There are three issues that could presently trigger a Civil War in America:
Illegal aliens. A government that refuses to protect our borders, the methodical structure of citizenship, and the rule of law, will only be tolerated for so long. America is reaching a tipping point on this issue.
Abortion. Irreconcilable differences here. This may likely become as potent an issue as slavery was in the 1860s.
The right to keep and bear arms - see "2A Today for The USA"
No other significant present day problems could potentially result in the “brother against brother” tragedy of a Second American Civil War.
Sooner or later, the massive invasion of America by illegal aliens will be confronted, if not by the rule of law then by either armed police officers and soldiers … or armed citizens. There are twenty million or more illegal aliens entrenched in this nation now. How many tens of millions more will it take to reach a tipping point? At what point will law enforcement agencies and/or the military begin to do the job they were sworn to do? At what point will citizens themselves be forced, by government inactivity, to confront this invasion by force of arms?
Will the liberal politicians actually allow this showdown? Is this actually the sort of crisis opportunism that Obama’s Rahm Immanuel, and other leftist cultural Marxists, relish?
As an American, and a gun owner, would you take to the street to confront this illegal alien invasion? Do you have a personal breaking point on this issue?
I won’t deal with abortion here, except to note that the anti-abortion forces have the same moral intensity and personal commitment that was demonstrated by the slavery abolitionists of the nineteenth century. We saw where that led in America.
However, there is a third possible cause of a Second American Civil War: infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
This nation’s Second Amendment freedoms have too long been burdened with the lethargic, tunnel vision behavior of the gun owners known as “Elmer Fudds”, or, as Aaron Zelman used to call them “quackers”. This is the “good ole’ boy” type who simply doesn’t care about gun registrations, permits, regulations, or even confiscations, as long as he can keep his deer rifle or shotgun and exercise his “sportin’ rights”. This myopic fellow can be bought off for the price of a buck tag or duck license. Even Senator Chuck Schumer is a “Fudd”! “I ain’t gonna take your shotguns away, fellas!”
On the other side of the room from the Fudds is the “Cold Dead Fingers” crowd. A lot of tough talk over in that camp. A lot of arm chair patriotism and rhetorical heat. A lot of “let ‘em try to take my guns!” chest puffing. But somewhere at the core of this quite large group of gun owners is a determined minority that does really mean it.
I would assert that every single one of these very determined armed Americans has some idea, deep in his or her heart, as to what their personal “line in the sand” actually is. When it comes to this amorphous, mostly low profile, group, the hammer is cocked. These folks are getting to be known as the “Three Percenters”.
What the cultural Marxists, elitists, and authoritarians who advocate “gun control” (read "Know Thine Enemy") don’t seem to be able to grasp is the strange fact that a significant minority of human beings are willing to fight ferociously to preserve their freedoms. This irascible minority has yet to be awakened to action. But they’re sleeping with one eye open.
The attacks on the Second Amendment have, since 1934, been so gradual and incremental that the victim disarmament forces have prevailed to an amazing degree. They hear the loud complaints of gun owners, then make strategic “compromises” with other compromisers, and then, sure as day, there’s another gun regulation, permit process, limitation, restriction, tax burden, or license needed for each of us to exercise an unalienable right that, according to the American Bill of Rights, “shall not be infringed”.
Makes me think of the laughs I got as a kid when, in the Bugs Bunny cartoons, Elmer Fudd’s head turned into a big “SUCKER” when Bugs had tricked him once again. What also comes to mind is Charlie Brown and Lucy with her football, the football, that, to my knowledge, Charlie Brown was never able to kick. Only, unlike the comics, few of us are smiling about this. This could become deadly serious. Because the sneaking vermin cannot be allowed to win.
What must be obvious to any truly concerned American gun owner is that we absolutely must take EVERY action afforded us to prevent a Second American Civil War. This means that gun owners must become far more personally involved. Gun owners have to really grow fangs and learn to “snarl” in a societal and political sense. Wake up! You are the “gun lobby” these insidious liars and manipulators complain about! Remind them of that in every lawful way that you can.
Do you want to remain completely anonymous, but still help? A blank postal money order sent to GOA, SAF or JPFO works just fine, thanks.
We have to learn how to warn these gun prohibitionists off with unrelenting determination. When we gain a political victory or legal victory like the Heller or McDonald cases, we must be willing to dig into our own pockets and financially support those who truly won those victories, so that they may drive forward and win another, and another, with relentless momentum.
Political activism doesn’t need to cost much at all, especially in this day and age of email and unlimited phone calling plans. If you can’t afford to donate money to a Second Amendment organization, write the letters, send the emails, and make the phone calls in support of our gun rights. Talk to your gun owner friends and neighbors. Don’t let them remain Fudds or Quackers!
Or, when you hear “They ain’t gonna get my guns!”, ask that person how he or she is going to stop them. Don’t let this kind of chest puffing go unquestioned. Ask the arm chair warrior what he or she is doing now, today, to PREVENT that horror. If the question makes them uncomfortable it should! It won’t be Chuck Norris, Sly Stallone or Arnold coming through with minor flesh wounds, friends. A Second American Civil War will not be played out on a Hollywood set. You won’t be able to get up and leave the theater.
We need to prevent that war before it happens. How can we best do so? By preserving our right to keep and bear arms. Contribute to JPFO today and help us to protect that right. So called “gun control” must be completely destroyed. We must restore the pre-1934 state of affairs to America. Join JPFO today.
Friday, April 29, 2011
U.S. Weather Could Affect World Food Supplies, Prices
Killer tornadoes, pounding hail and straight line winds raced across the Southern United States this week. The storms left unspeakable damage and heartbreak in their wake. Meanwhile, the Midwest has had rain for weeks and temperatures are
unseasonably cool. Flooding along the Mississippi has also occurred.
These areas are where corn, wheat and soybean crops are grown. It is nearly May, and if the weather doesn't get back to normal soon, consumers may feel the effects at their grocery stores.
Local news programs are reporting that Illinois and Iowa are behind the usual 30 to 40 percent of acres planted for this time of the year. Illinois is at 11 percent while Iowa lags at 3 percent. The rains are not downpours and gully washers like last year. This year they are steady showers without drying days. The temperatures have been running almost 10 degrees cooler, which adds to planting woes.
Late corn plantings usually mean lower yields. The prices on corn, wheat and beans are already at record levels and still climbing. Each day that farmers are unable to plant, the prices go higher. Corn and wheat are over $7 a bushel and beans are over $13. Eventually, this will be passed to consumers by way of grocery prices. Products that contain corn, wheat or soybeans will continue to cost more as oil, weather and world demands go higher.
Farms today are large and usually consist of thousands of acres. Farmers start earlier in the year in order to get all of the acres planted. The push to grow and preserve your own food has gained in popularity in the last few years. But even backyard gardeners are looking at plots of soggy land and yearning to get started.
American farmers feed the world and the world will soon feel the impact of late planting in turn. The United States will be bidding with the rest of the world for crops not yet in the ground. The devalued dollar is dramatically adding to the price of American farm commodities.
Due to high grain prices, meat and dairy products will also cost more at the store. Poultry farms are following the trend with higher egg and chicken prices.
Local forecasters say temperatures should start to warm up in the next two weeks. But rain is still forecast for every two to four days. The perfect storm may be brewing for higher crop and grocery prices.
unseasonably cool. Flooding along the Mississippi has also occurred.
These areas are where corn, wheat and soybean crops are grown. It is nearly May, and if the weather doesn't get back to normal soon, consumers may feel the effects at their grocery stores.
Local news programs are reporting that Illinois and Iowa are behind the usual 30 to 40 percent of acres planted for this time of the year. Illinois is at 11 percent while Iowa lags at 3 percent. The rains are not downpours and gully washers like last year. This year they are steady showers without drying days. The temperatures have been running almost 10 degrees cooler, which adds to planting woes.
Late corn plantings usually mean lower yields. The prices on corn, wheat and beans are already at record levels and still climbing. Each day that farmers are unable to plant, the prices go higher. Corn and wheat are over $7 a bushel and beans are over $13. Eventually, this will be passed to consumers by way of grocery prices. Products that contain corn, wheat or soybeans will continue to cost more as oil, weather and world demands go higher.
Farms today are large and usually consist of thousands of acres. Farmers start earlier in the year in order to get all of the acres planted. The push to grow and preserve your own food has gained in popularity in the last few years. But even backyard gardeners are looking at plots of soggy land and yearning to get started.
American farmers feed the world and the world will soon feel the impact of late planting in turn. The United States will be bidding with the rest of the world for crops not yet in the ground. The devalued dollar is dramatically adding to the price of American farm commodities.
Due to high grain prices, meat and dairy products will also cost more at the store. Poultry farms are following the trend with higher egg and chicken prices.
Local forecasters say temperatures should start to warm up in the next two weeks. But rain is still forecast for every two to four days. The perfect storm may be brewing for higher crop and grocery prices.
Three Convicted in Terror-Related Cases Later Granted U.S. Citizenship by Obama Administration
(CNSNews.com) -- Three people convicted of crimes as a result of a terrorism-related investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) were later naturalized as U.S. citizens by the Obama administration, according to federal auditors.
The March 2011 audit (released on April 21, 2011) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs, shows that three individuals were among “defendants where the investigation involved an identified link to international terrorism but they were charged with violating other statutes [not directly related to terrorism], including fraud, immigration, drugs, false statements, and general conspiracy charges,” referred by DOJ as Category II terrorism-related cases.
The three individuals in question can be found in a DOJ list of unsealed terrorism-related investigations conducted from Sept. 11, 2001 through Mar. 18, 2010. There are 403 defendants on that list of which, according to the GAO, at least 43 percent were aliens--both legal (26 percent) and illegal (17 percent)--at the time they were charged with crimes.
“Prosecuting terror-related targets using Category II offenses and others is often an effective method--and sometimes the only available method--of deterring and disrupting potential terrorist planning and support activities,” explained the DOJ in the document that listed the defendants.
Staff members of GAO's Homeland Security and Justice team who worked on the audit told CNSNews.com in an e-mail that the three individuals were naturalized as U.S. citizens under President Barack Obama.
“One of the individuals was naturalized in late 2009. The other two were naturalized in 2010,” says the e-mail from the GAO.
The March 2011 audit (released on April 21, 2011) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs, shows that three individuals were among “defendants where the investigation involved an identified link to international terrorism but they were charged with violating other statutes [not directly related to terrorism], including fraud, immigration, drugs, false statements, and general conspiracy charges,” referred by DOJ as Category II terrorism-related cases.
The three individuals in question can be found in a DOJ list of unsealed terrorism-related investigations conducted from Sept. 11, 2001 through Mar. 18, 2010. There are 403 defendants on that list of which, according to the GAO, at least 43 percent were aliens--both legal (26 percent) and illegal (17 percent)--at the time they were charged with crimes.
“Prosecuting terror-related targets using Category II offenses and others is often an effective method--and sometimes the only available method--of deterring and disrupting potential terrorist planning and support activities,” explained the DOJ in the document that listed the defendants.
Staff members of GAO's Homeland Security and Justice team who worked on the audit told CNSNews.com in an e-mail that the three individuals were naturalized as U.S. citizens under President Barack Obama.
“One of the individuals was naturalized in late 2009. The other two were naturalized in 2010,” says the e-mail from the GAO.
New FTC Guidelines Take Aim at Children’s Food Pitchmen
There’s an old saying that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. The government version is this: When all you have is the ability to regulate, the solution to every problem is more regulation:
Citing an epidemic of childhood obesity, regulators are taking aim at a range of tactics used to market foods high in sugar, fat or salt to children, including the use of cartoon characters like Toucan Sam, the brightly colored Froot Loops pitchman, who appears in television commercials and online games as well as on cereal boxes.
The story goes on to say the regulations are “voluntary” but the food industry sees this as more than a hint:
“There’s clearly a demand hidden behind the velvet glove of the voluntary language,” said Dan Jaffe, an executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, a trade group that represents marketers like Kraft Foods and Campbell Soup.
In case you’re wondering where all this came from, the “intergovernmental panel” looking at food marketed to children was established by a provision in the 2009 budget omnibus. The recommendations the panel has produced are not entirely original (see footnote 10). They are based on a series of similar recommendations from groups including CSPI and WHO. Whatever the source, the image of the FTC taking on the Keebler elves is, well…magically delicious:
By explicitly tying advertising to childhood obesity, the government is suggesting there is a darker side to cuddly figures like Cap’n Crunch, the Keebler elves, Ronald McDonald and the movie and television characters used to promote food.
It’s perhaps not surprising that the same administration that wants to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant is prepared to treat sugar and salt in much the same manner. If they can replace our light bulbs with something better for us, why not our breakfast cereal?
I do find it a bit hypocritical that they same folks who spent half a billion dollars selling “hope and change” to the youth vote now want to forbid colorful characters used in advertising to children. I’ll grant it’s different if you’ll grant that it’s not all that different.
Citing an epidemic of childhood obesity, regulators are taking aim at a range of tactics used to market foods high in sugar, fat or salt to children, including the use of cartoon characters like Toucan Sam, the brightly colored Froot Loops pitchman, who appears in television commercials and online games as well as on cereal boxes.
The story goes on to say the regulations are “voluntary” but the food industry sees this as more than a hint:
“There’s clearly a demand hidden behind the velvet glove of the voluntary language,” said Dan Jaffe, an executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, a trade group that represents marketers like Kraft Foods and Campbell Soup.
In case you’re wondering where all this came from, the “intergovernmental panel” looking at food marketed to children was established by a provision in the 2009 budget omnibus. The recommendations the panel has produced are not entirely original (see footnote 10). They are based on a series of similar recommendations from groups including CSPI and WHO. Whatever the source, the image of the FTC taking on the Keebler elves is, well…magically delicious:
By explicitly tying advertising to childhood obesity, the government is suggesting there is a darker side to cuddly figures like Cap’n Crunch, the Keebler elves, Ronald McDonald and the movie and television characters used to promote food.
It’s perhaps not surprising that the same administration that wants to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant is prepared to treat sugar and salt in much the same manner. If they can replace our light bulbs with something better for us, why not our breakfast cereal?
I do find it a bit hypocritical that they same folks who spent half a billion dollars selling “hope and change” to the youth vote now want to forbid colorful characters used in advertising to children. I’ll grant it’s different if you’ll grant that it’s not all that different.
Think Progress: The South Deserved To Be Destroyed By Tornados
The south is still realizing the full extent of the damage caused by this week’s storms. Nearly 300 people are dead. The country is rallying in support of the devatated areas, and President Obama (who must have learned something from ignoring Nashville’s flood last year) is set break character to visit the very red state today.
Anyone with a soul feels pain for those affected. Thousands have lost everything. Lives were destroyed. Think Progress (via Da Tech Guy) has instead chosen to adopt the Pat Robertson model and claim Divine Justice for those redneck Republican climate change deniers in the south.
“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”
The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.
You’re reading that right. To paraphrase Brad Johnson’s post: Since the south has rejected the climate change hysteria, clearly they’re just asking for the wrath of Gaia, and should expect to be demolished.
If, unlike Johnson, you are interested in assisting those impacted by this disaster, you can help in the following ways:
Red Cross, or text REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10 to relief efforts
Samaritan’s Purse
Text “Give” to 80888 to give $10 to Salvation Army relief efforts.
Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those in Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Missouri, and across the south.
Anyone with a soul feels pain for those affected. Thousands have lost everything. Lives were destroyed. Think Progress (via Da Tech Guy) has instead chosen to adopt the Pat Robertson model and claim Divine Justice for those redneck Republican climate change deniers in the south.
“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”
The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.
You’re reading that right. To paraphrase Brad Johnson’s post: Since the south has rejected the climate change hysteria, clearly they’re just asking for the wrath of Gaia, and should expect to be demolished.
If, unlike Johnson, you are interested in assisting those impacted by this disaster, you can help in the following ways:
Red Cross, or text REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10 to relief efforts
Samaritan’s Purse
Text “Give” to 80888 to give $10 to Salvation Army relief efforts.
Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those in Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Missouri, and across the south.
The Keynesian Growth Discount
The results of our three-year economic experiment are in.
For three long years, the U.S. has been undertaking an experiment in economic policy. Could record levels of government spending, waves of new regulation and political credit allocation, and unprecedented monetary stimulus re-ignite growth? The results have been rolling in, and they represent what increasingly looks like an historic mistake that deserves to be called the Keynesian growth discount.
***
The latest evidence is yesterday's disappointing report of 1.8% in first quarter GDP. At this stage of recovery after a deep recession, the economy is typically growing by 4% or more as consumer confidence returns and businesses accelerate investment as their profits revive. Yet in this recovery consumers are still cautious and business investment remains weak.
Some of the first quarter's growth slump is due to seasonal factors such as bad weather and weaker defense spending. In the silver lining department, the private economy grew faster than the overall GDP figure because government spending declined. But even maintaining the 2.9% growth rate of 2010 would mark an historic underachievement for a recovery after a recession that was as deep as the one from late 2007 to mid-2009.
The most recent recession of comparable depth and job loss was in 1981-1982, when unemployment hit 10.8%. Huge chunks of industrial America shut down and never re-opened. Yet once the recovery began in earnest in the first quarter of 1983, the economy boomed. As the nearby table shows, growth exceeded 7.1% for five consecutive quarters, and it kept growing at nearly a 4% pace for another two years. Growth didn't dip below 2% in any quarter until the second three months of 1986. This was the Reagan boom.
Now look at the first seven quarters of the current recovery. Only briefly has growth hit 5%, in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses rebuilt inventories that had been pared to the bone. Growth has been mediocre ever since, sputtering to a near-stall in the middle of last year, accelerating modestly late last year, and now slowing again. This recovery is as weak as the much-maligned "jobless recovery" of the last decade, which followed a mild recession and at least gained speed after the tax cut of 2003.
Most striking is that this weak growth follows everything that the Keynesian playbook said politicians should throw at the economy. First came $168 billion in one-time tax rebates in February 2008 under George W. Bush, then $814 billion more in spending spread over 2009-2010, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, Hamp to prevent home foreclosures, the Detroit auto bailouts, billions for green jobs, a payroll tax cut for 2011, and of course near-zero interest rates for 28 months buttressed by quantitative easing I and II. We're probably forgetting something.
Imagine if President Obama had introduced his original stimulus in February 2009 with the vow that, 26 months later, GDP would be growing by 1.8% and the jobless rate would be 8.8%. Does anyone think it would have passed?
Liberal economists will blame this latest slowdown on spending cuts across all levels of government, and government spending did fall in the first quarter. But those modest declines follow the biggest government spending binge since World War II that was supposed to kick start the economy and then stop. Remember former White House chief economist Larry Summers's mantra that stimulus spending should be timely, targeted and temporary?
With deficits this year estimated to hit $1.65 trillion, are we really supposed to believe that more deficit spending will produce faster growth? Would $2 trillion do the trick, or how about $3 trillion? Two years after the stimulus debate began, the critics who said all of this spending would provide at most a temporary lift to GDP while saddling the economy with record deficits have been proven right.
The good news is that the private economy seems to have enough momentum to avoid a recession in the near term, but the danger is that growth will continue to be subpar. The evidence is that the combination of spendthrift fiscal policy and a wave of new regulatory costs and mandates are restraining business expansion and hiring.
Then there's the threat of higher tax rates on investment and business that we dodged for two years after the GOP won Congress but that President Obama has now promised for 2013 if he is re-elected. This too deters the animal spirits necessary for robust growth. The great risk is stagflation, a la the 1970s, when easy money tried to compensate for bad fiscal and regulatory policy, which led to sluggish growth, rising prices and declines in real wages.
***
The contrast in results between the current recovery and the Reagan years is instructive because the policy mix was so different. In the 1980s, the policy goals were to cut tax rates, reduce regulatory costs and uncertainty, let the private economy allocate capital free of political direction, and focus monetary policy on price stability rather than on reducing unemployment. This is the policy mix we need to rediscover if we are going to escape our current malaise and stop suffering from the Keynesian discount.
For three long years, the U.S. has been undertaking an experiment in economic policy. Could record levels of government spending, waves of new regulation and political credit allocation, and unprecedented monetary stimulus re-ignite growth? The results have been rolling in, and they represent what increasingly looks like an historic mistake that deserves to be called the Keynesian growth discount.
***
The latest evidence is yesterday's disappointing report of 1.8% in first quarter GDP. At this stage of recovery after a deep recession, the economy is typically growing by 4% or more as consumer confidence returns and businesses accelerate investment as their profits revive. Yet in this recovery consumers are still cautious and business investment remains weak.
Some of the first quarter's growth slump is due to seasonal factors such as bad weather and weaker defense spending. In the silver lining department, the private economy grew faster than the overall GDP figure because government spending declined. But even maintaining the 2.9% growth rate of 2010 would mark an historic underachievement for a recovery after a recession that was as deep as the one from late 2007 to mid-2009.
The most recent recession of comparable depth and job loss was in 1981-1982, when unemployment hit 10.8%. Huge chunks of industrial America shut down and never re-opened. Yet once the recovery began in earnest in the first quarter of 1983, the economy boomed. As the nearby table shows, growth exceeded 7.1% for five consecutive quarters, and it kept growing at nearly a 4% pace for another two years. Growth didn't dip below 2% in any quarter until the second three months of 1986. This was the Reagan boom.
Now look at the first seven quarters of the current recovery. Only briefly has growth hit 5%, in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses rebuilt inventories that had been pared to the bone. Growth has been mediocre ever since, sputtering to a near-stall in the middle of last year, accelerating modestly late last year, and now slowing again. This recovery is as weak as the much-maligned "jobless recovery" of the last decade, which followed a mild recession and at least gained speed after the tax cut of 2003.
Most striking is that this weak growth follows everything that the Keynesian playbook said politicians should throw at the economy. First came $168 billion in one-time tax rebates in February 2008 under George W. Bush, then $814 billion more in spending spread over 2009-2010, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, Hamp to prevent home foreclosures, the Detroit auto bailouts, billions for green jobs, a payroll tax cut for 2011, and of course near-zero interest rates for 28 months buttressed by quantitative easing I and II. We're probably forgetting something.
Imagine if President Obama had introduced his original stimulus in February 2009 with the vow that, 26 months later, GDP would be growing by 1.8% and the jobless rate would be 8.8%. Does anyone think it would have passed?
Liberal economists will blame this latest slowdown on spending cuts across all levels of government, and government spending did fall in the first quarter. But those modest declines follow the biggest government spending binge since World War II that was supposed to kick start the economy and then stop. Remember former White House chief economist Larry Summers's mantra that stimulus spending should be timely, targeted and temporary?
With deficits this year estimated to hit $1.65 trillion, are we really supposed to believe that more deficit spending will produce faster growth? Would $2 trillion do the trick, or how about $3 trillion? Two years after the stimulus debate began, the critics who said all of this spending would provide at most a temporary lift to GDP while saddling the economy with record deficits have been proven right.
The good news is that the private economy seems to have enough momentum to avoid a recession in the near term, but the danger is that growth will continue to be subpar. The evidence is that the combination of spendthrift fiscal policy and a wave of new regulatory costs and mandates are restraining business expansion and hiring.
Then there's the threat of higher tax rates on investment and business that we dodged for two years after the GOP won Congress but that President Obama has now promised for 2013 if he is re-elected. This too deters the animal spirits necessary for robust growth. The great risk is stagflation, a la the 1970s, when easy money tried to compensate for bad fiscal and regulatory policy, which led to sluggish growth, rising prices and declines in real wages.
***
The contrast in results between the current recovery and the Reagan years is instructive because the policy mix was so different. In the 1980s, the policy goals were to cut tax rates, reduce regulatory costs and uncertainty, let the private economy allocate capital free of political direction, and focus monetary policy on price stability rather than on reducing unemployment. This is the policy mix we need to rediscover if we are going to escape our current malaise and stop suffering from the Keynesian discount.
Carter hails Hamas-Fatah reconciliation
The Carter Center, founded by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn, issues a statement commending the Palestinian organizations for its 'vision' of reunification of the Palestinian people.
Obama: We're working on gun control 'under the radar'
"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."
This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."
Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."
Apparently Mrs. Brady either doesn't grasp the concept of "under the radar," or, more likely, she expected the reporter to be discreet and keep the "good news" about Obama's stealth operations to himself. Thankfully this reporter chose to report the news, so we have direct corroboration of Obama's sneak-attack against the Second Amendment.
(Column continues)
This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."
Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."
Apparently Mrs. Brady either doesn't grasp the concept of "under the radar," or, more likely, she expected the reporter to be discreet and keep the "good news" about Obama's stealth operations to himself. Thankfully this reporter chose to report the news, so we have direct corroboration of Obama's sneak-attack against the Second Amendment.
(Column continues)
Video- Obama Enjoys Hearty Laugh During Speech in Tornado-Ravaged Village
I guess President Obama can find humor in any situation that he finds himself. Like today, for example, when he was discussing the tragic and terrible storms in the South. Speaking in front of piles of debris in an Alabaman town, the President began remarks on the situation moderately solemnly. That is until a wasp flew by. Then the President seemed to forget himself (and where he was) and enjoyed a hearty laugh:
Black Chamber of Commerce President Blasts "Marxist," "Brownshirt" Obama
VIDEO: Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, blasted President Obama's anti-business administration in an explosive interview. Alford, a 2008 Obama supporter, labeled the administration "Marxist" and "fanatical." "They might as well put on the brown shirts and swastikas," he said.
Conservatives a clear choice in uncertain times
Under Mr. Harper, Canadian GDP growth has been among the strongest of all developed nations. We have contributed effectively and honourably to the mission in Afghanistan, and even stood with our allies in confronting Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. The anti-Americanism that infected the Liberal government during the Chrétien and Martin eras is gone — as is the moral relativism that sometimes was the reality behind their “soft power” dogmas. In particular, Mr. Harper has stood by Israel in times of crisis, including at the United Nations.
Angle to run in Nevada special US House election
Tea party favorite Sharron Angle says she is running as a Republican in Nevada's first-of-its-kind special election to replace U.S. Rep. Dean Heller.
Inflation Inferno I
Throughout history, governments have fought against the use of sound money. In 1912, Ludwig von Mises identified the reason for this:
The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market's choice of a commonly-used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government's propensity to meddle with the currency system.[1]
Governments can only wring so much money from their citizens through taxation without inciting civil disobedience, so they make friends with bankers, who have a way of making money appear from nowhere. The money they create isn't sound, but almost no one cares. For politicians, it's sound enough; it provides them with claim tickets to market wealth, which is all they want. Sound money would not cooperate in this manner. It does not emerge from central-bank policy decisions.
The classical gold standard is often cited as an example of a sound monetary system. It may have been the best system ever devised, but it existed at the pleasure of government — it was, in other words, a fiat gold standard. As Guido Hulsmann has written, the international gold standard was a cartel agreement between governments. Cartels protect the interests of cartel members at the expense of nonmembers, including the general public.
By the early 1880s, the countries of the West and their colonies all over the world had adopted the British model [under which gold was made a monopoly legal tender]. This created the great illusion of some profound economic unity of the western world, whereas in fact the movement merely homogenized the national monetary systems. The homogeneity lasted until 1914, when the central banks suspended their payments and prepared to finance World War I by the printing press.[2]
Governments and bankers hate gold because its supply cannot be inflated on command. They work hard to establish and retain a monetary system under their control that can respond quickly to their demands for inflation — or what today is called "accommodation." World War I provides a tragic case in point.
Making Green by Turning the Countryside Red
The ones who profited from the war had little in common with the men who fought it. The fighting was left mostly to young conscripts, many millions of whom were killed or wounded. The ones who profited knew their way around Washington.
If monetary sovereignty had resided with the market instead of with government, the war would not have been fought. Or if it had started, it would have ended much sooner. Sound money had to die before men could die in such large numbers.
When war got underway in August of 1914, the European belligerents immediately stopped redeeming their currencies in gold and started issuing debt. Needing a lucrative market for their bonds, England and France selected the House of Morgan in the US to act as their sales agent. The money acquired from bond sales then returned to Mr. J.P. Morgan when the governments purchased war materials, rewarding him with commissions on both the sales and the acquisitions. Furthermore, many of the companies with which Morgan did business were part of his own vast domain.
The pacifist J.P. Morgan, who said, "Nobody could hate war more than I do," was raking in huge profits keeping the Allied war machines cranking out death and destruction overseas. Total purchases during the war reached $3 billion, bringing the House of Morgan $30 million in commissions alone. As G. Edward Griffin writes, referencing Ron Chernow's work on the House of Morgan,
Morgan offices at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and manufacturers seeking to cut a deal. The bank had to post guards at every door and at the partners' homes as well. Each month, Morgan presided over purchases which were equal to the gross national product of the entire world just one generation before.[3]
Ralph Raico writes,
The United States became the arsenal of the Entente. Bound now by financial as well as sentimental ties to England, much of American big business worked in one way or another for the Allied cause. … The Wall Street Journal and other organs of the business elite were noisily pro-British at every turn, until we were finally brought into the European fray.[4]
For the political class, the war provided an enormous boost to state growth and prestige. Historian Joseph Stromberg writes,
As casualties grew by the thousands — soon to be millions — the belligerent powers chose to fight on rather than rethink the war. Both sides beamed propaganda at their own people and neutrals. The Allies were much better at it. Rulers everywhere framed ambitious "war aims."
The war saw massive state-building at the expense of civil society, individual liberty, and free markets. Each state "planned" its economy. To justify the sacrifices, governments promised new social programs. (Death now, equality later?) "War socialism" became the order of the day. Labor leaders served on economic planning boards. Inflation hid the war's monetary costs.
Historian Howard Zinn reports that "In the first three months of war, almost the entire original British army was wiped out." As the war stalemated on the Western Front, men on both sides were dying by the tens of thousands for a few feet of scorched earth.
To the commanding generals, conscripts were sacrificial fodder.
In July 1916, British General Douglas Haig ordered eleven divisions of English soldiers to climb out of their trenches and move toward the German lines. The six German divisions opened up with their machine guns. Of the 110,000 who attacked, 20,000 were killed, 40,000 more wounded. … On January 1, 1917, Haig was promoted to field marshal.[5]
In the trench warfare of World War I, the dead never left the scene.
The line of trenches stretching from Switzerland to the English Channel was littered with the remains of perhaps one million men. … Those buried would reappear during bombardments, and be reinterred, at times to help support, quite literally, the trenches in which they had fought. Many soldiers recalled the stench of decomposition, and the swarms of flies on corpses, especially during the summer months. Everyone execrated the rats.[6]
Even with Britain imposing a starvation blockade against Germany that eventually killed 750,000 German civilians, the Allies were in danger of losing the war. Using a fleet of newly developed submarines, Germany was destroying Allied shipping at the rate of 300,000 tons per week. By war's end the U-boats had sunk over 5,700 ships. In early 1917, the Allies were facing the prospect of asking Germany for peace terms.[7]
Wilson Bails Out Wall Street
For Wall Street, peace was not an option. With the possibility of Allied bonds going into default, investors would incur a loss amounting to $1.5 billion. Commissions, as well as the profits from selling war materials, would be lost. The Treasury could make direct grants to the Allies, but only if the US abandoned its "neutrality" and entered the war.[8] Following Wilson's address to Congress, it did so officially on April 6, 1917.
The Morgan cash flow was thus saved. The United States extended the Allies' credits(which reverted back to Morgan to pay off loans), income taxes surged — especially on the wealthy — and the Fed inflated.
Between 1915 and 1920, the money supply and prices roughly doubled. Federal deficits were running a billion dollars a month by 1918 — exceeding the annual federal budget before the war. The government ran the economy, establishing prices and priorities while commandeering entire industries, such as railroad, telephone, and telegraph. The term "civil liberties" was synonymous with treason; people were encouraged to spy on their neighbors, and censorship was everywhere. "The government's reign of terror against 'pro-Germans' targeted all who doubted the cause," writes Stromberg. "So many snoops helped that H.L. Mencken suggested medals."
People were imprisoned for calling on government to obey the law. Robert Higgs tells us,
In California, the police arrested Upton Sinclair for reading the Bill of Rights at a rally. In New Jersey, the police arrested Roger Baldwin for publicly reading the Constitution.
The government's "massive propaganda campaign" produced
countless incidents of intimidation, physical abuse, and even lynching of persons suspected of disloyalty or insufficient enthusiasm for the war. People of German ancestry suffered disproportionately.[9]
But in the beginning, there was a major problem. The US president was calling for American boys to risk their lives to make the world "safe for democracy," but very few hands shot up. Perhaps they were more in tune with progressive Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette, who told Congress that the poor would be "the ones called upon to rot in the trenches." In Ralph Raico's words,
In the first ten days after the war declaration, only 4,355 men enlisted; in the next weeks, the War Department procured only one-sixth of the men required. Yet Wilson's program demanded that we ship a great army to France, so that American troops were sufficiently "blooded."[10]
With the country's youth showing no interest in dying or killing for corrupt politicians, Wilson decided to bring out the bayonets. On May 18, 1917, he signed the Selective Service Act to register over 10 million men, from which over 2.8 million were drafted.[11] In an apparent bid to make himself and his administration the inspiration for Big Brother, Wilson added that the draft was "in no sense a conscription of the unwilling; it is, rather, selection from a nation which has volunteered in mass."
"Volunteers" who didn't register got a year in prison, and anyone found obstructing the conscripting process was subject to a $10,000 fine and 20 years in prison.[12]
According to Wikipedia, World War I killed over 16 million people, counting both soldiers and civilians. Another 21 million were wounded. France lost half its men between the ages of 20 and 32. The war cost over 117,000 American lives, and left another 205,000 wounded. The psychological toll on the survivors is beyond comprehension.
A sound monetary system could have turned the foregoing narrative into fiction. Without the covert funding inflation provides, the conflict would have been little more than a warmonger's pipe dream.
What did all the suffering and death bring to the world? Soviet Russia, Adolph Hitler, Keynesianism, World War II, the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, and much more — including financial institutions too big to fail. War, whether hot or cold, became a lucrative racket.
As T. Hunt Tooley recounts in his essay "Merchants of Death Revisited: Armaments, Bankers, and the First World War," both arms makers and bankers, here and in Europe,
used their own governments to subsidize their operations and produce enormous profit. Both arms makers and bankers were active in handing out subventions to the press in order to shape public opinion in needed ways. Perhaps most importantly, the interests of both groups lay in a cycle of conflict. The arms makers needed conflict for huge demand … [but] they also needed bouts of armed peace or cold war to upgrade technologies and sell their new goods. The bankers likewise needed conflict as a way of financing governments' war efforts overall, forging all kinds of ties with those governments, and gaining government help in crushing their business rivals or taking them over. Yet times of peace were especially important for bankers, because even greater profits were forthcoming from reconstruction efforts after a conflict was over, counted then not by millions but by billions.
Conclusion
If the belligerents' banks had not been protected by government privilege, the public would have pulled their gold out. With massive taxation too risky, the four-year war would have been over in four months.[13] Without the means to pay for it, the political class would have been denied their war. Fractional-reserve lending and the abandonment of gold opened the doors to the slaughterhouse.[14]
Print: $10 $8
Audio: $15
"Fractional-reserve lending
and the abandonment of gold
opened the doors to the slaughterhouse."
During the 17th and 18th centuries, maritime pirates would frequently fly the Jolly Roger to frighten their victims into surrendering without a fight. The skull and crossbones superimposed over a black background represented death and plunder. When Nixon closed the gold window to foreign governments in 1971, the dollar became a pure fiat-paper money, ideal for legal piracy.
With a fiat-paper dollar under control of its central bank, the US government and connected corporations can raid the wealth of dollar holders and fund a world empire through bribes, intimidation, and war, while the large commercial banks can inflate to their advantage, knowing that the Fed can and will create enough dollars to bail them out of trouble.
The dollar itself still bears a close likeness to the paper medium that once circulated as a substitute for real money. How much more honest today's dollar would be if it bore the mark of the Jolly Roger.[15]
George F. Smith is the author of The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman, and Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, a script about Paine's impact on the early stages of the Revolution. Visit his website. Send him mail. See George F. Smith's article archives.
Comment on the blog.
You can subscribe to future articles by George F. Smith via this RSS feed.
Notes
[1] Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1971, p. 414
[2] Jorg Guido Hulsmann, The Ethics of Money Production, Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, 2008, p. 211
[3] G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, Fourth Edition, American Media, Westlake Village, CA, 2002, p. 236
[4] Ralph Raico, Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal, Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, 2010, p. 25
[5] Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, Chapter 14: War is the Health of the State
[6] J. M. Winter, The Experience of World War I, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, p. 146
[7] Creature, p. 238
[8] Creature, p. 239
[9] Robert Higgs, Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society, The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA, 2004, p. 166
[10] Great Wars, p. 40
[11] Against Leviathan, p. 165
[12] Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987, pp. 132-133
[13] Garet Garrett, A Bubble That Broke The World, Fraser Publishing, Burlington, VT, 1996, p. 3
[14] Gary North, The Gold Wars, 2009, p. 23
[15] George Ford Smith, The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, CreateSpace, 2008
You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.
The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market's choice of a commonly-used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government's propensity to meddle with the currency system.[1]
Governments can only wring so much money from their citizens through taxation without inciting civil disobedience, so they make friends with bankers, who have a way of making money appear from nowhere. The money they create isn't sound, but almost no one cares. For politicians, it's sound enough; it provides them with claim tickets to market wealth, which is all they want. Sound money would not cooperate in this manner. It does not emerge from central-bank policy decisions.
The classical gold standard is often cited as an example of a sound monetary system. It may have been the best system ever devised, but it existed at the pleasure of government — it was, in other words, a fiat gold standard. As Guido Hulsmann has written, the international gold standard was a cartel agreement between governments. Cartels protect the interests of cartel members at the expense of nonmembers, including the general public.
By the early 1880s, the countries of the West and their colonies all over the world had adopted the British model [under which gold was made a monopoly legal tender]. This created the great illusion of some profound economic unity of the western world, whereas in fact the movement merely homogenized the national monetary systems. The homogeneity lasted until 1914, when the central banks suspended their payments and prepared to finance World War I by the printing press.[2]
Governments and bankers hate gold because its supply cannot be inflated on command. They work hard to establish and retain a monetary system under their control that can respond quickly to their demands for inflation — or what today is called "accommodation." World War I provides a tragic case in point.
Making Green by Turning the Countryside Red
The ones who profited from the war had little in common with the men who fought it. The fighting was left mostly to young conscripts, many millions of whom were killed or wounded. The ones who profited knew their way around Washington.
If monetary sovereignty had resided with the market instead of with government, the war would not have been fought. Or if it had started, it would have ended much sooner. Sound money had to die before men could die in such large numbers.
When war got underway in August of 1914, the European belligerents immediately stopped redeeming their currencies in gold and started issuing debt. Needing a lucrative market for their bonds, England and France selected the House of Morgan in the US to act as their sales agent. The money acquired from bond sales then returned to Mr. J.P. Morgan when the governments purchased war materials, rewarding him with commissions on both the sales and the acquisitions. Furthermore, many of the companies with which Morgan did business were part of his own vast domain.
The pacifist J.P. Morgan, who said, "Nobody could hate war more than I do," was raking in huge profits keeping the Allied war machines cranking out death and destruction overseas. Total purchases during the war reached $3 billion, bringing the House of Morgan $30 million in commissions alone. As G. Edward Griffin writes, referencing Ron Chernow's work on the House of Morgan,
Morgan offices at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and manufacturers seeking to cut a deal. The bank had to post guards at every door and at the partners' homes as well. Each month, Morgan presided over purchases which were equal to the gross national product of the entire world just one generation before.[3]
Ralph Raico writes,
The United States became the arsenal of the Entente. Bound now by financial as well as sentimental ties to England, much of American big business worked in one way or another for the Allied cause. … The Wall Street Journal and other organs of the business elite were noisily pro-British at every turn, until we were finally brought into the European fray.[4]
For the political class, the war provided an enormous boost to state growth and prestige. Historian Joseph Stromberg writes,
As casualties grew by the thousands — soon to be millions — the belligerent powers chose to fight on rather than rethink the war. Both sides beamed propaganda at their own people and neutrals. The Allies were much better at it. Rulers everywhere framed ambitious "war aims."
The war saw massive state-building at the expense of civil society, individual liberty, and free markets. Each state "planned" its economy. To justify the sacrifices, governments promised new social programs. (Death now, equality later?) "War socialism" became the order of the day. Labor leaders served on economic planning boards. Inflation hid the war's monetary costs.
Historian Howard Zinn reports that "In the first three months of war, almost the entire original British army was wiped out." As the war stalemated on the Western Front, men on both sides were dying by the tens of thousands for a few feet of scorched earth.
To the commanding generals, conscripts were sacrificial fodder.
In July 1916, British General Douglas Haig ordered eleven divisions of English soldiers to climb out of their trenches and move toward the German lines. The six German divisions opened up with their machine guns. Of the 110,000 who attacked, 20,000 were killed, 40,000 more wounded. … On January 1, 1917, Haig was promoted to field marshal.[5]
In the trench warfare of World War I, the dead never left the scene.
The line of trenches stretching from Switzerland to the English Channel was littered with the remains of perhaps one million men. … Those buried would reappear during bombardments, and be reinterred, at times to help support, quite literally, the trenches in which they had fought. Many soldiers recalled the stench of decomposition, and the swarms of flies on corpses, especially during the summer months. Everyone execrated the rats.[6]
Even with Britain imposing a starvation blockade against Germany that eventually killed 750,000 German civilians, the Allies were in danger of losing the war. Using a fleet of newly developed submarines, Germany was destroying Allied shipping at the rate of 300,000 tons per week. By war's end the U-boats had sunk over 5,700 ships. In early 1917, the Allies were facing the prospect of asking Germany for peace terms.[7]
Wilson Bails Out Wall Street
For Wall Street, peace was not an option. With the possibility of Allied bonds going into default, investors would incur a loss amounting to $1.5 billion. Commissions, as well as the profits from selling war materials, would be lost. The Treasury could make direct grants to the Allies, but only if the US abandoned its "neutrality" and entered the war.[8] Following Wilson's address to Congress, it did so officially on April 6, 1917.
The Morgan cash flow was thus saved. The United States extended the Allies' credits(which reverted back to Morgan to pay off loans), income taxes surged — especially on the wealthy — and the Fed inflated.
Between 1915 and 1920, the money supply and prices roughly doubled. Federal deficits were running a billion dollars a month by 1918 — exceeding the annual federal budget before the war. The government ran the economy, establishing prices and priorities while commandeering entire industries, such as railroad, telephone, and telegraph. The term "civil liberties" was synonymous with treason; people were encouraged to spy on their neighbors, and censorship was everywhere. "The government's reign of terror against 'pro-Germans' targeted all who doubted the cause," writes Stromberg. "So many snoops helped that H.L. Mencken suggested medals."
People were imprisoned for calling on government to obey the law. Robert Higgs tells us,
In California, the police arrested Upton Sinclair for reading the Bill of Rights at a rally. In New Jersey, the police arrested Roger Baldwin for publicly reading the Constitution.
The government's "massive propaganda campaign" produced
countless incidents of intimidation, physical abuse, and even lynching of persons suspected of disloyalty or insufficient enthusiasm for the war. People of German ancestry suffered disproportionately.[9]
But in the beginning, there was a major problem. The US president was calling for American boys to risk their lives to make the world "safe for democracy," but very few hands shot up. Perhaps they were more in tune with progressive Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette, who told Congress that the poor would be "the ones called upon to rot in the trenches." In Ralph Raico's words,
In the first ten days after the war declaration, only 4,355 men enlisted; in the next weeks, the War Department procured only one-sixth of the men required. Yet Wilson's program demanded that we ship a great army to France, so that American troops were sufficiently "blooded."[10]
With the country's youth showing no interest in dying or killing for corrupt politicians, Wilson decided to bring out the bayonets. On May 18, 1917, he signed the Selective Service Act to register over 10 million men, from which over 2.8 million were drafted.[11] In an apparent bid to make himself and his administration the inspiration for Big Brother, Wilson added that the draft was "in no sense a conscription of the unwilling; it is, rather, selection from a nation which has volunteered in mass."
"Volunteers" who didn't register got a year in prison, and anyone found obstructing the conscripting process was subject to a $10,000 fine and 20 years in prison.[12]
According to Wikipedia, World War I killed over 16 million people, counting both soldiers and civilians. Another 21 million were wounded. France lost half its men between the ages of 20 and 32. The war cost over 117,000 American lives, and left another 205,000 wounded. The psychological toll on the survivors is beyond comprehension.
A sound monetary system could have turned the foregoing narrative into fiction. Without the covert funding inflation provides, the conflict would have been little more than a warmonger's pipe dream.
What did all the suffering and death bring to the world? Soviet Russia, Adolph Hitler, Keynesianism, World War II, the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, and much more — including financial institutions too big to fail. War, whether hot or cold, became a lucrative racket.
As T. Hunt Tooley recounts in his essay "Merchants of Death Revisited: Armaments, Bankers, and the First World War," both arms makers and bankers, here and in Europe,
used their own governments to subsidize their operations and produce enormous profit. Both arms makers and bankers were active in handing out subventions to the press in order to shape public opinion in needed ways. Perhaps most importantly, the interests of both groups lay in a cycle of conflict. The arms makers needed conflict for huge demand … [but] they also needed bouts of armed peace or cold war to upgrade technologies and sell their new goods. The bankers likewise needed conflict as a way of financing governments' war efforts overall, forging all kinds of ties with those governments, and gaining government help in crushing their business rivals or taking them over. Yet times of peace were especially important for bankers, because even greater profits were forthcoming from reconstruction efforts after a conflict was over, counted then not by millions but by billions.
Conclusion
If the belligerents' banks had not been protected by government privilege, the public would have pulled their gold out. With massive taxation too risky, the four-year war would have been over in four months.[13] Without the means to pay for it, the political class would have been denied their war. Fractional-reserve lending and the abandonment of gold opened the doors to the slaughterhouse.[14]
Print: $10 $8
Audio: $15
"Fractional-reserve lending
and the abandonment of gold
opened the doors to the slaughterhouse."
During the 17th and 18th centuries, maritime pirates would frequently fly the Jolly Roger to frighten their victims into surrendering without a fight. The skull and crossbones superimposed over a black background represented death and plunder. When Nixon closed the gold window to foreign governments in 1971, the dollar became a pure fiat-paper money, ideal for legal piracy.
With a fiat-paper dollar under control of its central bank, the US government and connected corporations can raid the wealth of dollar holders and fund a world empire through bribes, intimidation, and war, while the large commercial banks can inflate to their advantage, knowing that the Fed can and will create enough dollars to bail them out of trouble.
The dollar itself still bears a close likeness to the paper medium that once circulated as a substitute for real money. How much more honest today's dollar would be if it bore the mark of the Jolly Roger.[15]
George F. Smith is the author of The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman, and Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, a script about Paine's impact on the early stages of the Revolution. Visit his website. Send him mail. See George F. Smith's article archives.
Comment on the blog.
You can subscribe to future articles by George F. Smith via this RSS feed.
Notes
[1] Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1971, p. 414
[2] Jorg Guido Hulsmann, The Ethics of Money Production, Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, 2008, p. 211
[3] G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, Fourth Edition, American Media, Westlake Village, CA, 2002, p. 236
[4] Ralph Raico, Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal, Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, 2010, p. 25
[5] Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, Chapter 14: War is the Health of the State
[6] J. M. Winter, The Experience of World War I, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, p. 146
[7] Creature, p. 238
[8] Creature, p. 239
[9] Robert Higgs, Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society, The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA, 2004, p. 166
[10] Great Wars, p. 40
[11] Against Leviathan, p. 165
[12] Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987, pp. 132-133
[13] Garet Garrett, A Bubble That Broke The World, Fraser Publishing, Burlington, VT, 1996, p. 3
[14] Gary North, The Gold Wars, 2009, p. 23
[15] George Ford Smith, The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, CreateSpace, 2008
You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.
What Would Reagan Do? – Part 1
Are you better off than you were two years ago? For most people, the answer is no. Compared to two years ago, more people are unemployed, the credit markets are still a mess, businesses are still being stymied by further federal regulation, and the global community has no idea what we stand for with our foreign policy.
What if we could roll the clock back? Roll it back a little more than two years to September 2008. At that time, the United States was at one of our more critical inflection points. We had military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our southern border states were seeing a serious uptick in crime being committed by illegal aliens, the economy was starting to stagnate, and we had a looming credit crisis. Over a series of postings, we’ll address how Reagan would have addressed each of these issues. What Would Reagan Do? MORE
What if we could roll the clock back? Roll it back a little more than two years to September 2008. At that time, the United States was at one of our more critical inflection points. We had military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our southern border states were seeing a serious uptick in crime being committed by illegal aliens, the economy was starting to stagnate, and we had a looming credit crisis. Over a series of postings, we’ll address how Reagan would have addressed each of these issues. What Would Reagan Do? MORE
America’s "Progress" Depends On Latinos
America’s progress is “impossible” if Hispanics keep lagging in education because their success is of “immediate and long term importance” to the U.S. economy, according to a new Obama Administration report that vows to enhance opportunities for the “Latino community.”
Belgium moves closer to burqa ban
Belgium has taken a major step towards banning burka-type Islamic dress in public after its lower house of parliament overwhelmingly backed the measure.
Teenage Runaways, Drug Addicts and Single Moms - The New All American “Progressive” Family
According to a new study by the Centre for Social Justice, almost half of all children in the United Kingdom will see their married or cohabitating parents split up by the time they’re sixteen. Never before in Great Britain’s history has the breakdown of the family been so palpable.
Here in the United States things aren’t much different. According to a new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, one in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent. The main reason for the high U.S. figure, say the experts, is the growing acceptance of single-parent child rearing.
The question is, should there be such widespread acceptance of single-parent child rearing? ARTICLE CONTINUES
Here in the United States things aren’t much different. According to a new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, one in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent. The main reason for the high U.S. figure, say the experts, is the growing acceptance of single-parent child rearing.
The question is, should there be such widespread acceptance of single-parent child rearing? ARTICLE CONTINUES
Democrats Make It Official: They'll Take Undisclosed Donations, Too
The organization will not live up to the same campaign finance standards by which Obama has pledged to run its campaign. They will take unregulated donations that do not require disclosure; Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats have railed against Crossroads and other Republican groups that do the same thing.......
Politics Has Made George Soros Dumber
So George Soros walks into the Cato Institute, and.... No really–George Soros walked into the Cato Institute yesterday, along with..........
How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis
Don't blame American appetites, rising oil prices, or genetically modified crops for rising food prices. Wall Street's at fault for the spiraling cost of food...
Read why!
Read why!
CA Democrat chairman suggests Gov. Brown "try shooting" a Republican
SACRAMENTO -- Republicans are criticizing John Burton, the state Democratic Party chairman, for suggesting Gov. Jerry Brown "try shooting" a Republican to convince them to vote for taxes.
In an interview with Bay Area News Group, Burton said Brown "can try shooting somebody and tell the next guy, 'You don't want that to happen to you, you better step up and vote.' ... What's Jerry going to do unless he took out a gun?"
The comment, made on the eve of the state party's convention kickoff, went over the line, said Mark Standriff, communications director for the state GOP.
"Is it open season on Reeps now?" Standriff asked in a tweet.
"Having a salty reputation is no excuse for poor judgment," Standriff later said in an interview. "I'd ask him for an apology but frankly all I'd expect in return was a well-directed expletive."
The California GOP, Standriff added, is making it "our mission to travel the state with open and civil discourse and we'd hope we'd get the same from the other side. To have this happen doesn't seem to be advancing civil discourse."
Conservative radio talk show host Eric Hogue asked in his own tweet: "Is this rhetoric unbecoming of a party chair?"
Sensitivity over violence-laden political remarks has come under scrutiny since the assassination attempt of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, that many believe was incited by heated political rhetoric.
A spokesman for Burton said...... READ ENTIRE STORY
In an interview with Bay Area News Group, Burton said Brown "can try shooting somebody and tell the next guy, 'You don't want that to happen to you, you better step up and vote.' ... What's Jerry going to do unless he took out a gun?"
The comment, made on the eve of the state party's convention kickoff, went over the line, said Mark Standriff, communications director for the state GOP.
"Is it open season on Reeps now?" Standriff asked in a tweet.
"Having a salty reputation is no excuse for poor judgment," Standriff later said in an interview. "I'd ask him for an apology but frankly all I'd expect in return was a well-directed expletive."
The California GOP, Standriff added, is making it "our mission to travel the state with open and civil discourse and we'd hope we'd get the same from the other side. To have this happen doesn't seem to be advancing civil discourse."
Conservative radio talk show host Eric Hogue asked in his own tweet: "Is this rhetoric unbecoming of a party chair?"
Sensitivity over violence-laden political remarks has come under scrutiny since the assassination attempt of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, that many believe was incited by heated political rhetoric.
A spokesman for Burton said...... READ ENTIRE STORY
W.H. denies threat to S.F. paper
Who do you believe?
The White House is denying that it threatened to exclude the San Francisco Chronicle from presidential events in its coverage area after one of its reporters recorded a video of singing protesters at a fundraiser last week that was restricted to print reporters.
When a group of 10 protesters interrupted President Obama to demand the release of the WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning, it was only matter of hours until the first video surfaced online. The group, which calls itself the “Fresh Juice Party,” had recorded footage, most likely from a cell phone camera, shot from the vantage point of its breakfast table at the high-dollar fundraiser.
But Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci also took her own video, which she posted online with her article after the event. Now, the paper’s editor, Ward Bushee, claims that the White House has threatened to exclude the publication from local coverage because Marinucci broke pool guidelines.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told POLTICO on Friday that the Chronicle’s claims are “not true,” and that no such threat was ever made, but he wouldn’t provide further details.
The White House Correspondents’ Association board sets guidelines that govern Obama’s “pool” coverage, which includes restrictions on when written pool reports can be issued and when photos and videos are allowed.
However, those guidelines are silent on whether print reporters are allowed to take cell phone or video footage at events that are only for “print” reporters. In fact, according to the guidelines, “print poolers can snap pictures or take videos,” and aren’t responsible for sharing them with the rest of the press corps.
Marinucci told the Chronicle that she felt “obligated” to use the same tools that private citizens in the room were using to record the protest.
And because the White House chooses the local media outlets that are included in the “pool” during out-of-town trips, the correspondents association’s authority to police the actions of local media has been a murky subject.
Still, the association’s president, David Jackson, told POLITICO that the board would take up the issue with the White House next week and would seek to clarify the rules governing “print pool only” events — after the long-awaited White House Correspondents' Association dinner on Saturday.
The White House is denying that it threatened to exclude the San Francisco Chronicle from presidential events in its coverage area after one of its reporters recorded a video of singing protesters at a fundraiser last week that was restricted to print reporters.
When a group of 10 protesters interrupted President Obama to demand the release of the WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning, it was only matter of hours until the first video surfaced online. The group, which calls itself the “Fresh Juice Party,” had recorded footage, most likely from a cell phone camera, shot from the vantage point of its breakfast table at the high-dollar fundraiser.
But Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci also took her own video, which she posted online with her article after the event. Now, the paper’s editor, Ward Bushee, claims that the White House has threatened to exclude the publication from local coverage because Marinucci broke pool guidelines.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told POLTICO on Friday that the Chronicle’s claims are “not true,” and that no such threat was ever made, but he wouldn’t provide further details.
The White House Correspondents’ Association board sets guidelines that govern Obama’s “pool” coverage, which includes restrictions on when written pool reports can be issued and when photos and videos are allowed.
However, those guidelines are silent on whether print reporters are allowed to take cell phone or video footage at events that are only for “print” reporters. In fact, according to the guidelines, “print poolers can snap pictures or take videos,” and aren’t responsible for sharing them with the rest of the press corps.
Marinucci told the Chronicle that she felt “obligated” to use the same tools that private citizens in the room were using to record the protest.
And because the White House chooses the local media outlets that are included in the “pool” during out-of-town trips, the correspondents association’s authority to police the actions of local media has been a murky subject.
Still, the association’s president, David Jackson, told POLITICO that the board would take up the issue with the White House next week and would seek to clarify the rules governing “print pool only” events — after the long-awaited White House Correspondents' Association dinner on Saturday.
Scores killed on Syria's 'day of rage'
Up to 50 killed by security forces, activists say, as thousands defy government repression to call for freedom in Syria.......
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Billion-Dollar Global Health Care Plan Unveiled
A trio of additional healthcare projects of the Obama Administration are slated to be administered by a handful of private-sector vendors at a cost of nearly $1 billion—initiatives that contractors will carry out in Africa, Asia/Middle East and the Latin America/Caribbean regions.
According to contracting documents that U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor located through routine federal database research, the largest of the three health care packages (solicitation #SOL-OAA-11-000021) is the $500 million plan for Africa.
The Asia/Middle East plan will receive $300 million (solicitation # SOL-OAA-11-000022), while $100 million will go toward programs in Latin America and The Caribbean (solicitation #SOL-OAA-11-000020).
This nearly billion-dollar combination of foreign healthcare aid comes at a time when debate over implementation of domestic Obamacare is brewing to a boil.
In addition to continuing concerns over the financial burden of the law’s requirements, compliance waivers granted to select companies have come under congressional scrutiny.
A subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for example, last month held hearings on the matter, questioning the legal authority of the Secretary for Health and Human Services to grant such waivers.
Similarly, Crossroads GPS—an organization affiliated with former Bush Administration Chief of Staff Karl Rove—is suing the Obama Administration for allegedly failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act request for data on the waivers.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which added the “population, health, and nutrition technical assistance and support” solicitations to the federal business opportunities system yon April 20 and April 21, respectively, will grant four contracts for each region over the next five years.
USAID, in an official justification for the endeavors, pointed out that for the past forty years the agency “has worked to improve the quality of life for millions of people around the world through its global programs in family planning and reproductive health, infectious disease prevention and control, child survival, maternal health, and other life-saving areas.
“In FY 2007, the US Department of State and USAID established the Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure that included the goal to ‘Help nations achieve sustainable improvements in the well-being and productivity of their populations through effective and accountable investments in education, health, and other social services.’
USAID additionally will devote $60 million toward communications and information technology acquisitions in further support of the global health plan. Solicitation # SOL-OAA-11-000018. Tasks under that segment include computer system design and infrastructure management.
The communications and IT plan also entails and what USAID describes as “health communication services.”
Those services specifically would require the contractor to:
Provide support, including but not limited to editing and publishing services, to the production of health reports and other related publications
Create strategy for internet publishing and broadcasting for health programs and provide support for the implementation plan.
In collaboration with local partners, design, create, and maintain web portals for specific health interests
Coordinate, design and implement a strategy that utilize social media and mobile communication technology for the promotion of healthy behaviors
Media and public relations services for local government and other local partners to support the promotion of health services and healthy behaviors.
The price tag for a separate but corollary initiative titled African Strategies for Health—whose goal is to “identify policy and implementation constraints” and to devise strategies for overcoming hurdles to further investments in Africa—was not revealed.
Estimated costs for that segment “will be determined at time of award” granted to the winning bidder, the draft Request for Proposals says in that solicitation (#M-OAA-GRO-EGAS-11-0001).
The USAID Global Health Bureau says it is embarking upon this ambitious plan in support of the U.S. government’s Investing in People program area. Elements of that program include AIDS/HIV and tuberculosis reduction, support of the President’s Malaria Initiative, limiting the spread of avian flu in animals, and increasing “the availability and use of proven life-saving interventions” for mothers and children.
Among other support areas is the targeted expansion of access to voluntary family planning services and information—plus what USAID characterize as “reproductive health care,” a program element that “contributes to reducing unintended pregnancy and promoting healthy reproductive behaviors of men and women, reducing abortion, and reducing maternal and child mortality and morbidity.”
According to contracting documents that U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor located through routine federal database research, the largest of the three health care packages (solicitation #SOL-OAA-11-000021) is the $500 million plan for Africa.
The Asia/Middle East plan will receive $300 million (solicitation # SOL-OAA-11-000022), while $100 million will go toward programs in Latin America and The Caribbean (solicitation #SOL-OAA-11-000020).
This nearly billion-dollar combination of foreign healthcare aid comes at a time when debate over implementation of domestic Obamacare is brewing to a boil.
In addition to continuing concerns over the financial burden of the law’s requirements, compliance waivers granted to select companies have come under congressional scrutiny.
A subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for example, last month held hearings on the matter, questioning the legal authority of the Secretary for Health and Human Services to grant such waivers.
Similarly, Crossroads GPS—an organization affiliated with former Bush Administration Chief of Staff Karl Rove—is suing the Obama Administration for allegedly failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act request for data on the waivers.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which added the “population, health, and nutrition technical assistance and support” solicitations to the federal business opportunities system yon April 20 and April 21, respectively, will grant four contracts for each region over the next five years.
USAID, in an official justification for the endeavors, pointed out that for the past forty years the agency “has worked to improve the quality of life for millions of people around the world through its global programs in family planning and reproductive health, infectious disease prevention and control, child survival, maternal health, and other life-saving areas.
“In FY 2007, the US Department of State and USAID established the Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure that included the goal to ‘Help nations achieve sustainable improvements in the well-being and productivity of their populations through effective and accountable investments in education, health, and other social services.’
USAID additionally will devote $60 million toward communications and information technology acquisitions in further support of the global health plan. Solicitation # SOL-OAA-11-000018. Tasks under that segment include computer system design and infrastructure management.
The communications and IT plan also entails and what USAID describes as “health communication services.”
Those services specifically would require the contractor to:
Provide support, including but not limited to editing and publishing services, to the production of health reports and other related publications
Create strategy for internet publishing and broadcasting for health programs and provide support for the implementation plan.
In collaboration with local partners, design, create, and maintain web portals for specific health interests
Coordinate, design and implement a strategy that utilize social media and mobile communication technology for the promotion of healthy behaviors
Media and public relations services for local government and other local partners to support the promotion of health services and healthy behaviors.
The price tag for a separate but corollary initiative titled African Strategies for Health—whose goal is to “identify policy and implementation constraints” and to devise strategies for overcoming hurdles to further investments in Africa—was not revealed.
Estimated costs for that segment “will be determined at time of award” granted to the winning bidder, the draft Request for Proposals says in that solicitation (#M-OAA-GRO-EGAS-11-0001).
The USAID Global Health Bureau says it is embarking upon this ambitious plan in support of the U.S. government’s Investing in People program area. Elements of that program include AIDS/HIV and tuberculosis reduction, support of the President’s Malaria Initiative, limiting the spread of avian flu in animals, and increasing “the availability and use of proven life-saving interventions” for mothers and children.
Among other support areas is the targeted expansion of access to voluntary family planning services and information—plus what USAID characterize as “reproductive health care,” a program element that “contributes to reducing unintended pregnancy and promoting healthy reproductive behaviors of men and women, reducing abortion, and reducing maternal and child mortality and morbidity.”
Barack Obama: It was "a fun day" while tornados kill hundreds in Alabama
Shhh.....CHILD AT PLAY try not to bother him grown up issues....
"Today was a fun day," Obama said at his first fundraising event at Corzine's apartment. "Nobody checked my ID at the door.........................
"Today was a fun day," Obama said at his first fundraising event at Corzine's apartment. "Nobody checked my ID at the door.........................
GOP Will Sweep in 2012
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey tells Newsmax that the 2012 elections will leave the GOP in control of the presidency, Senate, and House, and tea party activists will oust “timid” Republicans who aren’t committed to small government!
Gaza Border Crossing To Be Permanently Opened
Egyptian FM tells Al-Jazeera that preparations are already underway to permanently open Rafah border crossing, which would allow goods and people in and out of Gaza with no Israeli supervision...............
Jimmy Carter: U.S., South Korea are violating North Koreans’ human rights by withholding food
Via Greg Hengler, why would an American cap a three-day visit to Kim Jong-Il’s national gulag by accusing the U.S. of human rights violations? Well, much like Superman, Carter’s more a “citizen of the world” now than part of the country he used to lead. In fact, he wasn’t there on behalf of the State Department but as part of a delegation from “The Elders,” an elite team of ex-statesmen who travel the world sharing the sort of wisdom that’s made “Jimmy Carter” synonymous with successful foreign policy ideas here at home.
Kim wouldn’t meet with them, incidentally, for reasons I don’t understand. When you have a former U.S. president willing to carry your water, hand him a bucket. Instead, Kim sent them a message saying he’d be willing to meet with either South Korea or the U.S. to talk disarmament and any matters — like, say, food for the population, which may or may not be suffering an unusually harsh famine right now due to a bad winter. In theory, that would increase American leverage over Kim: The more desperately he needs food, the more willing he’ll be to make concessions to get it. But now that we’ve got this choice soundbite from an Absolute Moral Authority like Carter suggesting that other countries have a right to be fed by us without preconditions, well, who knows. Besides, after all the North has done for them lately, South Korea practically owes them, no? (See Video)
Kim wouldn’t meet with them, incidentally, for reasons I don’t understand. When you have a former U.S. president willing to carry your water, hand him a bucket. Instead, Kim sent them a message saying he’d be willing to meet with either South Korea or the U.S. to talk disarmament and any matters — like, say, food for the population, which may or may not be suffering an unusually harsh famine right now due to a bad winter. In theory, that would increase American leverage over Kim: The more desperately he needs food, the more willing he’ll be to make concessions to get it. But now that we’ve got this choice soundbite from an Absolute Moral Authority like Carter suggesting that other countries have a right to be fed by us without preconditions, well, who knows. Besides, after all the North has done for them lately, South Korea practically owes them, no? (See Video)
Obama wants US at EU $10.00 price
Are high gas prices a good thing?
That is not as dumb a question as it sounds. Examine a few revealing past remarks from President Obama and the cabinet officials who are now in charge of the nation's energy use and oil leases on federal lands. Then decide whether the current soaring gas prices are supposed to be good or bad.
In 2008, Sen. Ken Salazar (D., Colo.) - now secretary of the interior, in charge of the leasing of federal oil lands - refused to vote for any new offshore drilling. In a Senate exchange with minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), Salazar objected to allowing any drilling on America's outer continental shelf - even if gas prices reached $10 a gallon. We can now see why the president appointed Salazar, inasmuch as Obama recently promised the Brazilians that he would be eager to buy their newfound offshore oil - while prohibiting similar exploration here at home.
From 2007 to 2008, Steven Chu, now secretary of energy, weighed in frequently on global warming and the desirable price of traditional energy. At one point Chu asserted, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Chu also lamented, "We have lots of fossil fuel; that's really both good and bad news. We won't run out of energy, but there's enough carbon in the ground to really cook us."
In other words, $10 a gallon for gas would be desirable, while an enormous amount of recoverable American oil, gas, coal, tar sands, and oil shale should be left untapped. (Read More)
That is not as dumb a question as it sounds. Examine a few revealing past remarks from President Obama and the cabinet officials who are now in charge of the nation's energy use and oil leases on federal lands. Then decide whether the current soaring gas prices are supposed to be good or bad.
In 2008, Sen. Ken Salazar (D., Colo.) - now secretary of the interior, in charge of the leasing of federal oil lands - refused to vote for any new offshore drilling. In a Senate exchange with minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), Salazar objected to allowing any drilling on America's outer continental shelf - even if gas prices reached $10 a gallon. We can now see why the president appointed Salazar, inasmuch as Obama recently promised the Brazilians that he would be eager to buy their newfound offshore oil - while prohibiting similar exploration here at home.
From 2007 to 2008, Steven Chu, now secretary of energy, weighed in frequently on global warming and the desirable price of traditional energy. At one point Chu asserted, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Chu also lamented, "We have lots of fossil fuel; that's really both good and bad news. We won't run out of energy, but there's enough carbon in the ground to really cook us."
In other words, $10 a gallon for gas would be desirable, while an enormous amount of recoverable American oil, gas, coal, tar sands, and oil shale should be left untapped. (Read More)
Serial plaintiff Alfredo Garcia arrested over immigration status
LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- An illegal immigrant and convicted felon who has filed hundreds of lawsuits against small businesses over disability violations has been arrested.
Alfredo Garcia was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and is awaiting a hearing with an immigration judge to determine if he has a legal right to remain in the U.S.
Garcia, 41, is a paraplegic and four-time convicted felon. He has been making a living filing lawsuits against Southern California businesses.
Garcia's rash of lawsuits continued up until his arrest. He has filed 24 new lawsuits since Eyewitness News' story came out last year.
"I think it's an extraordinary abuse of the law. The law has a good purpose, and its abuse is outrageous," said attorney Gail Cooper-Folb, who represents dozens of businesses, including Yogurt Stop in West Hollywood, one of Garcia's latest targets.
The lawsuit against Yogurt Stop seeks $5,000 in damages. A coat hook and the height of the mirror in the bathroom of the shop are two alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"The city of West Hollywood has very strict guidelines when it comes to ADA," said Yogurt Stop owner Misti Cooper. "We followed it to the T. Everything in here is done perfectly, until we get to the hook in the bathroom, which seems ludicrous."
Garcia has been called a professional plaintiff, with more than 500 lawsuits and $165,000 in settlements. But his career filing cases may be over now that he's been arrested. Garcia's attorney Morse Mehrban said he didn't know his client's immigration status. CONTINUE TO STORY
Alfredo Garcia was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and is awaiting a hearing with an immigration judge to determine if he has a legal right to remain in the U.S.
Garcia, 41, is a paraplegic and four-time convicted felon. He has been making a living filing lawsuits against Southern California businesses.
Garcia's rash of lawsuits continued up until his arrest. He has filed 24 new lawsuits since Eyewitness News' story came out last year.
"I think it's an extraordinary abuse of the law. The law has a good purpose, and its abuse is outrageous," said attorney Gail Cooper-Folb, who represents dozens of businesses, including Yogurt Stop in West Hollywood, one of Garcia's latest targets.
The lawsuit against Yogurt Stop seeks $5,000 in damages. A coat hook and the height of the mirror in the bathroom of the shop are two alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"The city of West Hollywood has very strict guidelines when it comes to ADA," said Yogurt Stop owner Misti Cooper. "We followed it to the T. Everything in here is done perfectly, until we get to the hook in the bathroom, which seems ludicrous."
Garcia has been called a professional plaintiff, with more than 500 lawsuits and $165,000 in settlements. But his career filing cases may be over now that he's been arrested. Garcia's attorney Morse Mehrban said he didn't know his client's immigration status. CONTINUE TO STORY
Savage: 'Redistribution' leads to mountain of skulls
"Be very careful, indeed, with your call for the redistribution of wealth, and fairness," he said. "It always ends up with a mountain of skulls."
Noting that communism cost an estimated 100 million lives in the last century, he reminded his listeners of the dark saga in Southeast Asia in the 1970s that began with a "nice, mild-mannered professor" going to Paris to study Marxism.
"He went back to his country, and he instituted social reform," Savage said. "He did not like the mild capitalism that he saw in his homeland, because he felt it was unfair. And he wanted the rich to pay a little bit more. He wanted the bourgeoisie to pay their fair share. That's how it started. It ended up a mountain of skulls. His name: Pol Pot. The country: Cambodia."
(Story continues)
Noting that communism cost an estimated 100 million lives in the last century, he reminded his listeners of the dark saga in Southeast Asia in the 1970s that began with a "nice, mild-mannered professor" going to Paris to study Marxism.
"He went back to his country, and he instituted social reform," Savage said. "He did not like the mild capitalism that he saw in his homeland, because he felt it was unfair. And he wanted the rich to pay a little bit more. He wanted the bourgeoisie to pay their fair share. That's how it started. It ended up a mountain of skulls. His name: Pol Pot. The country: Cambodia."
(Story continues)
VIDEO: The Strange Origins and Stranger Family of Obama
Video: The Enigma, Part One: Strange Bedfellows
What does the average American pay in annual personal income tax?
What does the average American pay in annual personal income tax?
POLL RESULTS
POLL RESULTS
Initial Jobless claims jump in latest week. Unexpectedly Rises to 429,000
(Reuters) - New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits surprisingly rose last week to their highest level since January in a sign an anticipated recovery in labor markets may take time, a government report showed on Thursday.........................
To Fund Bloated Government, Dems Target BIG OIL
Unwilling to reign in Washington’s overspending problem, Democrats and their allies on the Left are stuck championing tax increases. Raising the corporate income tax rate—already the highest in the world—or increasing the personal income rate is untenable, leaving Democrats no choice except to try and repeal tax credits and deductions.
With oil and natural gas companies releasing their first quarter earnings this week, look for revenue hungry Democrats and to set their sights on this industry. First out of the gate is the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) which began asking Members of Congress to pledge to raise taxes on American oil and natural gas companies by eliminating a handful of pro-growth deductions. The LCV pledge reads:
(GO TO COMPLETE STORY)
With oil and natural gas companies releasing their first quarter earnings this week, look for revenue hungry Democrats and to set their sights on this industry. First out of the gate is the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) which began asking Members of Congress to pledge to raise taxes on American oil and natural gas companies by eliminating a handful of pro-growth deductions. The LCV pledge reads:
(GO TO COMPLETE STORY)
Most Americans say U.S. in recession "despite data"
(Reuters) - More than half of Americans say the U.S. economy is in a recession or a depression despite official data that show a moderate recovery, according to a poll released on Thursday.
The April 20-23 Gallup survey of 1,013 U.S. adults found that only 27 percent said the economy is growing. Twenty-nine percent said the economy is in a depression and 26 percent said it is in a recession, with another 16 percent saying it is "slowing down," Gallup said.
The poll findings have a 4 percentage point margin of error, according to Gallup.
The health of the U.S. economy is expected to be a major issue as President Barack Obama, a Democrat, seeks re-election in 2012................READ ENTIRE STORY
The April 20-23 Gallup survey of 1,013 U.S. adults found that only 27 percent said the economy is growing. Twenty-nine percent said the economy is in a depression and 26 percent said it is in a recession, with another 16 percent saying it is "slowing down," Gallup said.
The poll findings have a 4 percentage point margin of error, according to Gallup.
The health of the U.S. economy is expected to be a major issue as President Barack Obama, a Democrat, seeks re-election in 2012................READ ENTIRE STORY
Obama Proposes Giving EPA More Power Over Water
The Obama administration proposed new guidelines Wednesday that would boost the government's ability to protect streams, wetlands and other sensitive waterways from pollution.
Business and property rights groups said the policy would stifle economic growth by generating more red tape for builders of homes and shopping centers, but environmentalists defended it as essential step to provide clean drinking water and protect waterfowl habitat.
Administration officials said their goal was to clarify which waters are subject to federal regulation under the 1972 Clean Water Act, a question that two Supreme Court rulings in the past decade have not resolved.
"Today about 117 million Americans _ more than a third of the U.S. population _ get their drinking water in part from sources that lack clear protection from pollution," Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson said. "At the same time, businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay" when seeking development permits.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said the plan would not take effect until after a 60-day public comment period. Even then, it won't have the force of law, although field staffers will refer to the document when considering whether they have jurisdiction over particular waterways. The agencies' next step will be developing a set of binding regulations, Jackson said.
The guidelines appeared likely to escalate tension between EPA and Republicans in Congress, who have accused the agency of exceeding its authority on greenhouse gas regulation and other issues. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said the plan would let the government "regulate essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond or even a ditch."
A bipartisan group of 170 lawmakers urged the agencies in a letter last week not to release the guidelines. Others said they were needed because the Bush administration had misinterpreted court rulings and lifted protections for crucial waterways, including thousands of miles of streams and at least 20 million acres of wetlands.
The changes do not remove any existing exemptions from Clean Water Act for activities such as farming and logging but they restore environmental protections that had long been recognized, said Scott Kovarovics, conservation director for the Izaak Walton League of America.
"The administration's approach is balanced and reasonable," Kovarovics said.
In a 2006 case from Michigan, the Supreme Court attempted to define which waterways the law covers. But the justices were so sharply divided that they produced five separate opinions and no clear majority. The controlling opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the government could assert jurisdiction over a wetland if it had a significant connection to a navigable waterway.
Differing with the Bush administration, Obama's team interpreted the court ruling as letting regulators analyze a proposed development's effect on entire waterway networks instead of just individual streams or wetlands, said Jim Murphy, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation.
Officials said water bodies would be covered if they have "a significant physical, chemical or biological connection" to an interstate or navigable waterway. Among those excluded from protection: artificial lakes or ponds, including farm and stock ponds, and most roadside ditches and gullies.
Environmental law experts said the government had made a good-faith attempt to help regulators navigate a confusing path.
The White House is "moving ahead with water issues that have languished for years," said Gerald Galloway, a water resources specialist at the University of Maryland. "They're taking on the tough ones."
But Oliver Houck, an environmental law professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, said the administration's roadmap would be difficult and costly to enforce.
"It's a like a 19-page recipe for a cake," he said.
Business and property rights groups said the policy would stifle economic growth by generating more red tape for builders of homes and shopping centers, but environmentalists defended it as essential step to provide clean drinking water and protect waterfowl habitat.
Administration officials said their goal was to clarify which waters are subject to federal regulation under the 1972 Clean Water Act, a question that two Supreme Court rulings in the past decade have not resolved.
"Today about 117 million Americans _ more than a third of the U.S. population _ get their drinking water in part from sources that lack clear protection from pollution," Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson said. "At the same time, businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay" when seeking development permits.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said the plan would not take effect until after a 60-day public comment period. Even then, it won't have the force of law, although field staffers will refer to the document when considering whether they have jurisdiction over particular waterways. The agencies' next step will be developing a set of binding regulations, Jackson said.
The guidelines appeared likely to escalate tension between EPA and Republicans in Congress, who have accused the agency of exceeding its authority on greenhouse gas regulation and other issues. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said the plan would let the government "regulate essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond or even a ditch."
A bipartisan group of 170 lawmakers urged the agencies in a letter last week not to release the guidelines. Others said they were needed because the Bush administration had misinterpreted court rulings and lifted protections for crucial waterways, including thousands of miles of streams and at least 20 million acres of wetlands.
The changes do not remove any existing exemptions from Clean Water Act for activities such as farming and logging but they restore environmental protections that had long been recognized, said Scott Kovarovics, conservation director for the Izaak Walton League of America.
"The administration's approach is balanced and reasonable," Kovarovics said.
In a 2006 case from Michigan, the Supreme Court attempted to define which waterways the law covers. But the justices were so sharply divided that they produced five separate opinions and no clear majority. The controlling opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the government could assert jurisdiction over a wetland if it had a significant connection to a navigable waterway.
Differing with the Bush administration, Obama's team interpreted the court ruling as letting regulators analyze a proposed development's effect on entire waterway networks instead of just individual streams or wetlands, said Jim Murphy, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation.
Officials said water bodies would be covered if they have "a significant physical, chemical or biological connection" to an interstate or navigable waterway. Among those excluded from protection: artificial lakes or ponds, including farm and stock ponds, and most roadside ditches and gullies.
Environmental law experts said the government had made a good-faith attempt to help regulators navigate a confusing path.
The White House is "moving ahead with water issues that have languished for years," said Gerald Galloway, a water resources specialist at the University of Maryland. "They're taking on the tough ones."
But Oliver Houck, an environmental law professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, said the administration's roadmap would be difficult and costly to enforce.
"It's a like a 19-page recipe for a cake," he said.
Law would make lottery winners pay back taxes, child support
House Bill 520 passed the House with unanimous support this week. The legislation would allow the Commonwealth to intercept PA Lottery winnings from individuals who are delinquent in state taxes.
If the taxpayer is found to be delinquent the amount of state taxes due will be deducted from the lottery winnings and paid to the Commonwealth. The legislation also takes money out of winnings for delinquent child support payments.
If the taxpayer is found to be delinquent the amount of state taxes due will be deducted from the lottery winnings and paid to the Commonwealth. The legislation also takes money out of winnings for delinquent child support payments.
BAD NEWS: Obama's Favorite Golf Course Hit By Tornado
Even the President of the United States has been affected by the terrible weather crippling parts of the South.
The President, who often takes vacations to golf, go on Oprah, and travel to Hawai'i, will surely lament the news that the golf course at Andrews Air Force Base was hit by a tornado yesterday. At the time that the twister struck, it was unknown that the golf course had been hit! (Continue to article)
The President, who often takes vacations to golf, go on Oprah, and travel to Hawai'i, will surely lament the news that the golf course at Andrews Air Force Base was hit by a tornado yesterday. At the time that the twister struck, it was unknown that the golf course had been hit! (Continue to article)
DOJ Scuttled More Terror-Related Prosecutions
t’s been a wild two weeks since my exclusive Pajamas Media article revealing that political appointees at the Department of Justice had scuttled pending terror finance indictments of several prominent Islamic leaders as part of the Holy Land Foundation case, including Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) co-founder Omar Ahmad. A high-placed DOJ source told me the case was nixed to prevent embarrassment to the Obama administration and to avoid inflaming the Muslim community. House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King then sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers about why these prosecutions were stopped.
Then, on Sunday, King went on Fox News and explained that he had spoken directly to the federal prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas who had investigated the Hamas support network in the United States and had prepared the indictments against Omar Ahmad. King said that the career DOJ prosecutors and the FBI agents who had investigated the case were outraged that the indictments had been nixed by political appointees under Holder.
On Monday, Holder gave a hastily arranged speech at DOJ headquarters, where he responded by saying that his office had prosecuted more terrorists in the past two years than at any time in American history — but failed to acknowledge that domestic terrorism over the past two years is higher than it has ever been.
By Tuesday, Holder had convened another hastily arranged press conference, where he admitted that the DOJ had scuttled the CAIR prosecutions — thereby confirming our reporting — but where he also claimed that they were only following previous decisions made by the Bush administration, back in 2004, when they decided to delay prosecuting the CAIR officials until after the trial of the Holy Land Foundation executives. That trial concluded in late November 2008 — three weeks after the election of Barack Obama — with convictions against the defendants on all 108 counts.
But with Eric Holder blaming the Bush administration for this decision............
MORE ON THIS
Then, on Sunday, King went on Fox News and explained that he had spoken directly to the federal prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas who had investigated the Hamas support network in the United States and had prepared the indictments against Omar Ahmad. King said that the career DOJ prosecutors and the FBI agents who had investigated the case were outraged that the indictments had been nixed by political appointees under Holder.
On Monday, Holder gave a hastily arranged speech at DOJ headquarters, where he responded by saying that his office had prosecuted more terrorists in the past two years than at any time in American history — but failed to acknowledge that domestic terrorism over the past two years is higher than it has ever been.
By Tuesday, Holder had convened another hastily arranged press conference, where he admitted that the DOJ had scuttled the CAIR prosecutions — thereby confirming our reporting — but where he also claimed that they were only following previous decisions made by the Bush administration, back in 2004, when they decided to delay prosecuting the CAIR officials until after the trial of the Holy Land Foundation executives. That trial concluded in late November 2008 — three weeks after the election of Barack Obama — with convictions against the defendants on all 108 counts.
But with Eric Holder blaming the Bush administration for this decision............
Bernanke to Press: Not enough Progress to Change Course
It was a news conference held by a central banker, full of empty words and invented phrases, signifying nothing new. A politician couldn’t have done better.
The Federal Reserve’s news conference today was a first for the notoriously secretive institution. It underscored demand for more scrutiny of the Fed following its asset purchase programs over the past two and a half years.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke used this news conference to affirm the Fed’s outlook on the economy, nothing the need to keep interest rates near zero for “an extended period.”
That’s Fed-speak for “more of the same.”
Rates aren’t going anywhere, and the Fed won’t shrink its balance sheet when its asset-purchase program ends in June.
As for inflation, it’s “transitory,” according to Bernanke — meaning he expects the recent increase to fade over time.
The numbers at the grocery store and the gas pump tell a different story........CONTINUED
The Federal Reserve’s news conference today was a first for the notoriously secretive institution. It underscored demand for more scrutiny of the Fed following its asset purchase programs over the past two and a half years.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke used this news conference to affirm the Fed’s outlook on the economy, nothing the need to keep interest rates near zero for “an extended period.”
That’s Fed-speak for “more of the same.”
Rates aren’t going anywhere, and the Fed won’t shrink its balance sheet when its asset-purchase program ends in June.
As for inflation, it’s “transitory,” according to Bernanke — meaning he expects the recent increase to fade over time.
The numbers at the grocery store and the gas pump tell a different story........CONTINUED
Next-Gen Internet Launched at USC Stevens Institute
The next-generation Internet will be a decentralized, universally accessible, open platform............
Quinnipiac University Poll Finds Obama Approval At Lowest Level Ever In Pennsylvania
President Barack Obama's job approval rating in Pennsylvania is a negative 42 - 53 percent, an all-time low and a major drop from his 51 - 44 percent approval February 17, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Pennsylvania voters say 52 - 42 percent he does not deserve a second term, his worst showing on that measure also. In a mythical matchup, he gets 40 percent to an unnamed Republican challenger's 41 percent in the 2012 presidential race.
Pennsylvania voters support 53 - 39 percent a proposed law giving citizens the ability to use lethal force in self-defense in any public place if they feel their life is in danger, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
President Obama, who carried Pennsylvania 55 - 44 percent in the 2008 election, is underwater mostly because of his deterioration among independent voters, who disapprove of his performance 57 - 37 percent, compared to 50 - 46 percent approval in February. His 89 - 9 percent disapproval among Republicans is up from 80 - 15 percent disapproval in February. Democrats back him 76 - 18 percent, compared to 81 - 14 percent in February.
One reason might be his policy on Libya with 68 percent, including 65 percent of Democrats, saying the United States should not be involved there compared to 27 percent who think the Obama policy is the right course.
Independent voters say 56 - 37 percent that Obama does not deserve a second term and back an unnamed Republican challenger over the president by a smaller 36 - 29 percent margin.
"President Barack Obama's re-election team has work to do in the Keystone State," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Although Pennsylvania has traditionally been a swing state, the size of his 2008 margin gave many observers the idea that it would not be a heavily contested state."
"It's still 18 months until Election Day 2012, but these numbers are not going to make the White House happy," Brown said.
"Whether President Obama's decline stems from rising gasoline prices, continued unhappiness with the economy overall, the war in Afghanistan and now the involvement in Libya, he can take solace from his ability to run a dead heat with a generic Republican despite his current standing with the Pennsylvania public. Perhaps this says as much about the popular view of the Republican field."
The overall majority support for expanding the "castle doctrine" of self-defense hides a large gender gap, with 63 percent of men and only 45 percent of women backing the change. The political division is also substantial, with 68 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independent voters in favor, and 54 percent of Democrats opposed.
Gun-owners support the measure 68 - 24 percent.
Pennsylvania voters are split as 48 percent say it is more important to protect the rights of citizens to own guns, while 47 percent say it is more important to control gun ownership. The gender split shows 58 percent of men saying protecting gun rights is more important while 56 percent of women say controlling gun ownership is more important. All voters say 64 - 28 percent that if more people carry guns, streets would be more dangerous. Gun-owners split 45 - 46 percent on whether streets would be safer or more dangerous.
Pennsylvania's two U.S. senators have almost identical approval ratings: 44 - 26 percent for Sen. Bob Casey Jr., the Democrat, and 43 - 25 percent for Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican.
Meanwhile, support for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate in Pennsylvania, as voters say 64 - 30 percent that the United States should not be involved there. In February, voters opposed U.S. involvement 52 - 40 percent. In July of 2010, they backed the policy 48 - 45 percent.
From April 19 - 25, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,366 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio and the nation as a public service and for research. For more data or RSS feed- http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling.xml, call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter.
2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Approve 42% 9% 76% 37% 35% 48% 47%
Disapprove 53 89 18 57 60 47 47
DK/NA 5 3 7 6 5 5 5
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Approve 39% 71% 35% 49% 42% 28% 34%
Disapprove 55 25 58 49 54 66 60
DK/NA 6 4 7 3 4 6 6
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
APPROVE.......
High Low
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16 Jul 14 May 13 May 04 Apr 28
2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011
Approve 42 51 44 46 46 66 42
Disapprove 53 44 43 49 48 29 53
DK/NA 5 5 13 5 6 5 5
3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob Casey Jr. is handling his job as United States Senator?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Approve 44% 33% 61% 39% 43% 45% 52%
Disapprove 26 37 14 27 29 23 20
DK/NA 30 30 25 33 28 32 28
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Approve 50% 43% 38% 44% 45% 50% 43%
Disapprove 29 15 32 30 25 21 26
DK/NA 21 42 30 25 30 29 32
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob Casey Jr. is handling his job as United States Senator?
APPROVE.......
High Low
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16 Jul 13 May 13 May 28 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2009 2010
Approve 44 44 39 48 47 56 39
Disapprove 26 24 29 29 30 21 29
DK/NA 30 31 32 23 23 23 32
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Pat Toomey is handling his job as United States Senator?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Approve 43% 58% 31% 44% 44% 43% 45%
Disapprove 25 13 37 26 27 24 27
DK/NA 31 29 33 30 29 33 28
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Approve 44% 47% 46% 44% 43% 42% 41%
Disapprove 27 22 25 29 26 23 25
DK/NA 29 31 30 27 31 36 34
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Pat Toomey is handling his job as United States Senator?
Apr 28 Feb 17
2011 2011
Approve 43 41
Disapprove 25 21
DK/NA 31 39
5. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for President... If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or for the Republican candidate?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Obama 40% 4% 78% 29% 33% 45% 47%
Republican 41 84 9 36 45 37 34
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 13 8 11 23 16 12 14
DK/NA 6 3 3 12 6 6 4
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Obama 43% 71% 31% 46% 38% 28% 27%
Republican 42 18 45 34 38 51 50
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 9 5 20 13 15 16 15
DK/NA 6 6 4 7 8 5 7
TREND: If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Obama 40 45 41
Republican 41 39 37
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 13 11 14
DK/NA 6 5 8
6. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for President, do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Yes/deserves 42% 6% 77% 37% 35% 48% 45%
No/does not 52 91 16 56 60 46 48
DK/NA 6 3 7 7 5 6 8
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Yes/deserves 45% 71% 33% 48% 43% 24% 33%
No/does not 51 22 60 45 52 72 61
DK/NA 4 7 7 6 5 4 6
TREND: Looking ahead to the 2012 election for President, do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Jul 14
2011 2011 2010
Yes/deserves 42 48 42
No/does not 52 45 48
DK/NA 6 8 10
7. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for United States Senator... If the 2012 election for United States Senator were being held today, do you think you would vote for Bob Casey Jr. the Democratic candidate, or for the Republican candidate?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Casey 46% 13% 81% 40% 41% 50% 57%
Republican 34 72 6 31 39 31 28
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 9 8 5 13 8 9 9
DK/NA 11 8 8 16 11 11 5
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Casey 46% 71% 36% 46% 43% 48% 39%
Republican 36 15 44 32 35 37 39
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 6 4 10 12 9 9 9
DK/NA 12 11 10 10 12 6 13
TREND: If the 2012 election for United States Senator were being held today, do you think you would vote for Bob Casey Jr. the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Casey 46 45 43
Republican 34 35 35
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 9 9 11
DK/NA 11 11 11
8. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for United States Senator, do you feel that Bob Casey Jr. deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Yes/deserves 48% 27% 73% 43% 46% 51% 56%
No/Does not 31 51 11 31 36 26 27
DK/NA 21 21 15 26 18 23 17
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Yes/deserves 46% 69% 40% 51% 42% 48% 44%
No/Does not 36 17 31 34 27 30 34
DK/NA 18 14 29 15 32 22 22
TREND: Do you feel that Bob Casey Jr. deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Yes/deserves 48 46 40
No/Does not 31 28 33
DK/NA 21 26 27
9. Which one of the following statements comes closest to the way you feel about Tom Corbett - A) I like Tom Corbett as a person and I also like most of his policies B) I like Tom Corbett as a person but I don't like most of his policies C) I don't like Tom Corbett as a person but I do like most of his policies D) I don't like Tom Corbett as a person and I also don't like most of his policies
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Person/Policies 34% 54% 19% 33% 41% 28% 30%
Person/Not policies 25 20 29 25 23 26 28
Policies/Not person 5 5 3 8 6 4 3
Not Pol/Not person 22 9 37 18 17 26 26
DK/NA 14 12 12 16 13 15 13
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Person/Policies 39% 28% 33% 31% 33% 36% 37%
Person/Not policies 32 23 29 24 25 21 23
Policies/Not person 4 1 3 11 2 5 5
Not Pol/Not person 18 33 23 23 19 20 20
DK/NA 8 16 12 12 21 18 15
10. Which one of the following statements comes closest to the way you feel about Barack Obama - A) I like Barack Obama as a person and I also like most of his policies B) I like Barack Obama as a person but I don't like most of his policies C) I don't like Barack Obama as a person but I do like most of his policies D) I don't like Barack Obama as a person and I also don't like most of his policies
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Person/Policies 40% 5% 75% 34% 32% 47% 43%
Person/Not policies 30 42 14 34 35 25 27
Policies/Not person 3 2 2 3 3 2 2
Not Pol/Not person 24 48 5 24 25 23 22
DK/NA 4 3 3 4 5 3 6
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Person/Policies 42% 69% 34% 46% 44% 22% 30%
Person/Not policies 31 19 27 26 28 35 36
Policies/Not person 1 - 3 6 1 6 1
Not Pol/Not person 25 8 30 19 22 33 28
DK/NA 2 4 7 3 5 3 5
27. What do you think is more important, to protect the right of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
Protect rights 48% 69% 29% 49% 58% 39% 54%
Control ownership 47 28 66 44 35 56 41
DK/NA 5 3 5 7 7 5 6
OWN GUN Q28 HrdAlot/Some
Yes No CastleDocQ29
Protect rights 68% 32% 57%
Control ownership 28 62 38
DK/NA 4 6 5
28. Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
Yes 43% 57% 32% 43% 52% 35% 46%
No 54 40 66 53 45 62 51
DK/NA 3 2 2 4 3 2 2
29. The state House and Senate have each approved a measure that would expand Pennsylvania's castle doctrine, allowing citizens to use lethal force in self-defense in any public place if they feel their life or safety is in danger. How much have you heard or read about this measure that would expand Pennsylvania's castle doctrine? A lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
A lot 10% 12% 7% 11% 13% 7% 13%
Some 24 24 20 29 29 20 23
Not much 27 27 29 23 24 29 27
Nothing at all 38 35 42 36 33 43 37
DK/NA 1 1 2 - - 2 1
OWN GUN Q28
Yes No
A lot 13% 7%
Some 31 18
Not much 26 28
Nothing at all 29 46
DK/NA - 2
30. Supporters say this expansion measure is a way to strengthen law-abiding citizens' rights to defend themselves no matter where they are. Critics say this expanded ability to use deadly force will lead to more violence on Pennsylvania streets. Do you support or oppose expanding Pennsylvania's castle doctrine, to allow citizens to use deadly force in self-defense in any public place if they feel their life or safety is in danger?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
Support 53% 68% 39% 56% 63% 45% 61%
Oppose 39 24 54 36 30 46 34
DK/NA 8 7 7 8 6 9 6
OWN GUN Q28 HrdAlot/Some
Yes No CastleDocQ29
Support 68% 41% 69%
Oppose 24 51 27
DK/NA 8 8 4
31. If most people carried guns, do you think the streets would be more safe or more dangerous?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
More safe 28% 42% 14% 29% 40% 19% 30%
More dangerous 64 50 80 62 52 74 63
DK/NA 8 8 6 9 8 8 7
OWN GUN Q28 HrdAlot/Some
Yes No CastleDocQ29
More safe 45% 15% 42%
More dangerous 46 78 51
DK/NA 9 7 7
32. Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Right thing 30% 36% 26% 29% 36% 25% 30%
Shld not be invl 64 60 72 62 58 70 66
DK/NA 6 3 3 9 7 5 4
TREND: Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16 Jul 14
2011 2011 2010 2010
Right thing 30 40 38 48
Shld not be invl 64 52 56 45
DK/NA 6 9 6 7
33. Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by using military force in Libya now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Libya now?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Right thing 27% 25% 31% 23% 32% 23% 30%
Shld not be invl 68 71 65 72 64 72 66
DK/NA 5 4 4 5 4 5 4
34. Do you think Congress should try to repeal the new health care law, or should they let it stand?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Repeal it 52% 76% 24% 59% 55% 49% 49%
Let it stand 40 17 66 35 38 41 44
DK/NA 8 7 11 6 7 10 7
TREND: Do you think Congress should try to repeal the new health care law, or should they let it stand?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Repeal it 52 48 45
Let it stand 40 42 45
DK/NA 8 10 10
Pennsylvania voters support 53 - 39 percent a proposed law giving citizens the ability to use lethal force in self-defense in any public place if they feel their life is in danger, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
President Obama, who carried Pennsylvania 55 - 44 percent in the 2008 election, is underwater mostly because of his deterioration among independent voters, who disapprove of his performance 57 - 37 percent, compared to 50 - 46 percent approval in February. His 89 - 9 percent disapproval among Republicans is up from 80 - 15 percent disapproval in February. Democrats back him 76 - 18 percent, compared to 81 - 14 percent in February.
One reason might be his policy on Libya with 68 percent, including 65 percent of Democrats, saying the United States should not be involved there compared to 27 percent who think the Obama policy is the right course.
Independent voters say 56 - 37 percent that Obama does not deserve a second term and back an unnamed Republican challenger over the president by a smaller 36 - 29 percent margin.
"President Barack Obama's re-election team has work to do in the Keystone State," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Although Pennsylvania has traditionally been a swing state, the size of his 2008 margin gave many observers the idea that it would not be a heavily contested state."
"It's still 18 months until Election Day 2012, but these numbers are not going to make the White House happy," Brown said.
"Whether President Obama's decline stems from rising gasoline prices, continued unhappiness with the economy overall, the war in Afghanistan and now the involvement in Libya, he can take solace from his ability to run a dead heat with a generic Republican despite his current standing with the Pennsylvania public. Perhaps this says as much about the popular view of the Republican field."
The overall majority support for expanding the "castle doctrine" of self-defense hides a large gender gap, with 63 percent of men and only 45 percent of women backing the change. The political division is also substantial, with 68 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independent voters in favor, and 54 percent of Democrats opposed.
Gun-owners support the measure 68 - 24 percent.
Pennsylvania voters are split as 48 percent say it is more important to protect the rights of citizens to own guns, while 47 percent say it is more important to control gun ownership. The gender split shows 58 percent of men saying protecting gun rights is more important while 56 percent of women say controlling gun ownership is more important. All voters say 64 - 28 percent that if more people carry guns, streets would be more dangerous. Gun-owners split 45 - 46 percent on whether streets would be safer or more dangerous.
Pennsylvania's two U.S. senators have almost identical approval ratings: 44 - 26 percent for Sen. Bob Casey Jr., the Democrat, and 43 - 25 percent for Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican.
Meanwhile, support for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate in Pennsylvania, as voters say 64 - 30 percent that the United States should not be involved there. In February, voters opposed U.S. involvement 52 - 40 percent. In July of 2010, they backed the policy 48 - 45 percent.
From April 19 - 25, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,366 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio and the nation as a public service and for research. For more data or RSS feed- http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling.xml, call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter.
2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Approve 42% 9% 76% 37% 35% 48% 47%
Disapprove 53 89 18 57 60 47 47
DK/NA 5 3 7 6 5 5 5
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Approve 39% 71% 35% 49% 42% 28% 34%
Disapprove 55 25 58 49 54 66 60
DK/NA 6 4 7 3 4 6 6
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
APPROVE.......
High Low
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16 Jul 14 May 13 May 04 Apr 28
2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011
Approve 42 51 44 46 46 66 42
Disapprove 53 44 43 49 48 29 53
DK/NA 5 5 13 5 6 5 5
3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob Casey Jr. is handling his job as United States Senator?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Approve 44% 33% 61% 39% 43% 45% 52%
Disapprove 26 37 14 27 29 23 20
DK/NA 30 30 25 33 28 32 28
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Approve 50% 43% 38% 44% 45% 50% 43%
Disapprove 29 15 32 30 25 21 26
DK/NA 21 42 30 25 30 29 32
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob Casey Jr. is handling his job as United States Senator?
APPROVE.......
High Low
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16 Jul 13 May 13 May 28 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2009 2010
Approve 44 44 39 48 47 56 39
Disapprove 26 24 29 29 30 21 29
DK/NA 30 31 32 23 23 23 32
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Pat Toomey is handling his job as United States Senator?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Approve 43% 58% 31% 44% 44% 43% 45%
Disapprove 25 13 37 26 27 24 27
DK/NA 31 29 33 30 29 33 28
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Approve 44% 47% 46% 44% 43% 42% 41%
Disapprove 27 22 25 29 26 23 25
DK/NA 29 31 30 27 31 36 34
TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Pat Toomey is handling his job as United States Senator?
Apr 28 Feb 17
2011 2011
Approve 43 41
Disapprove 25 21
DK/NA 31 39
5. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for President... If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or for the Republican candidate?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Obama 40% 4% 78% 29% 33% 45% 47%
Republican 41 84 9 36 45 37 34
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 13 8 11 23 16 12 14
DK/NA 6 3 3 12 6 6 4
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Obama 43% 71% 31% 46% 38% 28% 27%
Republican 42 18 45 34 38 51 50
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 9 5 20 13 15 16 15
DK/NA 6 6 4 7 8 5 7
TREND: If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Obama 40 45 41
Republican 41 39 37
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 13 11 14
DK/NA 6 5 8
6. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for President, do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Yes/deserves 42% 6% 77% 37% 35% 48% 45%
No/does not 52 91 16 56 60 46 48
DK/NA 6 3 7 7 5 6 8
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Yes/deserves 45% 71% 33% 48% 43% 24% 33%
No/does not 51 22 60 45 52 72 61
DK/NA 4 7 7 6 5 4 6
TREND: Looking ahead to the 2012 election for President, do you feel that Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Jul 14
2011 2011 2010
Yes/deserves 42 48 42
No/does not 52 45 48
DK/NA 6 8 10
7. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for United States Senator... If the 2012 election for United States Senator were being held today, do you think you would vote for Bob Casey Jr. the Democratic candidate, or for the Republican candidate?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Casey 46% 13% 81% 40% 41% 50% 57%
Republican 34 72 6 31 39 31 28
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 9 8 5 13 8 9 9
DK/NA 11 8 8 16 11 11 5
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Casey 46% 71% 36% 46% 43% 48% 39%
Republican 36 15 44 32 35 37 39
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 6 4 10 12 9 9 9
DK/NA 12 11 10 10 12 6 13
TREND: If the 2012 election for United States Senator were being held today, do you think you would vote for Bob Casey Jr. the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Casey 46 45 43
Republican 34 35 35
DEPENDS ON CAND(VOL) 9 9 11
DK/NA 11 11 11
8. Looking ahead to the 2012 election for United States Senator, do you feel that Bob Casey Jr. deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Yes/deserves 48% 27% 73% 43% 46% 51% 56%
No/Does not 31 51 11 31 36 26 27
DK/NA 21 21 15 26 18 23 17
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Yes/deserves 46% 69% 40% 51% 42% 48% 44%
No/Does not 36 17 31 34 27 30 34
DK/NA 18 14 29 15 32 22 22
TREND: Do you feel that Bob Casey Jr. deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Yes/deserves 48 46 40
No/Does not 31 28 33
DK/NA 21 26 27
9. Which one of the following statements comes closest to the way you feel about Tom Corbett - A) I like Tom Corbett as a person and I also like most of his policies B) I like Tom Corbett as a person but I don't like most of his policies C) I don't like Tom Corbett as a person but I do like most of his policies D) I don't like Tom Corbett as a person and I also don't like most of his policies
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Person/Policies 34% 54% 19% 33% 41% 28% 30%
Person/Not policies 25 20 29 25 23 26 28
Policies/Not person 5 5 3 8 6 4 3
Not Pol/Not person 22 9 37 18 17 26 26
DK/NA 14 12 12 16 13 15 13
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Person/Policies 39% 28% 33% 31% 33% 36% 37%
Person/Not policies 32 23 29 24 25 21 23
Policies/Not person 4 1 3 11 2 5 5
Not Pol/Not person 18 33 23 23 19 20 20
DK/NA 8 16 12 12 21 18 15
10. Which one of the following statements comes closest to the way you feel about Barack Obama - A) I like Barack Obama as a person and I also like most of his policies B) I like Barack Obama as a person but I don't like most of his policies C) I don't like Barack Obama as a person but I do like most of his policies D) I don't like Barack Obama as a person and I also don't like most of his policies
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Person/Policies 40% 5% 75% 34% 32% 47% 43%
Person/Not policies 30 42 14 34 35 25 27
Policies/Not person 3 2 2 3 3 2 2
Not Pol/Not person 24 48 5 24 25 23 22
DK/NA 4 3 3 4 5 3 6
Alghny Philly NthEst SthEst NthWst SthWst Cntrl
Person/Policies 42% 69% 34% 46% 44% 22% 30%
Person/Not policies 31 19 27 26 28 35 36
Policies/Not person 1 - 3 6 1 6 1
Not Pol/Not person 25 8 30 19 22 33 28
DK/NA 2 4 7 3 5 3 5
27. What do you think is more important, to protect the right of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
Protect rights 48% 69% 29% 49% 58% 39% 54%
Control ownership 47 28 66 44 35 56 41
DK/NA 5 3 5 7 7 5 6
OWN GUN Q28 HrdAlot/Some
Yes No CastleDocQ29
Protect rights 68% 32% 57%
Control ownership 28 62 38
DK/NA 4 6 5
28. Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
Yes 43% 57% 32% 43% 52% 35% 46%
No 54 40 66 53 45 62 51
DK/NA 3 2 2 4 3 2 2
29. The state House and Senate have each approved a measure that would expand Pennsylvania's castle doctrine, allowing citizens to use lethal force in self-defense in any public place if they feel their life or safety is in danger. How much have you heard or read about this measure that would expand Pennsylvania's castle doctrine? A lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
A lot 10% 12% 7% 11% 13% 7% 13%
Some 24 24 20 29 29 20 23
Not much 27 27 29 23 24 29 27
Nothing at all 38 35 42 36 33 43 37
DK/NA 1 1 2 - - 2 1
OWN GUN Q28
Yes No
A lot 13% 7%
Some 31 18
Not much 26 28
Nothing at all 29 46
DK/NA - 2
30. Supporters say this expansion measure is a way to strengthen law-abiding citizens' rights to defend themselves no matter where they are. Critics say this expanded ability to use deadly force will lead to more violence on Pennsylvania streets. Do you support or oppose expanding Pennsylvania's castle doctrine, to allow citizens to use deadly force in self-defense in any public place if they feel their life or safety is in danger?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
Support 53% 68% 39% 56% 63% 45% 61%
Oppose 39 24 54 36 30 46 34
DK/NA 8 7 7 8 6 9 6
OWN GUN Q28 HrdAlot/Some
Yes No CastleDocQ29
Support 68% 41% 69%
Oppose 24 51 27
DK/NA 8 8 4
31. If most people carried guns, do you think the streets would be more safe or more dangerous?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHolds
More safe 28% 42% 14% 29% 40% 19% 30%
More dangerous 64 50 80 62 52 74 63
DK/NA 8 8 6 9 8 8 7
OWN GUN Q28 HrdAlot/Some
Yes No CastleDocQ29
More safe 45% 15% 42%
More dangerous 46 78 51
DK/NA 9 7 7
32. Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Right thing 30% 36% 26% 29% 36% 25% 30%
Shld not be invl 64 60 72 62 58 70 66
DK/NA 6 3 3 9 7 5 4
TREND: Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16 Jul 14
2011 2011 2010 2010
Right thing 30 40 38 48
Shld not be invl 64 52 56 45
DK/NA 6 9 6 7
33. Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by using military force in Libya now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Libya now?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Right thing 27% 25% 31% 23% 32% 23% 30%
Shld not be invl 68 71 65 72 64 72 66
DK/NA 5 4 4 5 4 5 4
34. Do you think Congress should try to repeal the new health care law, or should they let it stand?
Union
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom HsHlds
Repeal it 52% 76% 24% 59% 55% 49% 49%
Let it stand 40 17 66 35 38 41 44
DK/NA 8 7 11 6 7 10 7
TREND: Do you think Congress should try to repeal the new health care law, or should they let it stand?
Apr 28 Feb 17 Dec 16
2011 2011 2010
Repeal it 52 48 45
Let it stand 40 42 45
DK/NA 8 10 10
Big Labor’s Trumka To Obama: Ignore Immigration Enforcement
Historically, the labor movement in America has resisted immigration. Its leaders tended to see immigrants as low-wage competition for their members and therefore they generally supported restrictionist policies. Some had even viewed immigration as a corporate scheme to weaken unions.
That changed in the 1990s. While Big Labor’s overall membership dwindled, it began having more success organizing immigrant-heavy employment sectors, especially in the service industry. A gradual replacement of labor’s older, more culturally conservative leadership with people more in tune with modern liberal thought also played a part.
Just how far the labor movement has gone in the pro-immigration direction became apparent in a commentary by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, posted online today. It’s part of a larger push by liberal groups to put immigration reform back on the political agenda. Trumka added a few thoughts about what President Obama could do while Congress wrestles with the issue:
While President Obama’s commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is vitally important, so much more can and should be done now to help ensure a solid foundation for tomorrow’s new Americans. The president can announce a policy of allowing Dream Act-eligible young people to stay in America until Congress passes comprehensive immigration legislation — so we can stop deporting the next generation of America’s doctors, teachers and engineers.
President Obama can direct ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) not to interfere in workplaces where workers have fought to improve conditions or are currently doing so. ICE should target employers that exploit workers, not employers trying to do the right thing. And the president can implement a humane and common-sense new prosecutorial discretion policy in keeping with ICE’s existing enforcement priorities.
Under Trumka’s framework, it appears the only enforcement ICE could do ... would be fining employers.
That changed in the 1990s. While Big Labor’s overall membership dwindled, it began having more success organizing immigrant-heavy employment sectors, especially in the service industry. A gradual replacement of labor’s older, more culturally conservative leadership with people more in tune with modern liberal thought also played a part.
Just how far the labor movement has gone in the pro-immigration direction became apparent in a commentary by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, posted online today. It’s part of a larger push by liberal groups to put immigration reform back on the political agenda. Trumka added a few thoughts about what President Obama could do while Congress wrestles with the issue:
While President Obama’s commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is vitally important, so much more can and should be done now to help ensure a solid foundation for tomorrow’s new Americans. The president can announce a policy of allowing Dream Act-eligible young people to stay in America until Congress passes comprehensive immigration legislation — so we can stop deporting the next generation of America’s doctors, teachers and engineers.
President Obama can direct ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) not to interfere in workplaces where workers have fought to improve conditions or are currently doing so. ICE should target employers that exploit workers, not employers trying to do the right thing. And the president can implement a humane and common-sense new prosecutorial discretion policy in keeping with ICE’s existing enforcement priorities.
Under Trumka’s framework, it appears the only enforcement ICE could do ... would be fining employers.
Man Beheads Girlfriend in Front of Classmates at Indian University
RANCHI, India -- An engineering student was in police custody Thursday after allegedly slicing his girlfriend's head off with a ceremonial dagger in front of her classmates at an Indian university.
Bijendra Kumar, 23, a diploma student at St. Xavier's College in Ranchi, in eastern India, allegedly beheaded his 18-year-old girlfriend, Khushbu, with a blade known as a "khukri" as she left the classroom with her friends.
The Hindustan Times reported that Kumar was overpowered by students and security guards, beaten and then arrested by police after the attack Wednesday.
Authorities said Khushbu's head was sliced off in the attack. Kumar later told police that he loved his girlfriend and wanted to kill her and himself because her parents would not let them marry.
Kumar's mother, Yamini Devi, was distraught when told of the incident.
"We came to know about his affair with Khushbu two months ago when she ran away from her house and came ... to marry my son," she said. Khushbu's uncle then intervened and beat Kumar for inciting his niece to elope.
"We were in love for the last five years, but our parents did not allow us to unite, so we decided to die together. After killing her, I was about to kill myself when they caught me," Kumar was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
Bijendra Kumar, 23, a diploma student at St. Xavier's College in Ranchi, in eastern India, allegedly beheaded his 18-year-old girlfriend, Khushbu, with a blade known as a "khukri" as she left the classroom with her friends.
The Hindustan Times reported that Kumar was overpowered by students and security guards, beaten and then arrested by police after the attack Wednesday.
Authorities said Khushbu's head was sliced off in the attack. Kumar later told police that he loved his girlfriend and wanted to kill her and himself because her parents would not let them marry.
Kumar's mother, Yamini Devi, was distraught when told of the incident.
"We came to know about his affair with Khushbu two months ago when she ran away from her house and came ... to marry my son," she said. Khushbu's uncle then intervened and beat Kumar for inciting his niece to elope.
"We were in love for the last five years, but our parents did not allow us to unite, so we decided to die together. After killing her, I was about to kill myself when they caught me," Kumar was quoted as saying by the newspaper.
A Real Scream! EPA Attempts to Shut Down Alaska Pipeline
While Obama lays the groundwork for Soviet-style show trials to blame the people who provide us with gasoline for the cost of their product, here's an example of why prices won't be coming down so long as liberals have their "boot on the neck" of the energy sector:
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits…
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby […is] especially frustrated over the appeal board's suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area…
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245… The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project.
The arrogant ecototalitarians at the EPA are well past even pretending to be reasonable. Their open intention is to destroy the domestic energy sector, in keeping with Barack Obama's campaign promise to make energy prices "skyrocket."
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That's how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it's carrying only one-third its capacity.
Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down.
The EPA is using fumes from an icebreaker at the far end of nowhere as an excuse to shut down the Alaska pipeline. Patriots have to ask themselves: who is likely to inflict more damage on this country, al Qaeda or the EPA? The appeals board, like all things federal under Obama, is a farce:
The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.
That is, the board is a rubber stamp for Obama's anti-energy agenda. In a depraved act of sabotage, liberals elected a hard left extremist who insolently told us up front that he would destroy our standard of living. They deserve the economic disaster that's beginning to unfold. The rest of us don't.
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits…
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby […is] especially frustrated over the appeal board's suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area…
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245… The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project.
The arrogant ecototalitarians at the EPA are well past even pretending to be reasonable. Their open intention is to destroy the domestic energy sector, in keeping with Barack Obama's campaign promise to make energy prices "skyrocket."
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That's how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it's carrying only one-third its capacity.
Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down.
The EPA is using fumes from an icebreaker at the far end of nowhere as an excuse to shut down the Alaska pipeline. Patriots have to ask themselves: who is likely to inflict more damage on this country, al Qaeda or the EPA? The appeals board, like all things federal under Obama, is a farce:
The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.
That is, the board is a rubber stamp for Obama's anti-energy agenda. In a depraved act of sabotage, liberals elected a hard left extremist who insolently told us up front that he would destroy our standard of living. They deserve the economic disaster that's beginning to unfold. The rest of us don't.
A Good Alternative
Yes, There Is a Good Alternative to Obamacare
Despite liberals’ claims...........
Despite liberals’ claims...........
Man Gets Arrested For Reading Bible In Public In CA
Shock Video: Man Gets Arrested For Reading Bible In Public In CA
Someone out there please tell me that this video is an orchestrated joke and that this man did not really get arrested for reading the Bible on a public sidewalk!
Someone out there please tell me that this video is an orchestrated joke and that this man did not really get arrested for reading the Bible on a public sidewalk!
Obama’s Top Six Gas Price Myths Busted!
he same Washington press corps that hammered President George W. Bush relentlessly when prices were still well under $3 a gallon—well before the $4 a gallon peak, which lasted only six weeks in 2008—have given President Obama a pass thus far on the recklessness of his energy policy.
In fact, in the first two years of his presidency, as gas prices steadily rose to over $3 a gallon, the press corps never asked the President about gas prices in any of his press briefings. Even when he called a press briefing specifically on gas prices last month, he was asked only one question on the subject, which was historic in itself, being the first question on gas prices of his presidency.
According to the Media Research Center, in the past year, just 1 percent of stories related to oil prices or the Gulf oil spill on the network evening news even mentioned the President’s energy policy.
President Obama has been more than happy to feed the media alternative narratives. But the myths created in the White House don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Myth #1: Speculators Are to Blame
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
In fact, in the first two years of his presidency, as gas prices steadily rose to over $3 a gallon, the press corps never asked the President about gas prices in any of his press briefings. Even when he called a press briefing specifically on gas prices last month, he was asked only one question on the subject, which was historic in itself, being the first question on gas prices of his presidency.
According to the Media Research Center, in the past year, just 1 percent of stories related to oil prices or the Gulf oil spill on the network evening news even mentioned the President’s energy policy.
President Obama has been more than happy to feed the media alternative narratives. But the myths created in the White House don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Myth #1: Speculators Are to Blame
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)