftists are in apparent violation of the law and government action is actually warranted … again, don’t hold your breath.
Pelosi Reveals Biblical Ignorance Comparing Obama To Job (Video)
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has revealed to us once again that she is completely ignorant about the “faith” she claims to have. Her assertion that she loves the Word is highly suspect because she advocates things so clearly in contradiction to what the Word teaches. This is particularly the case with the issue of abortion, and my open letter to Pelosi still stands. Pelosi’s promotion of homosexuality is another example. Pelosi has now absurdly claimed that President Obama has more patience than Job. From CNS News:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that President Barack Obama has shown a “level of patience” in debt limit negotiations with congressional leaders that does not compare to the biblical figure Job, known as the “Man of Patience.”
“I want to commend the president – I have never seen – Job is no place compared to this president in terms of patience,” said Pelosi at a press briefing on Thursday. “He [Job] doesn’t even begin because this president has demonstrated a level of patience, not only during the meetings but as respect, respectful of the suggestions that are made by all parties at the meeting, in his preparation for the meeting, and his coming back to address concerns that are expressed by others.”
Really? Obama has more patience than a man who lost all his children and livestock? Obama has more patience than a man who broke out in sores all over his body? Apparently meeting with Republicans surpasses these things in Pelosi’s mind, even though Obama cannot even do that. I think Pelosi needs to meet Jesus on a road in San Fransisco for her to realize just how lost she truly is.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that President Barack Obama has shown a “level of patience” in debt limit negotiations with congressional leaders that does not compare to the biblical figure Job, known as the “Man of Patience.”
“I want to commend the president – I have never seen – Job is no place compared to this president in terms of patience,” said Pelosi at a press briefing on Thursday. “He [Job] doesn’t even begin because this president has demonstrated a level of patience, not only during the meetings but as respect, respectful of the suggestions that are made by all parties at the meeting, in his preparation for the meeting, and his coming back to address concerns that are expressed by others.”
Really? Obama has more patience than a man who lost all his children and livestock? Obama has more patience than a man who broke out in sores all over his body? Apparently meeting with Republicans surpasses these things in Pelosi’s mind, even though Obama cannot even do that. I think Pelosi needs to meet Jesus on a road in San Fransisco for her to realize just how lost she truly is.
Budgets may be cut but diversity positions just keep growing
Heather MacDonald has a depressing account of the growth of diversity positions in the University of California system. They may be forced to make all sorts of cutbacks in the system including cutting out quite a few academic programs while raising tuition for students. But they just keep expanding the bureaucracy responsible for making sure that diversity is celebrated on campus and minorities and women keep getting jobs.
California’s budget crisis has reduced the University of California to near-penury, claim its spokesmen. “Our campuses and the UC Office of the President already have cut to the bone,” the university system’s vice president for budget and capital resources warned earlier this month, in advance of this week’s meeting of the university’s regents. Well, not exactly to the bone. Even as UC campuses jettison entire degree programs and lose faculty to competing universities, one fiefdom has remained virtually sacrosanct: the diversity machine.
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
It goes on and on at all the campuses in the UC system. They have positions to make sure that the faculty are doing research into diversity subjects. They have positions to make sure that members of all these groups feel comfortable and included. They have new requirements for students to study diversity and students' own "understanding of her or his identity" as required courses for graduations. Meanwhile, they've cut entire master's programs at, for example UC San Diego, which cut the master's degree in electrical and computer engineering as well as comparative literature and courses in French, German, Spanish, and English literature. Those courses in literature are not as crucial as requiring students to explore their own identities. Meanwhile, students are less interested in taking all the ethnic studies, gay studies and gender studies courses as it has dawned on the students at least that such courses don't tend to lead to jobs unless they get a job enforcing diversity requirements in the UC system.
One thing that these groups do to justify their existence is to pressure all the departments to hire more minority and female professors. And the only reason entertained for such failure is bigotry, not lack of qualified applicants.
The one observable activity performed by these lavishly funded diversity bureaucrats is to pressure academic departments to hire more women and minorities. (Even that activity is superfluous, given the abundant pressure for race and gender quotas already exerted by campus groups, every accrediting agency, and external political bodies.) Should a department fail to satisfy—as it inevitably will in every field with low minority participation—only one explanation is possible: a departmental or campus “climate” hostile to diversity, which then requires more intercessions from the diversity bureaucracy. The fact that every other college and university in the country is scouring the horizon for the identical elusive cache of qualified female and minority hires is not allowed into the discourse. Even less acceptable is any recognition of the academic achievement gap between black and Hispanic students, on the one hand, and white and Asian students, on the other, which affects the pool of qualified faculty candidates in fields with remotely traditional scholarly prerequisites. Student admissions offices are under the same pressure, which in California results in the constant generation of new schemes for “holistic” admissions procedures designed to evade the ban on racial and gender preferences that California voters enacted in 1996.
Such diversity czars seem more and more entrenched in the university bureaucracy. They hold more power than professors and whole departments. I wonder how many California taxpayers would be supportive of such an allocation of scarce resources. But what the citizens of California wish for is irrelevant once the diversity mavens get into power.
California’s budget crisis has reduced the University of California to near-penury, claim its spokesmen. “Our campuses and the UC Office of the President already have cut to the bone,” the university system’s vice president for budget and capital resources warned earlier this month, in advance of this week’s meeting of the university’s regents. Well, not exactly to the bone. Even as UC campuses jettison entire degree programs and lose faculty to competing universities, one fiefdom has remained virtually sacrosanct: the diversity machine.
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
It goes on and on at all the campuses in the UC system. They have positions to make sure that the faculty are doing research into diversity subjects. They have positions to make sure that members of all these groups feel comfortable and included. They have new requirements for students to study diversity and students' own "understanding of her or his identity" as required courses for graduations. Meanwhile, they've cut entire master's programs at, for example UC San Diego, which cut the master's degree in electrical and computer engineering as well as comparative literature and courses in French, German, Spanish, and English literature. Those courses in literature are not as crucial as requiring students to explore their own identities. Meanwhile, students are less interested in taking all the ethnic studies, gay studies and gender studies courses as it has dawned on the students at least that such courses don't tend to lead to jobs unless they get a job enforcing diversity requirements in the UC system.
One thing that these groups do to justify their existence is to pressure all the departments to hire more minority and female professors. And the only reason entertained for such failure is bigotry, not lack of qualified applicants.
The one observable activity performed by these lavishly funded diversity bureaucrats is to pressure academic departments to hire more women and minorities. (Even that activity is superfluous, given the abundant pressure for race and gender quotas already exerted by campus groups, every accrediting agency, and external political bodies.) Should a department fail to satisfy—as it inevitably will in every field with low minority participation—only one explanation is possible: a departmental or campus “climate” hostile to diversity, which then requires more intercessions from the diversity bureaucracy. The fact that every other college and university in the country is scouring the horizon for the identical elusive cache of qualified female and minority hires is not allowed into the discourse. Even less acceptable is any recognition of the academic achievement gap between black and Hispanic students, on the one hand, and white and Asian students, on the other, which affects the pool of qualified faculty candidates in fields with remotely traditional scholarly prerequisites. Student admissions offices are under the same pressure, which in California results in the constant generation of new schemes for “holistic” admissions procedures designed to evade the ban on racial and gender preferences that California voters enacted in 1996.
Such diversity czars seem more and more entrenched in the university bureaucracy. They hold more power than professors and whole departments. I wonder how many California taxpayers would be supportive of such an allocation of scarce resources. But what the citizens of California wish for is irrelevant once the diversity mavens get into power.
Obama rejects $2.4 trillion plan without tax hikes
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Friday said he would not support a $2.4 trillion plan to reduce the federal deficit without some tax hikes to increase revenues.
“I have not seen a credible plan, having gone through the numbers, that would allow us to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks,” he told a White House press conference.
“The notion that we would be doing that and not asking anything from the wealthiest among us, or not closing corporate loopholes, that doesn’t seem like a serious plan.”
“I have not seen a credible plan, having gone through the numbers, that would allow us to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks,” he told a White House press conference.
“The notion that we would be doing that and not asking anything from the wealthiest among us, or not closing corporate loopholes, that doesn’t seem like a serious plan.”
Media Guns Fire Blanks at Bachmann
Once a greatly feared investigative reporter, Brian Ross has been reduced to recycling left-wing material from the homosexual lobby. But the pathetic hit job he narrated on Monday’s ABC Nightline show on GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has backfired in a big way. The charge was that the Bachmann family counseling service engages in terrible things by teaching homosexuals how to leave their disease-ridden lifestyle.
Ross called this method of counseling, which emphasizes religious conversion, “highly controversial” and said it “could become a campaign issue.” Ironically, however, he presented evidence that ex-homosexuals do in fact exist
It is a sign of the dominance of the homosexual lobby in the media business that such a program would even be aired. The upcoming National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association convention features “Today” show co-anchor Ann Curry and CNN’s Don Lemon as keynote speakers.
The ABC piece, “Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay?,” was constructed in such a way as to suggest that ex-homosexuals are non-existent, even though the Brian Ross report itself noted the presence of books by a “self-proclaimed ex-lesbian” in the counseling center. A video from the ex-lesbian, Janet Boynes, was even shown briefly on the air. This was supposed to be shocking.
Of course, the notion of the Bible condemning homosexual behavior, reflected in several passages, was viewed as bizarre and intolerant.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says the phrase, “pray away the gay,” is intended to ridicule Christians and comes directly from homosexual activist Wayne Besen’s group, Truth Wins Out. LaBarbera asks, “Why are the major media repeating these hateful attack slogans by radical gay activists?”
He explains, “We don’t mock the idea of leaving drug addiction or alcoholism with God’s help. Why is it acceptable to mock faith in God to overcome unwanted behaviors like homosexuality in their lives?”
“Wayne Besen’s thesis is that ex-gays don’t exist,” noted LaBarbera. But Janet Boynes is a real person and absolute proof that one can leave the homosexual lifestyle.
Perhaps without realizing it, Ross has presented evidence of the homosexual “change” that he was trying to discredit.
“The homosexual lobby simply can’t deal with the reality that ‘gays’ can change (usually with God’s help),” LaBarbera adds. His group recently hosted an event with another ex-lesbian, Linda Jernigan.
To make matters worse, the ABC hit piece was largely recycled leftist material. Ross borrowed heavily from Truth Wins Out (TWO) and an article in The Nation magazine, in order to concoct the shaky story.
Since the segment was light on anything truly horrifying, he used film footage from a Truth Wins Out operative who had secretly taped a counselor for the Bachmann service. This had the effect of making everything look sinister. The apparently shocking advice to the undercover homosexual operative was that heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not. This is what passes for “investigative journalism” these days.
“ABC’s Brian Ross did a terrific job with this Nightline segment…” declared TWO executive director Wayne Besen.
As such, Ross can expect to be nominated for an award from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which honors pro-homosexual coverage.
The Brian Ross hit piece follows an attack on the popular Congresswoman by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone magazine,”Michele Bachmann’s Holy War,” where he smeared Bachmann as “a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.”
Blogger Trevor Loudon disclosed that Taibbi was the recipient of an award from the Democratic Socialists of America in Boston for his hard-left reporting.
Loudon commented, “Maybe Matt Taibbi should tell us about his own true beliefs. I’m betting he is not as open about his own convictions as Michele Bachmann is about hers.”
The Never Ending Obama Campaign
President Barack Obama still won't tell the truth about which calamity he's trying to head off in the debt ceiling negotiations. In his third press conference in two weeks, he tried once again to convince the American people that he is fighting against a catastrophic default. But Republican lawmakers announced earlier in the day that the House of Representatives will vote next week on a $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase (with matching spending cuts) that will head off the potential debt crisis. The problem for Mr. Obama is it won't head off the impending crisis for his political career.
It turns out that the August 2, 2011 deadline for catastrophe that Obama & Company have been touting is perfectly timed if you're a failed president who desperately wants to be re-elected in 2012. In his opening statement today, Mr. Obama declared, "we have a unique opportunity to do something big." But the kind of big deal he wants would take all mention of debt and deficits off the front page and out of the minds of most voters giving him the entire length of the campaign to keep on spending more and borrowing more with impunity.
This morning he spoke of a hypothetical debt deal by saying, "If they show me a serious plan I'm ready to move." But when asked if he would consider the $2.4 trillion Republican plan a serious one, he admitted he hasn't seen it but still dismissed it saying, "My expectation is that you'll probably see the House vote on a couple of things just to make political statements. But if you're trying to get to $2.4 trillion without any revenue, then you are effectively gutting a whole bunch of domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome and is not going to be something that I would support."
Way to stay on message, Mr. President; reject someone else's plan without even looking at it, offer no specific plan of your own and use unsubstantiated threats of gutted programs and heavy burdens to frighten our most vulnerable citizens. Of course he also tossed in the now-perfunctory attack on millionaires, billionaires, oil companies and those evil corporate jet owners to fan the class warfare flames he needs to keep burning if he has any hope of winning a second term.
All this makes the main point of his presentation today even more unbelievable than his usual empty rhetoric. Stating that the debt issue "is going to continue to plague us for months and years to come," Mr. Obama actually said, "I think it's important for the American people that everybody in this town set politics aside, that everybody in this town sets our individual interests aside and we try to do some tough stuff." Obviously he is not interested in taking his own advice.
With both sides seemingly so far apart, Mr. Obama was asked why he still has hope that further negotiations will provide any results, "I always have hope," he said with a smile, "Don't you remember my campaign?"
How could we forget when it never ends?
It turns out that the August 2, 2011 deadline for catastrophe that Obama & Company have been touting is perfectly timed if you're a failed president who desperately wants to be re-elected in 2012. In his opening statement today, Mr. Obama declared, "we have a unique opportunity to do something big." But the kind of big deal he wants would take all mention of debt and deficits off the front page and out of the minds of most voters giving him the entire length of the campaign to keep on spending more and borrowing more with impunity.
This morning he spoke of a hypothetical debt deal by saying, "If they show me a serious plan I'm ready to move." But when asked if he would consider the $2.4 trillion Republican plan a serious one, he admitted he hasn't seen it but still dismissed it saying, "My expectation is that you'll probably see the House vote on a couple of things just to make political statements. But if you're trying to get to $2.4 trillion without any revenue, then you are effectively gutting a whole bunch of domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome and is not going to be something that I would support."
Way to stay on message, Mr. President; reject someone else's plan without even looking at it, offer no specific plan of your own and use unsubstantiated threats of gutted programs and heavy burdens to frighten our most vulnerable citizens. Of course he also tossed in the now-perfunctory attack on millionaires, billionaires, oil companies and those evil corporate jet owners to fan the class warfare flames he needs to keep burning if he has any hope of winning a second term.
All this makes the main point of his presentation today even more unbelievable than his usual empty rhetoric. Stating that the debt issue "is going to continue to plague us for months and years to come," Mr. Obama actually said, "I think it's important for the American people that everybody in this town set politics aside, that everybody in this town sets our individual interests aside and we try to do some tough stuff." Obviously he is not interested in taking his own advice.
With both sides seemingly so far apart, Mr. Obama was asked why he still has hope that further negotiations will provide any results, "I always have hope," he said with a smile, "Don't you remember my campaign?"
How could we forget when it never ends?
Pentagon: 24,000 Files Stolen
Politico reports:
The Pentagon suffered one of its largest-ever cyber thefts this spring when more than 24,000 files were stolen by a foreign government, officials disclosed on Thursday.
William Lynn, the deputy secretary of defense, said at the National Defense University in Washington that the files were stolen from a defense industry computer in a single intrusion in March.
“It is a significant concern that over the past decade, terabytes of data have been extracted by foreign intruders from corporate networks of defense companies,” he said at the start of an afternoon speech laying out the Defense Department’s first unified strategy for cyber security. “Indeed, in a single intrusion this March, 24,000 files were taken.”
Lynn said the massive attack was not by an individual but by another country. “It was done, we think, by a foreign intelligence service,” he said, declining to identify the country. Theft “was data-related,” he said.
That cyber break-in and others have galvanized the Pentagon to develop new cybersecurity rules aimed at guarding against attacks coming from within the military and outside it.
“It is critical to strengthen our cyber capabilities to address the cyber threats we’re facing,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a statement ahead of Lynn’s speech. “I view this as an area in which we’re going to confront increasing threats in the future and think we have to be better prepared to deal with the growing cyber challenges that will face the nation.”
The Pentagon suffered one of its largest-ever cyber thefts this spring when more than 24,000 files were stolen by a foreign government, officials disclosed on Thursday.
William Lynn, the deputy secretary of defense, said at the National Defense University in Washington that the files were stolen from a defense industry computer in a single intrusion in March.
“It is a significant concern that over the past decade, terabytes of data have been extracted by foreign intruders from corporate networks of defense companies,” he said at the start of an afternoon speech laying out the Defense Department’s first unified strategy for cyber security. “Indeed, in a single intrusion this March, 24,000 files were taken.”
Lynn said the massive attack was not by an individual but by another country. “It was done, we think, by a foreign intelligence service,” he said, declining to identify the country. Theft “was data-related,” he said.
That cyber break-in and others have galvanized the Pentagon to develop new cybersecurity rules aimed at guarding against attacks coming from within the military and outside it.
“It is critical to strengthen our cyber capabilities to address the cyber threats we’re facing,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a statement ahead of Lynn’s speech. “I view this as an area in which we’re going to confront increasing threats in the future and think we have to be better prepared to deal with the growing cyber challenges that will face the nation.”
Your UN Dollars At Work
Update: Please see the comments for an interesting find. I didn't catch it before publishing, but it's definitely worth checking out!
Here I thought the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was in the business of, you know, providing for the basic needs of refugees. I never would've guessed that they were in the business of helping the Palestinians dominate every category in the Guiness Book of World Records.
Who could've imagined their dastardly plan?
From the above photo:
A Palestinian flag is seen as children play with footballs in an attempt to break a world record of children playing soccer at the same time during a summer camp in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip July 14, 2011. The United Nation Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) organises activities for children during the summer camp. REUTERS/ Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA)
A week or so ago, they pulled the exact same stunt, except instead of soccer balls, they used evil Zionist parachutes:
Palestinian children play with parachutes as they try to break a world record during a summer camp organized by the United Nation Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip June 30, 2011. REUTERS/ Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA)
[ Daylife Link | Daylife Link ]
Comments
Interestingly enough, if you look closely at the soccer photo, it would seem that UNRWA is allowing the locals to "obfuscate" the entities that are paying for these little shindigs. Whereas the United States, Australia, Denmark, and the European Union are clearly visible in the parachute photo, they look slightly different in a blown up portion of the soccer shot.
I'm just shocked that UNRWA would be anti-Western.
Choosing Sides
Yeah, and you thought the press brings you the unbiased, totally disconnected view of events on the ground.
It's not that I have a problem with photojournalists trying to present a compelling case for something they feel passionate about -- Just keep it in the "commentary" section, please.
A Palestinian youth (front) and a Jewish settler (rear) prepare to throw stones at each other during clashes which according to witnesses, erupted after settlers cut down olive trees belonging to the West Bank village of Asira al-Qibilya near Nablus July 3, 2011. Scorched hillsides and charred olive groves near Nablus pinpoint the latest acts of arson by hardline Jewish settlers against Palestinians who say they are ever more the victims of such attacks in the West Bank. Picture taken July 3, 2011. To match Feature PALESTINIANS-ISRAEL/SETTLERS REUTERS/Abed Omar Qusini (WEST BANK)
[Day Life Link]
Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Show White House Attacked & Tried to Exclude FOX News
Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Show White House Attacked & Tried to Exclude FOX News
More from the most transparent and ethical White House in American history.
The Obama White House has been caught in a bold face lie. Despite their repeated denials that Obama’s White House had a war on FOX News and was trying to freeze them out of media access, White House emails obtained by Judicial Watch show that the WH had an anti-Fox News bias agenda.Isn’t it special that we are presented with a Presidential Administration that does not believe in the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press? How small is this White House that would act in such a childish, petty and media agenda driven manner?
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Obama Department of Treasury showing that the Obama administration, contrary to its repeated denials, attempted to exclude the Fox News Channel (FNC) from a round of interviews with Treasury’s “Executive Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The documents, which include email exchanges within the Department of the Treasury and between Treasury and White House staff, also provide colorful evidence of an anti-Fox News bias within the Obama White House.
The documents, obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to an October, 28, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, concern a series of interviews with Feinberg, who served as the Special Master for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Executive Compensation, on October 22, 2009, organized by the Treasury Department. According to press reports, the Fox News Channel was specifically excluded from joining the pool of reporters which precipitated a backlash among the networks and a reversal by the Obama Treasury Department.
As the Gateway Pundit points out, documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that an Obama White House staffer threatened to stuff dead fish in the FOX News cubby.
More emails obtained by JW:
However, despite this public position, internal Obama administration emails obtained by Judicial Watch provide evidence that FNC was specifically singled out for exclusion. According to one October 22, 2009, email exchange between Dag Vega, Director of Broadcast Media on the White House staff, to Jenni LeCompte, then-Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in the Treasury Department, Vega informs LeCompte that “…we’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”
Regarding general anti-FNC bias within the Obama White House in an October 23, 2009, email exchange between Jennifer Psaki, Deputy White House Communications Director and LeCompte, Psaki writes, “I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby – just cause”. In an email on the night of October 22, 2009, commenting on a report by Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier noting the exclusion of the network from the pool, Psaki writes to Compte and fellow White House colleagues, “…brett baier just did a stupid piece on it — but he is a lunatic”.
Looks like the Obama White House got caught doing business, the Chicago way.
More from the most transparent and ethical White House in American history.
The Obama White House has been caught in a bold face lie. Despite their repeated denials that Obama’s White House had a war on FOX News and was trying to freeze them out of media access, White House emails obtained by Judicial Watch show that the WH had an anti-Fox News bias agenda.Isn’t it special that we are presented with a Presidential Administration that does not believe in the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press? How small is this White House that would act in such a childish, petty and media agenda driven manner?
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Obama Department of Treasury showing that the Obama administration, contrary to its repeated denials, attempted to exclude the Fox News Channel (FNC) from a round of interviews with Treasury’s “Executive Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The documents, which include email exchanges within the Department of the Treasury and between Treasury and White House staff, also provide colorful evidence of an anti-Fox News bias within the Obama White House.
The documents, obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to an October, 28, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, concern a series of interviews with Feinberg, who served as the Special Master for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Executive Compensation, on October 22, 2009, organized by the Treasury Department. According to press reports, the Fox News Channel was specifically excluded from joining the pool of reporters which precipitated a backlash among the networks and a reversal by the Obama Treasury Department.
As the Gateway Pundit points out, documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that an Obama White House staffer threatened to stuff dead fish in the FOX News cubby.
More emails obtained by JW:
However, despite this public position, internal Obama administration emails obtained by Judicial Watch provide evidence that FNC was specifically singled out for exclusion. According to one October 22, 2009, email exchange between Dag Vega, Director of Broadcast Media on the White House staff, to Jenni LeCompte, then-Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in the Treasury Department, Vega informs LeCompte that “…we’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”
Regarding general anti-FNC bias within the Obama White House in an October 23, 2009, email exchange between Jennifer Psaki, Deputy White House Communications Director and LeCompte, Psaki writes, “I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby – just cause”. In an email on the night of October 22, 2009, commenting on a report by Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier noting the exclusion of the network from the pool, Psaki writes to Compte and fellow White House colleagues, “…brett baier just did a stupid piece on it — but he is a lunatic”.
Looks like the Obama White House got caught doing business, the Chicago way.
Sheila Jackson Lee Reminds Us It Is Always All About Race
Fresh from declaring the decision to close the chronically failing North Forest Independent School District to be an act of racism, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has also made it clear that opposition to raising the debt ceiling is also racist -- because apparently opposition to Barack Obama can only be based on the color of his skin.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.
"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”
Yeah, Sheila, never in American history has any president faced partisan opponents who have worked to stymie his proposals and prevent his reelection. Not once.
Well, except when you were REPEATEDLY calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Or accusing him of genocide against black people. Or repeatedly questioning his legitimacy as president because of alleged suppression of the black vote. So tell me, Sheila, were your anti-Bush activities all about opposing him because he was a white man in the Oval Office?
And for that matter, earlier today I put up a post quoting Barack Obama when he opposed an increase of the debt ceiling in 2006. Every Senate Democrat voted against that increase. So you see opposition -- even partisan opposition -- to a debt ceiling increase isn't unprecedented. And I believe you opposed that increase when it was voted upon in the House, too.
But I guess all that stuff is different.
After all, you were a black woman standing up to a white man -- no racial politics there. Or at least none that you find objectionable. After all, that standing up to Republican presidents is what Democrats like yourself are supposed to do.
But all these EEEEEEE-VIL Republicans opposing Dear leader Barack Hussein Obama? It can only be about race -- and even if it isn't you can still claim it is.
After all, denying you are a racist is as good as a confession of racism -- because being white and disagreeing with a black who calls you a racist is in and of itself racist.
Which is why this last bit in your little temper tantrum is truly priceless.
Jackson Lee concluded by saying that she hoped someone would step up and say that what appears obvious to her is not in fact true.
"I hope someone will say that what it appears to be is not in fact accurate," said Lee. "But historically it seems to be nothing more."
It isn't racism, you camera-hogging, self-promoting, race-baiting, poverty-pimping hatemonger. Opposing Obama on this one is just plain common sense, given that he has in three years racked up twice as much deficit spending as his predecessor did in eight.
And I'll direct you back to the words of Barack Obama when he opposed increasing the debt limit.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
If those words were true in 2006, then they are just as true today. Are you calling Barack Obama a liar?
America deserves better than Barack Obama -- and that has nothing to do with his race.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.
"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”
Yeah, Sheila, never in American history has any president faced partisan opponents who have worked to stymie his proposals and prevent his reelection. Not once.
Well, except when you were REPEATEDLY calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Or accusing him of genocide against black people. Or repeatedly questioning his legitimacy as president because of alleged suppression of the black vote. So tell me, Sheila, were your anti-Bush activities all about opposing him because he was a white man in the Oval Office?
And for that matter, earlier today I put up a post quoting Barack Obama when he opposed an increase of the debt ceiling in 2006. Every Senate Democrat voted against that increase. So you see opposition -- even partisan opposition -- to a debt ceiling increase isn't unprecedented. And I believe you opposed that increase when it was voted upon in the House, too.
But I guess all that stuff is different.
After all, you were a black woman standing up to a white man -- no racial politics there. Or at least none that you find objectionable. After all, that standing up to Republican presidents is what Democrats like yourself are supposed to do.
But all these EEEEEEE-VIL Republicans opposing Dear leader Barack Hussein Obama? It can only be about race -- and even if it isn't you can still claim it is.
After all, denying you are a racist is as good as a confession of racism -- because being white and disagreeing with a black who calls you a racist is in and of itself racist.
Which is why this last bit in your little temper tantrum is truly priceless.
Jackson Lee concluded by saying that she hoped someone would step up and say that what appears obvious to her is not in fact true.
"I hope someone will say that what it appears to be is not in fact accurate," said Lee. "But historically it seems to be nothing more."
It isn't racism, you camera-hogging, self-promoting, race-baiting, poverty-pimping hatemonger. Opposing Obama on this one is just plain common sense, given that he has in three years racked up twice as much deficit spending as his predecessor did in eight.
And I'll direct you back to the words of Barack Obama when he opposed increasing the debt limit.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
If those words were true in 2006, then they are just as true today. Are you calling Barack Obama a liar?
America deserves better than Barack Obama -- and that has nothing to do with his race.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Obama's One Hundred and Twenty Ninth Week in Office
Please Bookmark
"The List" for 7/14/2011
Gunrunner-Gate
Tampa Tribune: Federal gun investigations draw Congressional scrutiny. SSI: Tampa agents ready to come in from the cold
Media & Congress Still Missing the Big Legal Point of the Gunwalker Scandal: it was a conspiracy to illegally export weapons to a foreign country
Did Fast & Furious violate the Arms Export Control Act?...- Here is the Law
Congressman Says Fast & Furious Was Obama Administration Conspiracy to Regulate and List Gun Owners- Calls on Holder to Resign
Gunwalker: Justice Department Tampering with Witnesses? ...Darrell Issa and Charles Grassley demand to know about contact DOJ has had with committee witnesses. -new fall guy to target after they failed to topple ATF Director Ken Melson.
An internal ATF email seems to support the assertion that Fast and Furious was a PR stunt for gun control
Obamanomics
Obama White House Says Voting on Debt Increase Again Next Year Is as Bad as Default (Video)
US Default Risk Jumps To Highest Since February 2010 On Debt Ceiling Worries
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; "we're running out of time," to act on raising the debt limit
S&P warns of pre-default downgrade
Video Flashback:...: “Obama says he's responsible for economy. "Give it to me." — President Obama, July 14, 2009
Okla. Rep. Lashes out at Obama For Social Security Threat: ‘Sick And Twisted’
Obama Seeking Emergency Camp David Meeting, Boehner Just Says No
Obama Blunders, Admits Bluffing on Debt Ceiling
Without raising taxes and by carefully watching spending, Indiana state government has continued to live within its means
Nobel Economist, Robert Lucas: "Is it possible that by imitating European policies on labor markets, welfare and taxes, the U.S. has chosen a new, lower GDP trend? If so, it may be that the weak recovery we have had so far is all the recovery we will get."
Obama administration going after LIFO rule?
Retail sales fall for the first time in a year, -as business inventory rises
The Labor Department says that weekly applications dropped 22,000 to a seasonally adjusted 405,000, the lowest level in almost three months
Let them eat kale
Obama's 50th birthday bash... $38,500 per couple
Obama Ethics
Video: Michelle Obama – Barack Quoted Alinsky When we Met
WH e-mail confirms a deliberate attempt to exclude Fox from interview pool in 2009
New rule for WH press corps: stop asking questions when you see the President
Emails reveal White House calling Fox News host Baier ‘a lunatic’
In White House E-Mails, Staffers Wrote of Delivering Dead Fish to Fox News, Blacklisting Network
Documents Show Obama White House Attacked, Excluded Fox News Channel
Obama's NRLB now going after dead people
Obamacare
Key Democrat testifies against healthcare reform bill's Medicare cost-control panel
New Obamacare regs confirm Americans will not have same insurance choices as Congress
Will ObamaCare Force Employers to Snoop Into Their Employees' Family Finances?
It's 3am and nobody's there
Republicans Attempt to Bar ‘Backdoor Amnesty’ by Obama Administration
The complete list is compiled chronologially @ http://www.nachumlist.com/
"The List" for 7/14/2011
Gunrunner-Gate
Tampa Tribune: Federal gun investigations draw Congressional scrutiny. SSI: Tampa agents ready to come in from the cold
Media & Congress Still Missing the Big Legal Point of the Gunwalker Scandal: it was a conspiracy to illegally export weapons to a foreign country
Did Fast & Furious violate the Arms Export Control Act?...- Here is the Law
Congressman Says Fast & Furious Was Obama Administration Conspiracy to Regulate and List Gun Owners- Calls on Holder to Resign
Gunwalker: Justice Department Tampering with Witnesses? ...Darrell Issa and Charles Grassley demand to know about contact DOJ has had with committee witnesses. -new fall guy to target after they failed to topple ATF Director Ken Melson.
An internal ATF email seems to support the assertion that Fast and Furious was a PR stunt for gun control
Obamanomics
Obama White House Says Voting on Debt Increase Again Next Year Is as Bad as Default (Video)
US Default Risk Jumps To Highest Since February 2010 On Debt Ceiling Worries
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; "we're running out of time," to act on raising the debt limit
S&P warns of pre-default downgrade
Video Flashback:...: “Obama says he's responsible for economy. "Give it to me." — President Obama, July 14, 2009
Okla. Rep. Lashes out at Obama For Social Security Threat: ‘Sick And Twisted’
Obama Seeking Emergency Camp David Meeting, Boehner Just Says No
Obama Blunders, Admits Bluffing on Debt Ceiling
Without raising taxes and by carefully watching spending, Indiana state government has continued to live within its means
Nobel Economist, Robert Lucas: "Is it possible that by imitating European policies on labor markets, welfare and taxes, the U.S. has chosen a new, lower GDP trend? If so, it may be that the weak recovery we have had so far is all the recovery we will get."
Obama administration going after LIFO rule?
Retail sales fall for the first time in a year, -as business inventory rises
The Labor Department says that weekly applications dropped 22,000 to a seasonally adjusted 405,000, the lowest level in almost three months
Let them eat kale
Obama's 50th birthday bash... $38,500 per couple
Obama Ethics
Video: Michelle Obama – Barack Quoted Alinsky When we Met
WH e-mail confirms a deliberate attempt to exclude Fox from interview pool in 2009
New rule for WH press corps: stop asking questions when you see the President
Emails reveal White House calling Fox News host Baier ‘a lunatic’
In White House E-Mails, Staffers Wrote of Delivering Dead Fish to Fox News, Blacklisting Network
Documents Show Obama White House Attacked, Excluded Fox News Channel
Obama's NRLB now going after dead people
Obamacare
Key Democrat testifies against healthcare reform bill's Medicare cost-control panel
New Obamacare regs confirm Americans will not have same insurance choices as Congress
Will ObamaCare Force Employers to Snoop Into Their Employees' Family Finances?
It's 3am and nobody's there
Republicans Attempt to Bar ‘Backdoor Amnesty’ by Obama Administration
The complete list is compiled chronologially @ http://www.nachumlist.com/
The Unbearable Smugness of Liberals: A Guide for the Perplexed
Belladonna's first PJ Advice column answers the age-old question: How do you deal with the intense anger and condescension that Democrats express toward conservatives?
July 11, 2011 - 11:35 pm - by Belladonna Rogers
Dear Belladonna Rogers:
I live in deep blue America and am a conservative. When I see old friends after a long absence, or meet new people, they assume I’m a liberal Democrat, in part because they are, and also because I live in a blue city in a blue state. I don’t like to argue in social settings, so normally I don’t reveal my political views. I can deal with differences of opinion, but what I find increasingly unpleasant is how smug and nasty liberal Democrats are when referring to conservatives, Republicans, or even independents. I’d like to remain close to old friends and form new friendships, too. How do you suggest I deal with the demeaning attitudes and intense anger that so many liberals express toward conservatives these days?
– Adrift in San Francisco
Dear Adrift,
(1) It is unpleasant to be treated as a moron, or criminally insane, a traitor to all that’s good and true, and, of course, a pariah, just because of your politics. It’s even more than unpleasant to incur wrath because you don’t want to dive head first into the blue seas of the liberal Democrats around you. In regions like yours it’s easy to be blindsided — stunned, really — by the unanimity of idolatry toward the current president. It’s galling to be presented with this uncongenial Venti, topped off as it invariably is by the latte of condescension. Disdainful liberals are unable to hide their contempt for those who differ with them. You begin what seems like an enjoyable conversation, but as soon you declare your political perspective, you go from being an attractive object of interest to the objectionable equivalent of a social leper.
(2) As soon as you realize that you’ve been presumed to be a liberal, nip it in the bud. Say that you’re a conservative. And say it as calmly as you can, not as if it’s a challenge to a duel. You may have to practice while you’re doing the dishes, but get to a point where you can say it with the same nonchalance as if you’re saying, “I’m from Nebraska.” No big deal. If you don’t reveal your politics as soon as you realize that the other person presumes you’re a liberal, you’ll become increasingly restless in the political closet as you mutely endure the slings and arrows of outrageous insults heaped on you and your fellow conservatives. You’ll also find yourself annoyed, not least at yourself, as you suffer through the predictable barrage of liberal arrogance. However conflict-averse you may be, not revealing your true colors is like trying to pass as something you’re not. Silence implies assent, and your silence won’t serve you well.
If you don’t disclose where you stand early on, you’ll become ever more irritated by how your liberal friends — having assumed you were one of them — refer to conservatives, and by the time you do tell them the truth, you’ll be far more exasperated than if you’d spoken up immediately. By the same token, your liberal friends will be equally irritated at you. They’ll feel that you deceived them which, by your silence, is exactly what you did.
(3) Your tone matters. Don’t be defensive, condescending, or aggressive with others, even when, or especially when, they address you in these ways. Be clear and friendly — and give them a chance to continue the conversation or let it drop.
(4) Your implied fear that expressing your political perspective may drive a wedge between you and your new and old friends is justified. It will put some distance between you and them, but in this case good fences make good neighbors by clearly demarcating the potentially toxic territory between you and them.
Think of it this way: if relationships are structures, revealing your political views will ensure that yours are built on firm ground and not on the quicksand of implicit deceit.
Even without a heated argument, a calm discussion is difficult to have with many liberals because they limit themselves to so few sources of information. An interesting exchange is foreclosed by their willful ignorance. It can be like talking with a cult member whose involvement forbids contact with anything that isn’t cult-approved. To paraphrase their current hero, they cling to their New York Times and their New Yorkers and have “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” (Senator Barack H. Obama, April 11, 2008.) Ironic, no?
When your interlocutor reads the New York Times and The New Yorker, listens to National Public Radio, and watches The Rachel Maddow Show — all uncritically and in the mistaken belief that these are objective sources of accurate information, what you’re dealing with is a person with an extremely restricted understanding of the country and the world. These parochial news sources reinforce one another. And even worse, the liberal will usually refuse to expose him-or-herself to a wider variety of sources. I, myself, had the experience of emailing a liberal acquaintance a link to an insightful op-ed piece that appeared in a newspaper that is, apparently, on the liberal “do not read” list. In reply, he wrote, “The Wall Street Journal? Please take me off your distribution list, Belladonna.” Wouldn’t even read it. He saw the source, knew it wasn’t approved, and that was that.
(5) What not to do: Don’t think you can convert a liberal to your views. Political affiliation has become a matter of tribal and personal identification with a group. Although it may appear to be rational, it isn’t, entirely. It’s emotional. The desire to remain a liberal, even in the face of all the evidence of its failures, is born of humanity’s — and all living creatures’ — deepest instincts to affiliate with others and to retain that affiliation regardless of logic or facts. Not everyone has either the desire or the need to think analytically about political realities. Many base their politics on a yearning to be part of a movement larger than themselves.
By revealing that you’re a conservative, what the liberal will hear is this: “I could have chosen to be a member of your tribe, but I’ve decided your tribe doesn’t represent my understanding of the world.” What this, in turn, conveys to the liberal is, “I’ve rejected the premises that undergird your entire world view. The foundations of your understanding of the world are not mine.”
While people can and do change, they don’t turn around on a dime because of a single powerful conversation over drinks or dinner. Change occurs, if at all, over years or decades, through the slow accretion of new or newly-understood information and newly-formed impressions, as well as through the gradual accumulation of experiences and observations.
(6) Adult friends cannot and do not agree on everything. You can try in an amicable way to agree to disagree on politics. You can look for other areas of commonality. You may or may not succeed in your search.
It’s also possible that your differing political views are too powerful to sustain a close friendship, even if you succeed in finding other areas of mutual interest. The enormity of your political differences may always be the rogue elephant looming in the corner, ready to trample on discussions of a wide variety of other topics.
(7) When revealing that they’re not liberals, some conservatives will add, “I’m a fiscal conservative and a foreign policy hawk, but on domestic social issues such as abortion, gun control and gay marriage, I think you and I would agree.” Of course, if that’s not true of you, that option isn’t available.
(8) Many conservative women, in particular, encounter liberal men in social settings who become uncontrollably loud and abusive when a conservative woman fails to nod pleasantly and express respectful agreement with his political views. When this happens, remain as cool as you can. Hold your ground. Let the liberal become apoplectic while you calmly say, “I disagree with your characterization” or “I don’t share your contempt,” “I don’t accept your premises,” or “I see things differently.”
You be the rational one, while the liberal is driven around the bend not only by your views and your knowledgeable statement of facts, but also by your composure and your refusal to be bullied.
Don’t be surprised or stunned into silence or submission when this happens. And it will happen. Expect it. Trust me.
(9) Try to be patient with your liberal friends. Their unexamined premises and their overwhelming desire for affiliation with their tribe are understandable, and not everyone has the temperament or inclination to think for him-or-herself. They’re like prisoners trapped in a dungeon, unable to escape.
(10) You could approach the challenge this way: try to show the liberals in your life what a thoughtful conservative is really like — as distinct from the demented fiend on the lunatic fringe conjured by their fevered imaginations.
– By Belladonna Rogers
Do you have questions? Belladonna Rogers has answers. Send your questions about politics, personal matters, or any other matter that’s on your mind and Belladonna will answer the most interesting ones. The names and email addresses of all advice-seekers will remain anonymous. Send your questions to: advice@pajamasmedia.com
Belladonna Rogers is a close observer of international and domestic affairs.
July 11, 2011 - 11:35 pm - by Belladonna Rogers
Dear Belladonna Rogers:
I live in deep blue America and am a conservative. When I see old friends after a long absence, or meet new people, they assume I’m a liberal Democrat, in part because they are, and also because I live in a blue city in a blue state. I don’t like to argue in social settings, so normally I don’t reveal my political views. I can deal with differences of opinion, but what I find increasingly unpleasant is how smug and nasty liberal Democrats are when referring to conservatives, Republicans, or even independents. I’d like to remain close to old friends and form new friendships, too. How do you suggest I deal with the demeaning attitudes and intense anger that so many liberals express toward conservatives these days?
– Adrift in San Francisco
Dear Adrift,
(1) It is unpleasant to be treated as a moron, or criminally insane, a traitor to all that’s good and true, and, of course, a pariah, just because of your politics. It’s even more than unpleasant to incur wrath because you don’t want to dive head first into the blue seas of the liberal Democrats around you. In regions like yours it’s easy to be blindsided — stunned, really — by the unanimity of idolatry toward the current president. It’s galling to be presented with this uncongenial Venti, topped off as it invariably is by the latte of condescension. Disdainful liberals are unable to hide their contempt for those who differ with them. You begin what seems like an enjoyable conversation, but as soon you declare your political perspective, you go from being an attractive object of interest to the objectionable equivalent of a social leper.
(2) As soon as you realize that you’ve been presumed to be a liberal, nip it in the bud. Say that you’re a conservative. And say it as calmly as you can, not as if it’s a challenge to a duel. You may have to practice while you’re doing the dishes, but get to a point where you can say it with the same nonchalance as if you’re saying, “I’m from Nebraska.” No big deal. If you don’t reveal your politics as soon as you realize that the other person presumes you’re a liberal, you’ll become increasingly restless in the political closet as you mutely endure the slings and arrows of outrageous insults heaped on you and your fellow conservatives. You’ll also find yourself annoyed, not least at yourself, as you suffer through the predictable barrage of liberal arrogance. However conflict-averse you may be, not revealing your true colors is like trying to pass as something you’re not. Silence implies assent, and your silence won’t serve you well.
If you don’t disclose where you stand early on, you’ll become ever more irritated by how your liberal friends — having assumed you were one of them — refer to conservatives, and by the time you do tell them the truth, you’ll be far more exasperated than if you’d spoken up immediately. By the same token, your liberal friends will be equally irritated at you. They’ll feel that you deceived them which, by your silence, is exactly what you did.
(3) Your tone matters. Don’t be defensive, condescending, or aggressive with others, even when, or especially when, they address you in these ways. Be clear and friendly — and give them a chance to continue the conversation or let it drop.
(4) Your implied fear that expressing your political perspective may drive a wedge between you and your new and old friends is justified. It will put some distance between you and them, but in this case good fences make good neighbors by clearly demarcating the potentially toxic territory between you and them.
Think of it this way: if relationships are structures, revealing your political views will ensure that yours are built on firm ground and not on the quicksand of implicit deceit.
Even without a heated argument, a calm discussion is difficult to have with many liberals because they limit themselves to so few sources of information. An interesting exchange is foreclosed by their willful ignorance. It can be like talking with a cult member whose involvement forbids contact with anything that isn’t cult-approved. To paraphrase their current hero, they cling to their New York Times and their New Yorkers and have “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” (Senator Barack H. Obama, April 11, 2008.) Ironic, no?
When your interlocutor reads the New York Times and The New Yorker, listens to National Public Radio, and watches The Rachel Maddow Show — all uncritically and in the mistaken belief that these are objective sources of accurate information, what you’re dealing with is a person with an extremely restricted understanding of the country and the world. These parochial news sources reinforce one another. And even worse, the liberal will usually refuse to expose him-or-herself to a wider variety of sources. I, myself, had the experience of emailing a liberal acquaintance a link to an insightful op-ed piece that appeared in a newspaper that is, apparently, on the liberal “do not read” list. In reply, he wrote, “The Wall Street Journal? Please take me off your distribution list, Belladonna.” Wouldn’t even read it. He saw the source, knew it wasn’t approved, and that was that.
(5) What not to do: Don’t think you can convert a liberal to your views. Political affiliation has become a matter of tribal and personal identification with a group. Although it may appear to be rational, it isn’t, entirely. It’s emotional. The desire to remain a liberal, even in the face of all the evidence of its failures, is born of humanity’s — and all living creatures’ — deepest instincts to affiliate with others and to retain that affiliation regardless of logic or facts. Not everyone has either the desire or the need to think analytically about political realities. Many base their politics on a yearning to be part of a movement larger than themselves.
By revealing that you’re a conservative, what the liberal will hear is this: “I could have chosen to be a member of your tribe, but I’ve decided your tribe doesn’t represent my understanding of the world.” What this, in turn, conveys to the liberal is, “I’ve rejected the premises that undergird your entire world view. The foundations of your understanding of the world are not mine.”
While people can and do change, they don’t turn around on a dime because of a single powerful conversation over drinks or dinner. Change occurs, if at all, over years or decades, through the slow accretion of new or newly-understood information and newly-formed impressions, as well as through the gradual accumulation of experiences and observations.
(6) Adult friends cannot and do not agree on everything. You can try in an amicable way to agree to disagree on politics. You can look for other areas of commonality. You may or may not succeed in your search.
It’s also possible that your differing political views are too powerful to sustain a close friendship, even if you succeed in finding other areas of mutual interest. The enormity of your political differences may always be the rogue elephant looming in the corner, ready to trample on discussions of a wide variety of other topics.
(7) When revealing that they’re not liberals, some conservatives will add, “I’m a fiscal conservative and a foreign policy hawk, but on domestic social issues such as abortion, gun control and gay marriage, I think you and I would agree.” Of course, if that’s not true of you, that option isn’t available.
(8) Many conservative women, in particular, encounter liberal men in social settings who become uncontrollably loud and abusive when a conservative woman fails to nod pleasantly and express respectful agreement with his political views. When this happens, remain as cool as you can. Hold your ground. Let the liberal become apoplectic while you calmly say, “I disagree with your characterization” or “I don’t share your contempt,” “I don’t accept your premises,” or “I see things differently.”
You be the rational one, while the liberal is driven around the bend not only by your views and your knowledgeable statement of facts, but also by your composure and your refusal to be bullied.
Don’t be surprised or stunned into silence or submission when this happens. And it will happen. Expect it. Trust me.
(9) Try to be patient with your liberal friends. Their unexamined premises and their overwhelming desire for affiliation with their tribe are understandable, and not everyone has the temperament or inclination to think for him-or-herself. They’re like prisoners trapped in a dungeon, unable to escape.
(10) You could approach the challenge this way: try to show the liberals in your life what a thoughtful conservative is really like — as distinct from the demented fiend on the lunatic fringe conjured by their fevered imaginations.
– By Belladonna Rogers
Do you have questions? Belladonna Rogers has answers. Send your questions about politics, personal matters, or any other matter that’s on your mind and Belladonna will answer the most interesting ones. The names and email addresses of all advice-seekers will remain anonymous. Send your questions to: advice@pajamasmedia.com
Belladonna Rogers is a close observer of international and domestic affairs.