Last night, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and Lauren Stephenson reported that the veterans group Rolling Thunder had not invited Sarah Palin to their annual ride taking place this weekend and were dumbfounded when Palin announced her participation as the start of her bus tour. Under the headline “Stealing Their Thunder,” Mitchell suggested that Palin was hijacking their “very serious purpose” with her participation. The piece hinges on an interview with Rolling Thunder’s Ted Shpak, who called Palin’s announcement “a big distraction”.
One day after Sarah Palin announced her bus tour, a group sponsoring a Memorial Day weekend event she plans to attend said they never invited her.
“She wasn’t invited. We heard yesterday she came out with a press release she was coming to Rolling Thunder,” Ted Shpak, national legislative director of Rolling Thunder, told “Andrea Mitchell Reports.” Shpak is one of three members of Rolling Thunder’s current leadership who says he had no idea Palin was coming until it was posted on her website.
On Thursday, the former governor of Alaska and potential GOP presidential candidate announced her bus tour on her political action committee’s website, Sarahpac.com. The tour is to begin in Washington, D.C., where Palin plans to participate in the Sunday motorcycle rally sponsored by Rolling Thunder Inc., a group that raises awareness of prisoners of war and those missing in action.
“She’s not invited to speak. We’re not endorsing her … (but) we can’t stop her from coming to ride, if she wants to ride,” Shpak continued.
There’s a problem with this story, but to be fair to everyone, it seems to be an honest case of an internal miscommunication at Rolling Thunder. After I read this story last night, I got in contact with Christine Colborne, who handles the media for Rolling Thunder. She explained that Shpak didn’t know that Palin had been indeed invited to ride at the event. The invitation came from a retired board member, Michael DiPaolo, who had connections in Alaska and got Palin to agree to attend.
Requests for high-profile personalities to attend the event are not new. Colborne mentioned that actor Robert Patrick (Terminator 2: Judgment Day) attended at least one of the Rolling Thunder events, as have other celebrities, usually just to ride with a lower profile. Most times, though, those requests don’t even get responses, let alone acceptances. That’s a shame, because the Rolling Thunder event highlights the issues surrounding American POWs and MIAs from the Vietnam War and later conflicts, as well as providing support to their families, who really need the emotional support they get from this group of volunteer veterans.
Colborne spoke with me on the phone in the middle of an all-night car ride to Washington DC, and explained that the last-minute RSVP didn’t get communicated through the echelons of Rolling Thunder. Everyone is either in transit or already in DC, and internal communication broke down as often happens before a major event. Shpak (and Colborne) were taken by surprise by Palin’s announcement. Shpak does have the authority to speak for the organization, Colborne says, but he had no idea that Palin was invited by DiPaolo, and Shpak worried that Palin’s arrival might be a “big distraction” from the issues on which Rolling Thunder wants people to focus. Obviously, Shpak — a Vietnam veteran himself — feels passionate about defending the organization, but went on NBC with faulty information. Shpak, Colborne, and almost everyone else at Rolling Thunder are volunteers, just ordinary people doing extraordinary work, and that means they get the occasional hiccup.
Palin will indeed be welcomed to the Rolling Thunder event. It’s a good organization with a worthy mission, so don’t let a miscommunication distract people from its purpose, either. Be sure to check out the web site, the merchandise that helps support the group, and other ways in which we can all assist them in that mission.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Biblical Foreign Policy?
Last week (May 19, 2011), President Obama created controversy with his statement that any Israeli-Palestinian accord “must begin with a return to the 1967 borders.” Besides Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, many evangelical leaders have been criticizing the statement over the last several days.
Foreign policy experts have been discussing and debating the conditions for a lasting accord, offering thoughtful analysis on complicated questions. However, they are often drowned out by the background voices of those who insist, on biblical grounds, that any pressure put on Israel to keep its past pledges is tantamount to heresy.
Lacking both the qualifications and the authority to pronounce on the policy questions, my focus here is on the argument that many evangelicals have made over the years since dispensational premillennialism gained ascendence.
In a recent post for Charisma Magazine Online, Jack Hayford, pastor of Church on the Way (Van Nuys, California), called President Obama’s announcement “a trumpet call from God’s Spirit: ‘Beware – Take Action!’” He adds, “We are living in a sobering moment in history that calls us, as believers in Jesus Christ, to take a stand with Israel. We could be people of the last hour.”
To his credit, Mr. Hayford warned against disrespectful or violent responses. However, he reiterated a familiar defense for a policy that would basically recognize Israel’s privileges as a “holy nation” and not simply as a secular nation that is one of the US’s closest friends. Inasmuch as it has been embraced (at least publicly) by several recent presidents, the “Bible-based” argument that Mr. Hayford offers has had some influence on foreign policy. But is it, in fact, biblical?
Like most dispensationalist brothers and sisters, Mr. Hayford’s main argument is the unconditional nature of God’s promise to Israel of an earthly land and kingdom. “Israel is a land about which God says uniquely, prophetically, redemptively and repeatedly in the Bible This is Mine. God refers to Israel as He does to no other land on Earth. Israel was raised up to be a light to the Gentiles.” He makes other arguments in favor of the special relationship of Christians and Jews. “Salvation comes from the Jews,” the first church was Jewish, and Gentiles are the “wild branches” grafted onto the tree. All of this is important to remember when we are thinking about the relationship between Christians and Jews. However, does it have anything to do with the nation of Israel and Palestine or the United States?
The deeper problem in the argument supporting Mr. Hayford’s urgent call concerns the nature of the promise that God made to Abraham. He writes, “The Lord selected a people … He began by selecting a man named Abraham. The Lord said that through the seed of Abraham (in relationship with his wife, Sarah, giving birth to the promised child, Isaac) all the nations of the Earth will be blessed … every human being having access to the divine blessing of Almighty God. In Genesis 12:3, the Lord says in the covenant He makes with Abraham: ‘I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’”
I can agree with the point that “This relates not only to a people (the Jews), but it also relates to a land (Israel),” and that God did in fact judge Israel’s enemies. Nevertheless, God’s covenant with Israel was itself conditional. It is not Israel’s land, but God’s, and if Israel breaks the covenant, then the land will “vomit out” Israel as well (Lev 20:22). God himself will lay the nation waste through other nations and send his people into exile “east of Eden.” The land will no longer be holy, but common, even though God continues to work through the holy line—the “stump of Jesse,” from whom David and eventually the greater David (the Messiah) would come. Throughout the law (especially in Deuteronomy), the temporal promise of “long life in the land” is conditioned on Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant it swore at Mount Sinai. It is distinct from the unconditional promise of everlasting life and peace through Abraham’s Seed, through whom all families of the earth will be blessed.
The way the Gospels, but especially Hebrews and Galatians, interpret these passages is to recognize that the Sinai covenant was temporary, conditional, and typological. It was a shadow of the things to come—namely, Christ and his kingdom. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus announces a “regime change” from the civil laws of the theocracy. Instead of driving out the enemies of God, the True Israel—those united to Christ—are to endure suffering for the gospel and to pray for their persecutors. God’s common grace is shed on the just and the unjust alike in this age. Having fulfilled its job, like a trailer for a movie, the old covenant is now “obsolete” (Heb 8:13). Christ’s ministry, far greater than that of Moses, fulfills the everlasting promise that God made to Abraham. Now, blessing has come from the Jews to the ends of the earth in Jesus Christ, the true Israel, the true and faithful Son of David, the true Temple.
The church has therefore not replaced Israel; rather, the borders of Israel have now been extended. No longer a geo-political nation, limited to one people, it is an international remnant “from every tribe, kindred, and nation” (Rev 5:9). So while I do believe that Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11 leads us to expect a great outpouring of God’s Spirit on ethnic Jews in the last days, this has nothing to do with the state of Israel.
A lot more could be—and should be—said (I treat this at length in The Christian Faith [535-47, 729-33, 919-90] and elsewhere). However, it’s worth concluding this brief response by mentioning that not even Orthodox Jews believe that the modern state of Israel is holy. The messianic kingdom for which they long is strictly “from above.” It comes with the Messiah and cannot be a secular democracy. So they too realize that the state of Israel is not in any way a revival of the Mosaic theocracy. They are still living in exile, even in Israel.
To conclude: God’s promise to Abraham included (1) and earthly land and (2) a heavenly land. The central claim of the New Testament, anticipated by the prophets, is that although Israel (like Adam—Hosea 6:7) has thoroughly violated the conditions for inheriting the first, God has been faithful to keep history moving beyond the sinfulness of his human partner—including us. Through Christ, he has fulfilled this promise, bringing blessing to all the families of the earth. All heirs of this kingdom are “a holy nation,” living in the common nations of this age.
Especially given the legacy of Christian persecution of Jews throughout the medieval and modern periods, there is a special obligation of Christians to defend the common rights of the Jewish people to a flourishing existence. Yet, by acknowledging that God’s promise of a temporal, geo-political theocracy and land were conditional and that this covenant now lies in the past, we are free to support our friends in Israel and Palestine in their pursuit of a stable peace that will doubtless require trust and negotiation on both sides.
Foreign policy experts have been discussing and debating the conditions for a lasting accord, offering thoughtful analysis on complicated questions. However, they are often drowned out by the background voices of those who insist, on biblical grounds, that any pressure put on Israel to keep its past pledges is tantamount to heresy.
Lacking both the qualifications and the authority to pronounce on the policy questions, my focus here is on the argument that many evangelicals have made over the years since dispensational premillennialism gained ascendence.
In a recent post for Charisma Magazine Online, Jack Hayford, pastor of Church on the Way (Van Nuys, California), called President Obama’s announcement “a trumpet call from God’s Spirit: ‘Beware – Take Action!’” He adds, “We are living in a sobering moment in history that calls us, as believers in Jesus Christ, to take a stand with Israel. We could be people of the last hour.”
To his credit, Mr. Hayford warned against disrespectful or violent responses. However, he reiterated a familiar defense for a policy that would basically recognize Israel’s privileges as a “holy nation” and not simply as a secular nation that is one of the US’s closest friends. Inasmuch as it has been embraced (at least publicly) by several recent presidents, the “Bible-based” argument that Mr. Hayford offers has had some influence on foreign policy. But is it, in fact, biblical?
Like most dispensationalist brothers and sisters, Mr. Hayford’s main argument is the unconditional nature of God’s promise to Israel of an earthly land and kingdom. “Israel is a land about which God says uniquely, prophetically, redemptively and repeatedly in the Bible This is Mine. God refers to Israel as He does to no other land on Earth. Israel was raised up to be a light to the Gentiles.” He makes other arguments in favor of the special relationship of Christians and Jews. “Salvation comes from the Jews,” the first church was Jewish, and Gentiles are the “wild branches” grafted onto the tree. All of this is important to remember when we are thinking about the relationship between Christians and Jews. However, does it have anything to do with the nation of Israel and Palestine or the United States?
The deeper problem in the argument supporting Mr. Hayford’s urgent call concerns the nature of the promise that God made to Abraham. He writes, “The Lord selected a people … He began by selecting a man named Abraham. The Lord said that through the seed of Abraham (in relationship with his wife, Sarah, giving birth to the promised child, Isaac) all the nations of the Earth will be blessed … every human being having access to the divine blessing of Almighty God. In Genesis 12:3, the Lord says in the covenant He makes with Abraham: ‘I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’”
I can agree with the point that “This relates not only to a people (the Jews), but it also relates to a land (Israel),” and that God did in fact judge Israel’s enemies. Nevertheless, God’s covenant with Israel was itself conditional. It is not Israel’s land, but God’s, and if Israel breaks the covenant, then the land will “vomit out” Israel as well (Lev 20:22). God himself will lay the nation waste through other nations and send his people into exile “east of Eden.” The land will no longer be holy, but common, even though God continues to work through the holy line—the “stump of Jesse,” from whom David and eventually the greater David (the Messiah) would come. Throughout the law (especially in Deuteronomy), the temporal promise of “long life in the land” is conditioned on Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant it swore at Mount Sinai. It is distinct from the unconditional promise of everlasting life and peace through Abraham’s Seed, through whom all families of the earth will be blessed.
The way the Gospels, but especially Hebrews and Galatians, interpret these passages is to recognize that the Sinai covenant was temporary, conditional, and typological. It was a shadow of the things to come—namely, Christ and his kingdom. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus announces a “regime change” from the civil laws of the theocracy. Instead of driving out the enemies of God, the True Israel—those united to Christ—are to endure suffering for the gospel and to pray for their persecutors. God’s common grace is shed on the just and the unjust alike in this age. Having fulfilled its job, like a trailer for a movie, the old covenant is now “obsolete” (Heb 8:13). Christ’s ministry, far greater than that of Moses, fulfills the everlasting promise that God made to Abraham. Now, blessing has come from the Jews to the ends of the earth in Jesus Christ, the true Israel, the true and faithful Son of David, the true Temple.
The church has therefore not replaced Israel; rather, the borders of Israel have now been extended. No longer a geo-political nation, limited to one people, it is an international remnant “from every tribe, kindred, and nation” (Rev 5:9). So while I do believe that Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11 leads us to expect a great outpouring of God’s Spirit on ethnic Jews in the last days, this has nothing to do with the state of Israel.
A lot more could be—and should be—said (I treat this at length in The Christian Faith [535-47, 729-33, 919-90] and elsewhere). However, it’s worth concluding this brief response by mentioning that not even Orthodox Jews believe that the modern state of Israel is holy. The messianic kingdom for which they long is strictly “from above.” It comes with the Messiah and cannot be a secular democracy. So they too realize that the state of Israel is not in any way a revival of the Mosaic theocracy. They are still living in exile, even in Israel.
To conclude: God’s promise to Abraham included (1) and earthly land and (2) a heavenly land. The central claim of the New Testament, anticipated by the prophets, is that although Israel (like Adam—Hosea 6:7) has thoroughly violated the conditions for inheriting the first, God has been faithful to keep history moving beyond the sinfulness of his human partner—including us. Through Christ, he has fulfilled this promise, bringing blessing to all the families of the earth. All heirs of this kingdom are “a holy nation,” living in the common nations of this age.
Especially given the legacy of Christian persecution of Jews throughout the medieval and modern periods, there is a special obligation of Christians to defend the common rights of the Jewish people to a flourishing existence. Yet, by acknowledging that God’s promise of a temporal, geo-political theocracy and land were conditional and that this covenant now lies in the past, we are free to support our friends in Israel and Palestine in their pursuit of a stable peace that will doubtless require trust and negotiation on both sides.
There's a Bad Moon On the Rise
Have you noticed that the economy is slowing down once again? The data of late has been pretty unequivocal on that front. In the last few weeks, we've seen monthly reports from Fed regional banks that show local economic growth stalling. Industrial production for April was flat. The housing market is in a double dip, despite the fact that mortgage rates are at bargain basement levels. Weekly jobless claims have bounced back up. And while the top-line number of April's unemployment report showed somewhat good news, though it also revealed clear signs that wages are not keeping pace with inflation, which is bad news, considering how dependent the economy of today is on consumer spending. Looking ahead, the major firms are already starting to cut their growth forecasts for Q2. Japan's economy slowed more than expected last quarter, and the sovereign debt crisis of Europe is back with a vengeance. Belarus just devalued its currency, Greece remains in very real danger, and China's now thinking of bailing out Portugal.
The economy is relevant to the political discourse in so many ways, and I've reviewed its impact on this page regularly over the last few months. One element that I have touched on just briefly is the fact that slower growth could have significant, deleterious effects on the nation's budget deficit. Over the previous decade (2001-2010), economic growth averaged just 1.7 percent per year, yet the CBO projects an average growth rate over the next decade (2011-2020) of 2.9 percent. If we come in closer to the last decade rather than CBO's projections, federal revenue collections will inevitably be hampered, as the tax code is highly progressive and a lower rate of growth will keep people out of the higher income brackets. Meanwhile, federal spending would not fall at a corresponding rate, as appropriations are set by the political cycle and not the business cycle.
All told, weak growth -- the kind that we've been stuck with since 2001 -- could produce a 10-year budget deficit that is trillions more than what CBO currently projects as the baseline. And that baseline is already at about $7.5 trillion, plus it assumes away many important spending/revenue adjustments like the Medicare "doc fix," the unlikelihood of Democrats getting their tax hike (they call it, "repealing the Bush tax cuts," but there is no real difference from an economic standpoint), the extreme unlikelihood that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, and more.
In other words, when we take a sober, fair-minded look at what the baseline budget would be under realistic political and economic conditions, we are faced with a terrifying truth: the status quo in American fiscal policy is no longer sustainable.
The bulk of political commentators, and the political class in general, have yet to wrap their minds around this fact, although there are several notable exceptions to the general tendency. These farsighted few now see the bad moon rising over the nation's capitol, and they know it portends a dramatic, painful change in the way things work in D.C.
Since the end of World War Two, the political class has basically had to manage the country's rapid economic growth. That hasn't been a cakewalk, but managing growth has been relatively easy: you can spend billions on guns or butter, without taking too much from the average middle class American taxpayer. Yet these days are over. Now, our political leaders have to manage decline -- for even if the economy continues to grow, it likely will not grow fast enough to pay for all the financial obligations the elites made when they foolishly assumed that the days of 4 percent growth would last forever.
The great political scientist Harold Lasswell once famously defined politics as, who gets what, when, and how? In the postwar age of perpetual growth, we've long thought of that in terms of who is going to get the extra revenues that our ever-growing economy is producing for us. But now, with our huge budget deficit and weak economy, it'd be better to classify our current politics as: who loses what, when, and how?
Any partisan who thinks their side has an inherent advantage in the battle of assigning losers is deluding himself. The Democrats have long argued for increased taxation to distribute more income to the lower classes. The Republicans have long argued for decreased taxation to spur business, coupled with free-market mechanisms to make social welfare more efficient. The response of the American public over the last thirty year? Regularly divided government, so that one side inevitably checks the grand ideological ambitions of the other, and nothing really changes. In other words, the public has consistently voted for the status quo over the Democratic plan and the Republican plan.
Sooner rather than later, this status quo must give way. No more guns, butter, and low taxes. At least one of them has got to go, and millions of Americans are going to lose something on the deal. How will that play out politically? Honestly, I do not know. But I can say two things for sure:
One, the political process, which has been ugly for some time, is going to get a whole lot uglier. You thought the Republicans and Democrats were vicious when they were fighting over a growing pie? Just wait until they finally catch on that the pie has to start shrinking.
Two, anybody who tells you what is likely to happen in 2012 is fooling themself. One way or the other, the country has voted for the status quo in just about every election for the last thirty years. What do they do when they realize that they can't vote for the same thing anymore? The tiresome pundits don't know, the statistical "gurus" don't know, and the wonky poseurs don't know. If they say otherwise, it's simply proof that they don't really get it.
Make no mistake: there's a bad moon rising on Washington, and it's foreshadowing a politics of decline that is going to dominate the election of 2012, and beyond.
The economy is relevant to the political discourse in so many ways, and I've reviewed its impact on this page regularly over the last few months. One element that I have touched on just briefly is the fact that slower growth could have significant, deleterious effects on the nation's budget deficit. Over the previous decade (2001-2010), economic growth averaged just 1.7 percent per year, yet the CBO projects an average growth rate over the next decade (2011-2020) of 2.9 percent. If we come in closer to the last decade rather than CBO's projections, federal revenue collections will inevitably be hampered, as the tax code is highly progressive and a lower rate of growth will keep people out of the higher income brackets. Meanwhile, federal spending would not fall at a corresponding rate, as appropriations are set by the political cycle and not the business cycle.
All told, weak growth -- the kind that we've been stuck with since 2001 -- could produce a 10-year budget deficit that is trillions more than what CBO currently projects as the baseline. And that baseline is already at about $7.5 trillion, plus it assumes away many important spending/revenue adjustments like the Medicare "doc fix," the unlikelihood of Democrats getting their tax hike (they call it, "repealing the Bush tax cuts," but there is no real difference from an economic standpoint), the extreme unlikelihood that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, and more.
In other words, when we take a sober, fair-minded look at what the baseline budget would be under realistic political and economic conditions, we are faced with a terrifying truth: the status quo in American fiscal policy is no longer sustainable.
The bulk of political commentators, and the political class in general, have yet to wrap their minds around this fact, although there are several notable exceptions to the general tendency. These farsighted few now see the bad moon rising over the nation's capitol, and they know it portends a dramatic, painful change in the way things work in D.C.
Since the end of World War Two, the political class has basically had to manage the country's rapid economic growth. That hasn't been a cakewalk, but managing growth has been relatively easy: you can spend billions on guns or butter, without taking too much from the average middle class American taxpayer. Yet these days are over. Now, our political leaders have to manage decline -- for even if the economy continues to grow, it likely will not grow fast enough to pay for all the financial obligations the elites made when they foolishly assumed that the days of 4 percent growth would last forever.
The great political scientist Harold Lasswell once famously defined politics as, who gets what, when, and how? In the postwar age of perpetual growth, we've long thought of that in terms of who is going to get the extra revenues that our ever-growing economy is producing for us. But now, with our huge budget deficit and weak economy, it'd be better to classify our current politics as: who loses what, when, and how?
Any partisan who thinks their side has an inherent advantage in the battle of assigning losers is deluding himself. The Democrats have long argued for increased taxation to distribute more income to the lower classes. The Republicans have long argued for decreased taxation to spur business, coupled with free-market mechanisms to make social welfare more efficient. The response of the American public over the last thirty year? Regularly divided government, so that one side inevitably checks the grand ideological ambitions of the other, and nothing really changes. In other words, the public has consistently voted for the status quo over the Democratic plan and the Republican plan.
Sooner rather than later, this status quo must give way. No more guns, butter, and low taxes. At least one of them has got to go, and millions of Americans are going to lose something on the deal. How will that play out politically? Honestly, I do not know. But I can say two things for sure:
One, the political process, which has been ugly for some time, is going to get a whole lot uglier. You thought the Republicans and Democrats were vicious when they were fighting over a growing pie? Just wait until they finally catch on that the pie has to start shrinking.
Two, anybody who tells you what is likely to happen in 2012 is fooling themself. One way or the other, the country has voted for the status quo in just about every election for the last thirty years. What do they do when they realize that they can't vote for the same thing anymore? The tiresome pundits don't know, the statistical "gurus" don't know, and the wonky poseurs don't know. If they say otherwise, it's simply proof that they don't really get it.
Make no mistake: there's a bad moon rising on Washington, and it's foreshadowing a politics of decline that is going to dominate the election of 2012, and beyond.
No Recession indicated Queen Michele's Wardrobe
As newly minted princess Kate Middleton greeted Michelle Obama in the ornate surroundings of Buckingham Palace Tuesday, it was hard to believe she was wearing a $340 dress from British retailer Reiss — a frock any commoner could buy.
Middleton’s appearance in the nude-hued “Shola” dress sparked a shopping frenzy, causing the retailer’s Web site to crash and the dress to immediately sell out. And now style watchers are hailing the Duchess of Cambridge as “the pauper’s princess” — the first stylish royal to embrace affordable trends, and the perfect recession-era symbol.
“Kate is a princess of our times,” says Zanna Roberts Rassi, senior fashion editor at Marie Claire. “She’s more of a people’s princess than Diana. Diana was understated, but she liked her labels. Kate’s heralding this almost changing of the guard, from the stuffy royal family to this modern-day princess that we can all relate to.”
ENTER TO WIN THE REISS DRESS KATE MIDDLETON WORE
PHOTOS: KATE MIDDLETON
Middleton’s fashion choices have also boosted mass-market fashion chains. Reiss, which owns three Manhattan-based stores, will reissue the “Shola” dress in June and is planning to open another store in New York, along with a concession at Bloomingdale’s.
“We were described as New York City’s best-kept secret, but that’s not the case anymore,” says Laurie Marco, Reiss’ North American president. “In terms of brand awareness, it’s been a phenomenal time for us.”
The leggy royal has been a Reiss customer for years. She chose an off-white dress from the retailer for her official engagement photos and sported a flirty white Reiss coat at William’s military graduation in 2008 and a charity event in 2009.
Middleton also favors frugal fashions from Top Shop and mid-market brands such as Whistles. The week before her wedding, she went on a shopping spree — not at London’s finest ateliers, but on the High Street, spending about $350 on three floral dresses and a white blouse from chain store Warehouse.
Even after she wowed the world in a wedding gown from the house of Alexander McQueen — which was rumored to cost between $66,500 and $200,000 — she proved marriage to a prince wouldn’t change her.
The day after her wedding, she went back to her thrifty style, pairing a pleated frock from Zara with patent espadrilles from LK Bennett, a midprice British shoe chain.
Her fashion approach is nothing less than revolutionary, say style experts.
“She’s not putting herself up on a pedestal and alienating herself from people who can’t afford the extreme high-level designers. She’s breaking the rules where she needs to,” says Marissa Webb, the head of women’s design for J.Crew.
While Michelle Obama has also been applauded for wearing clothes from affordable stores such as J.Crew and H&M, she also favors big-name designers such as Jason Wu and Isabel Toledo. The floral Barbara Tfank dress she wore to meet Middleton this week cost at least $2,000.
And while Middleton has championed the midpriced designer line Issa and bespoke coats by Katherine Hooker, the only occasion when she’s worn a high-end designer was her wedding — a move that Marie Claire’s Roberts Rassi cheered, along with the rest of the fashion world.
But Middleton, 29, has also been criticized for her flirtation with accessible clothing.
After her prewedding shopping spree, fashion commentator Liz Jones urged the royal to change her low-key approach.
“Kate’s role is a sartorial minefield that needs an expert eye to steer her through safely,” wrote Jones in the UK’s Daily Mail.
But celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch disagrees, saying Kate’s simple style suits her bargain-price wardrobe.
“When you’re a minimalist, it’s a lot easier to be a recessionista,” he says. “She was very on-trend with the nude dress, and hasn’t missed a beat.”
Still, fashion watchers anticipate that Middleton will tap a top couturier when she starts attending black-tie galas in the future.
“It will be interesting to see what she chooses for formal occasions. She’s the type of girl who might go for McQueen’s diffusion line, McQ. She’ll still support the high end, but make them look . . . accessible,” says Roberts Rassi.
But even if Middleton starts experimenting with designer clothes, Marco believes she’ll continue to support the mass-market brands that ordinary girls love.
“As the years go on, she’ll surprise us with beautiful high-end designers,” she says. “[But] she will be the kind of icon who will wear affordable luxury, too.”
Middleton’s appearance in the nude-hued “Shola” dress sparked a shopping frenzy, causing the retailer’s Web site to crash and the dress to immediately sell out. And now style watchers are hailing the Duchess of Cambridge as “the pauper’s princess” — the first stylish royal to embrace affordable trends, and the perfect recession-era symbol.
“Kate is a princess of our times,” says Zanna Roberts Rassi, senior fashion editor at Marie Claire. “She’s more of a people’s princess than Diana. Diana was understated, but she liked her labels. Kate’s heralding this almost changing of the guard, from the stuffy royal family to this modern-day princess that we can all relate to.”
ENTER TO WIN THE REISS DRESS KATE MIDDLETON WORE
PHOTOS: KATE MIDDLETON
Middleton’s fashion choices have also boosted mass-market fashion chains. Reiss, which owns three Manhattan-based stores, will reissue the “Shola” dress in June and is planning to open another store in New York, along with a concession at Bloomingdale’s.
“We were described as New York City’s best-kept secret, but that’s not the case anymore,” says Laurie Marco, Reiss’ North American president. “In terms of brand awareness, it’s been a phenomenal time for us.”
The leggy royal has been a Reiss customer for years. She chose an off-white dress from the retailer for her official engagement photos and sported a flirty white Reiss coat at William’s military graduation in 2008 and a charity event in 2009.
Middleton also favors frugal fashions from Top Shop and mid-market brands such as Whistles. The week before her wedding, she went on a shopping spree — not at London’s finest ateliers, but on the High Street, spending about $350 on three floral dresses and a white blouse from chain store Warehouse.
Even after she wowed the world in a wedding gown from the house of Alexander McQueen — which was rumored to cost between $66,500 and $200,000 — she proved marriage to a prince wouldn’t change her.
The day after her wedding, she went back to her thrifty style, pairing a pleated frock from Zara with patent espadrilles from LK Bennett, a midprice British shoe chain.
Her fashion approach is nothing less than revolutionary, say style experts.
“She’s not putting herself up on a pedestal and alienating herself from people who can’t afford the extreme high-level designers. She’s breaking the rules where she needs to,” says Marissa Webb, the head of women’s design for J.Crew.
While Michelle Obama has also been applauded for wearing clothes from affordable stores such as J.Crew and H&M, she also favors big-name designers such as Jason Wu and Isabel Toledo. The floral Barbara Tfank dress she wore to meet Middleton this week cost at least $2,000.
And while Middleton has championed the midpriced designer line Issa and bespoke coats by Katherine Hooker, the only occasion when she’s worn a high-end designer was her wedding — a move that Marie Claire’s Roberts Rassi cheered, along with the rest of the fashion world.
But Middleton, 29, has also been criticized for her flirtation with accessible clothing.
After her prewedding shopping spree, fashion commentator Liz Jones urged the royal to change her low-key approach.
“Kate’s role is a sartorial minefield that needs an expert eye to steer her through safely,” wrote Jones in the UK’s Daily Mail.
But celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch disagrees, saying Kate’s simple style suits her bargain-price wardrobe.
“When you’re a minimalist, it’s a lot easier to be a recessionista,” he says. “She was very on-trend with the nude dress, and hasn’t missed a beat.”
Still, fashion watchers anticipate that Middleton will tap a top couturier when she starts attending black-tie galas in the future.
“It will be interesting to see what she chooses for formal occasions. She’s the type of girl who might go for McQueen’s diffusion line, McQ. She’ll still support the high end, but make them look . . . accessible,” says Roberts Rassi.
But even if Middleton starts experimenting with designer clothes, Marco believes she’ll continue to support the mass-market brands that ordinary girls love.
“As the years go on, she’ll surprise us with beautiful high-end designers,” she says. “[But] she will be the kind of icon who will wear affordable luxury, too.”
TSA Thug Grabs Crotch of Wounded Vet
One more reason why this odious federal agency should be abolished
Two injured US military veterans traveling to a ceremony to honor the lives of fallen friends who gave their lives to protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution were harassed by TSA thugs, with one of them having his crotch grabbed, according to David Bellow, an Army National Guardsman and a State Republican Executive Committeeman.
“One of the wounded warriors, a friend of mine who personally told me what happened, has bullet fragments in his leg. The other wounded warrior has shrapnel in his face,” wrote Bellow on the Texas GOP Vote website.
The TSA agents responded to the men having set off metal detectors by interrogating them about what they were hiding in their bodies. “What are you hiding in your face?” screamed one.
“My friend told me that one TSA agent came up to him and asked what he was hiding in his leg, but before my friend could answer he said that the TSA agent grabbed him, without notice, right in the crotch area as if trying to find something hidden,” writes Bellow.
When the TSA goon grabbed his crotch and didn’t let go, the veteran felt inclined to lash out violently but was somehow able to control his fury.
This story is just one of hundreds if not thousands of examples that underscores the fact that low-grade TSA morons who have proven themselves prone to predatory, perverted and criminal behavior have no place in a free society.
Airports need to act now by kicking out the TSA and replacing them with private security.
But it’s not just airports that are being manned by this cadre of cretins – sports stadiums, prom nights, highways, bus terminals and train stations are all being patrolled by this literal occupying army that is turning America into a checkpoint-festooned police state.
Efforts in Texas to pass a law that would have made TSA groping a felony, scuttled at the last minute by a threat of financial terrorism on behalf of the feds that would have imposed a no fly zone over the state, are now being replicated nationwide as the growing resistance movement against TSA tyranny accelerates.
Two injured US military veterans traveling to a ceremony to honor the lives of fallen friends who gave their lives to protect the rights enshrined in the Constitution were harassed by TSA thugs, with one of them having his crotch grabbed, according to David Bellow, an Army National Guardsman and a State Republican Executive Committeeman.
“One of the wounded warriors, a friend of mine who personally told me what happened, has bullet fragments in his leg. The other wounded warrior has shrapnel in his face,” wrote Bellow on the Texas GOP Vote website.
The TSA agents responded to the men having set off metal detectors by interrogating them about what they were hiding in their bodies. “What are you hiding in your face?” screamed one.
“My friend told me that one TSA agent came up to him and asked what he was hiding in his leg, but before my friend could answer he said that the TSA agent grabbed him, without notice, right in the crotch area as if trying to find something hidden,” writes Bellow.
When the TSA goon grabbed his crotch and didn’t let go, the veteran felt inclined to lash out violently but was somehow able to control his fury.
This story is just one of hundreds if not thousands of examples that underscores the fact that low-grade TSA morons who have proven themselves prone to predatory, perverted and criminal behavior have no place in a free society.
Airports need to act now by kicking out the TSA and replacing them with private security.
But it’s not just airports that are being manned by this cadre of cretins – sports stadiums, prom nights, highways, bus terminals and train stations are all being patrolled by this literal occupying army that is turning America into a checkpoint-festooned police state.
Efforts in Texas to pass a law that would have made TSA groping a felony, scuttled at the last minute by a threat of financial terrorism on behalf of the feds that would have imposed a no fly zone over the state, are now being replicated nationwide as the growing resistance movement against TSA tyranny accelerates.
Families spending $168 more per month on gas than a year ago
Gas tanks are draining family budgets thanks to the $8 a gallon president
NEW YORK – There's less money this summer for hotel rooms, surfboards and bathing suits. It's all going into the gas tank.
High prices at the pump are putting a squeeze on the family budget as the traditional summer driving season begins. For every $10 the typical household earns before taxes, almost a full dollar now goes toward gas, a 40 percent bigger bite than normal.
Households spent an average of $369 on gas last month. In April 2009, they spent just $201. Families now spend more filling up than they spend on cars, clothes or recreation. Last year, they spent less on gasoline than each of those things.
Jeffrey Wayman of Cape Charles, Va., spent Friday riding his motorcycle to North Carolina's Outer Banks, a day trip with his wife. They decided to eat snacks in a gas station parking lot rather than buy lunch because rising fuel prices have eaten so much into their budget over the past year that they can't ride as frequently as they would like.
"We used to do it a lot more, but not as much now," he said. "You have to cut back when you have a $480 gas bill a month."
Alex Martinez, a senior at Arcadia High School outside Los Angeles, said his family's trips to San Francisco, which they usually take once or more a year, are on hold. As he stopped at a gas station to put $5 of fuel in his car — not much more than a gallon — he said the high prices are crimping social life for him and his friends.
"We're always worrying, `How are we going to get home. We've got less than half a gallon left,'" Martinez said. "We definitely can't go out as much, and we can't go as far."
As Memorial Day weekend opens, the nationwide average for a gallon of unleaded is $3.81. Though prices have drifted lower in recent days, analysts expect average price for 2011 to come in higher than the previous record, $3.25 in 2008. A year ago, gas cost $2.76.
The squeeze is happening at a time when most people aren't getting raises, even as the economy recovers.
"These increases are not something consumers can shrug off," says James Hamilton, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, who studies gas prices. "It's a key part of the family budget."
The ramifications are far-reaching for an economy still struggling to gain momentum two years into a recovery. Economists say the gas squeeze makes people feel poorer than they actually are.
They're showing it by limiting spending far beyond the gas station. Wal-Mart recently blamed high gas prices for an eighth straight quarter of lower sales in the U.S. Target said gas prices were hurting sales of clothes.
Every 50-cent jump in the cost of gasoline takes $70 billion out of the U.S. economy over the course of a year, Hamilton says. That's about one half of one percent of gross domestic product.
The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending rose just 0.1 percent in April, excluding the extra money spent on more expensive gas and food, while wages stayed flat for the second straight month.
Mike Nason, a marketing consultant from Laguna Niguel, Calif., says he's clipping coupons to save money for gas and cutting back wherever else he can. His daughter Chandler, 17, recently settled for a prom dress that cost $170 instead of asking her parents to spend $400 for another that caught her eye.
"In prior years we would have spent more money on the dress, but money has become a big object," he says.
The tourism industry is bracing for an uncertain summer. AAA predicts the typical family will spend $692 on its vacation, down 14 percent from $809 last year. Many of those surveyed said they are planning shorter trips and expect to pinch pennies when they arrive.
AAA estimates 34.9 million Americans will travel 50 miles or more from home this weekend, an increase of about 100,000 from last year. But they will have to do more complicated math to make the summer budget work.
The median household income in the U.S. before taxes is just below $50,000, or about $4,150 per month. The $369 that families spent last month on gas represented 8.9 percent of monthly household income, according to an analysis by Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at Oil Price Information Service. Since 2000, the average is about 5.7 percent. For the year, the figure is 7.9 percent.
Only twice before have Americans spent this much of their income on gas. In 1981, after the last oil crisis, Americans spent 8.8 percent of household income on gas. In July 2008, when oil price spiked, they spent 10.2 percent.
Average hourly earnings, meanwhile, have risen just 1.9 percent in the past year. That's only just enough to keep up with inflation.
The good news is that analysts expect gas to fall to $3.50 a gallon in the coming weeks. In order for household gasoline expenses to return to their historical place in the family budget for the year, gas prices would have to fall by about half and stay that way for the rest of the year.
Demand for gasoline has fallen for eight straight weeks as drivers try to cut back, but higher prices can't keep drivers parked for long. Even with high prices this year, the government expects gasoline demand to grow slightly for the year.
"Drivers try to do what they can, but they have to go almost all the places they go," says David Greene, a researcher at the Center of Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and manager of the Department of Energy website fueleconomy.gov. "There's no magic gizmo that will drastically change someone's gasoline use."
Mike Siroub clutched his heart as he described the experience of filling up lately. He owns a Union Oil gas station in Arcadia, Calif., but one of his cars is also a 1975 Oldsmobile.
"Think about it," he said. "If you've got a car with a 30-gallon tank and gas is $4 a gallon and you fill it up, you're out $120."
He says high gas prices will keep him home this weekend. And he runs a gas station for a living. As he greeted a steady stream of customers at his station, he laughed and said, "I have to pay for gas just like everyone else."
NEW YORK – There's less money this summer for hotel rooms, surfboards and bathing suits. It's all going into the gas tank.
High prices at the pump are putting a squeeze on the family budget as the traditional summer driving season begins. For every $10 the typical household earns before taxes, almost a full dollar now goes toward gas, a 40 percent bigger bite than normal.
Households spent an average of $369 on gas last month. In April 2009, they spent just $201. Families now spend more filling up than they spend on cars, clothes or recreation. Last year, they spent less on gasoline than each of those things.
Jeffrey Wayman of Cape Charles, Va., spent Friday riding his motorcycle to North Carolina's Outer Banks, a day trip with his wife. They decided to eat snacks in a gas station parking lot rather than buy lunch because rising fuel prices have eaten so much into their budget over the past year that they can't ride as frequently as they would like.
"We used to do it a lot more, but not as much now," he said. "You have to cut back when you have a $480 gas bill a month."
Alex Martinez, a senior at Arcadia High School outside Los Angeles, said his family's trips to San Francisco, which they usually take once or more a year, are on hold. As he stopped at a gas station to put $5 of fuel in his car — not much more than a gallon — he said the high prices are crimping social life for him and his friends.
"We're always worrying, `How are we going to get home. We've got less than half a gallon left,'" Martinez said. "We definitely can't go out as much, and we can't go as far."
As Memorial Day weekend opens, the nationwide average for a gallon of unleaded is $3.81. Though prices have drifted lower in recent days, analysts expect average price for 2011 to come in higher than the previous record, $3.25 in 2008. A year ago, gas cost $2.76.
The squeeze is happening at a time when most people aren't getting raises, even as the economy recovers.
"These increases are not something consumers can shrug off," says James Hamilton, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, who studies gas prices. "It's a key part of the family budget."
The ramifications are far-reaching for an economy still struggling to gain momentum two years into a recovery. Economists say the gas squeeze makes people feel poorer than they actually are.
They're showing it by limiting spending far beyond the gas station. Wal-Mart recently blamed high gas prices for an eighth straight quarter of lower sales in the U.S. Target said gas prices were hurting sales of clothes.
Every 50-cent jump in the cost of gasoline takes $70 billion out of the U.S. economy over the course of a year, Hamilton says. That's about one half of one percent of gross domestic product.
The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending rose just 0.1 percent in April, excluding the extra money spent on more expensive gas and food, while wages stayed flat for the second straight month.
Mike Nason, a marketing consultant from Laguna Niguel, Calif., says he's clipping coupons to save money for gas and cutting back wherever else he can. His daughter Chandler, 17, recently settled for a prom dress that cost $170 instead of asking her parents to spend $400 for another that caught her eye.
"In prior years we would have spent more money on the dress, but money has become a big object," he says.
The tourism industry is bracing for an uncertain summer. AAA predicts the typical family will spend $692 on its vacation, down 14 percent from $809 last year. Many of those surveyed said they are planning shorter trips and expect to pinch pennies when they arrive.
AAA estimates 34.9 million Americans will travel 50 miles or more from home this weekend, an increase of about 100,000 from last year. But they will have to do more complicated math to make the summer budget work.
The median household income in the U.S. before taxes is just below $50,000, or about $4,150 per month. The $369 that families spent last month on gas represented 8.9 percent of monthly household income, according to an analysis by Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at Oil Price Information Service. Since 2000, the average is about 5.7 percent. For the year, the figure is 7.9 percent.
Only twice before have Americans spent this much of their income on gas. In 1981, after the last oil crisis, Americans spent 8.8 percent of household income on gas. In July 2008, when oil price spiked, they spent 10.2 percent.
Average hourly earnings, meanwhile, have risen just 1.9 percent in the past year. That's only just enough to keep up with inflation.
The good news is that analysts expect gas to fall to $3.50 a gallon in the coming weeks. In order for household gasoline expenses to return to their historical place in the family budget for the year, gas prices would have to fall by about half and stay that way for the rest of the year.
Demand for gasoline has fallen for eight straight weeks as drivers try to cut back, but higher prices can't keep drivers parked for long. Even with high prices this year, the government expects gasoline demand to grow slightly for the year.
"Drivers try to do what they can, but they have to go almost all the places they go," says David Greene, a researcher at the Center of Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and manager of the Department of Energy website fueleconomy.gov. "There's no magic gizmo that will drastically change someone's gasoline use."
Mike Siroub clutched his heart as he described the experience of filling up lately. He owns a Union Oil gas station in Arcadia, Calif., but one of his cars is also a 1975 Oldsmobile.
"Think about it," he said. "If you've got a car with a 30-gallon tank and gas is $4 a gallon and you fill it up, you're out $120."
He says high gas prices will keep him home this weekend. And he runs a gas station for a living. As he greeted a steady stream of customers at his station, he laughed and said, "I have to pay for gas just like everyone else."
Less banger for your buck: The Memorial Day BBQ will cost you 29% more this year thanks to inflation
The Sunstein Solution................
One sausage or two?
You may be lucky to get half at this weekend's Memorial Day cookout, which is set to cost 29 per cent more than last year, thanks to inflation.
Those thinking of hosting a BBQ - even a modest one - can expect to fork out an extra $45 on food to serve a dozen guests.
The total cost comes to $199, or around 29 per cent more than last year... and that's before soda and alcohol, according to the latest data for metro New York.
Lettuce has sky-rocketed 28 per cent since last year's traditional BBQ, while an ear of sweet corn is now 50 cents, up from 20 cents last year.
Those who don't like tomatoes are in luck though: they're up a staggering 86 per cent on last year.
Nationwide the story is the same.
Ground beef is up 12.1 per cent on last year and sausages are up 6.2 per cent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And don't even think about potato salad. The apple of the ground is up 13.4 per cent.
Ice cream is up 5.1 per cent, beer up 2.4 per cent and coffee has increased by 13.8 per cent nationwide.
The ever increasing price of gasoline is being blamed for the hike in food prices. Over the past year the cost of gas has increased by 33.6 per cent, along with similar diesel hikes nationwide.
This is squeezing the food industry to the max and farmer and food markets are being forced to pass on their growing costs to consumers at the fastest pace in several years, according to analysts.
Growers are also abandoning their usual crops of grains and vegetables in favour of acres of corn for ethanol in gas blends.
A record 43 per cent of the U.S.' corn crop went into gas tanks in 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The price of potatoes has also increased over the last year with a high of 13.4 per cent in April
One sausage or two?
You may be lucky to get half at this weekend's Memorial Day cookout, which is set to cost 29 per cent more than last year, thanks to inflation.
Those thinking of hosting a BBQ - even a modest one - can expect to fork out an extra $45 on food to serve a dozen guests.
The total cost comes to $199, or around 29 per cent more than last year... and that's before soda and alcohol, according to the latest data for metro New York.
Lettuce has sky-rocketed 28 per cent since last year's traditional BBQ, while an ear of sweet corn is now 50 cents, up from 20 cents last year.
Those who don't like tomatoes are in luck though: they're up a staggering 86 per cent on last year.
Nationwide the story is the same.
Ground beef is up 12.1 per cent on last year and sausages are up 6.2 per cent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And don't even think about potato salad. The apple of the ground is up 13.4 per cent.
Ice cream is up 5.1 per cent, beer up 2.4 per cent and coffee has increased by 13.8 per cent nationwide.
The ever increasing price of gasoline is being blamed for the hike in food prices. Over the past year the cost of gas has increased by 33.6 per cent, along with similar diesel hikes nationwide.
This is squeezing the food industry to the max and farmer and food markets are being forced to pass on their growing costs to consumers at the fastest pace in several years, according to analysts.
Growers are also abandoning their usual crops of grains and vegetables in favour of acres of corn for ethanol in gas blends.
A record 43 per cent of the U.S.' corn crop went into gas tanks in 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The price of potatoes has also increased over the last year with a high of 13.4 per cent in April
A 62% Top Tax Rate? -- Lies, Deceit and Democrats
Democrats have said they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. In reality they're proposing rates like those under President Carter.
By STEPHEN MOORE
Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.
If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.
Here's the math behind that depressing calculation. Today's top federal income tax rate is 35%. Almost all Democrats in Washington want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than $250,000 and phase out certain deductions, so the effective income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%. The 3% millionaire surtax raises that rate to 44.5%.
But payroll taxes, which are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be included in the equation. So we have to add about 2.5 percentage points for the payroll tax for Medicare (employee and employer share after business deductions), which was applied to all income without a ceiling in 1993 as part of the Clinton tax hike. I am including in this analysis the employer share of all payroll taxes because it is a direct tax on a worker's salary and most economists agree that though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it is ultimately borne by the employee. That brings the tax rate to 47%.
Then last year, as part of the down payment for ObamaCare, Congress snuck in an extra 0.9% Medicare surtax on "high-income earners," meaning any individual earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000. This brings the total tax rate to 47.9%.
But that's not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.
Then we have to factor in state income taxes, which on average add after the deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we are at a tax rate of close to 62%.
Democrats have repeatedly stated they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. But after all these taxes on the "rich," we're headed back to the taxes that prevailed under Jimmy Carter, when the highest tax rate was 70%.
Taxes on investment income are also headed way up. Suspending the Bush tax cuts, which is favored by nearly every congressional Democrat, plus a 3.8% investment tax in the ObamaCare bill (which starts in 2014) brings the capital gains tax rate to 23.8% from 15%. The dividend tax would potentially climb to 45% from the current rate of 15%.
Now let's consider how our tax system today compares with the system that was in place in the late 1980s—when the deficit was only about one-quarter as large as a share of GDP as it is now. After the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which closed special-interest loopholes in exchange for top marginal rates of 28%, the highest combined federal-state marginal tax rate was about 33%. Now we may be headed to 62%. You don't have to be Jack Kemp or Arthur Laffer to understand that a 29 percentage point rise in top marginal rates would make America a highly uncompetitive place.
What is particularly worrisome about this trend is the deterioration of the U.S. tax position relative to the rest of our economic rivals. In 1990, the highest individual income tax rate of our major economic trading partners was 51%, while the U.S. was much lower at 33%. It's no wonder that during the 1980s and '90s the U.S. created more than twice as many new jobs as Japan and Western Europe combined.
It's true that the economy was able to absorb the Bush 41 and Clinton tax hikes and still grow at a very rapid pace. But what the soak-the-rich lobby ignores is how different the world is today versus the early 1990s. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past two decades the average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial nations has fallen to about 45%. Yet the highest U.S. tax rate would rise to more than 48% under the Obama/Democratic tax hikes. To make matters worse, if we include the average personal income tax rates of developing countries like India and China, the average tax rate around the world is closer to 30%, according to a new study by KPMG.
What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're nearly the highest.
Despite all of this, the refrain from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and most of the Democrats in Congress is our fiscal mess is a result of "tax cuts for the rich." When? Where? Who? The Tax Foundation recently noted that in 2009 the U.S. collected a higher share of income and payroll taxes (45%) from the richest 10% of tax filers than any other nation, including such socialist welfare states as Sweden (27%), France (28%) and Germany (31%). And this was before the rate hikes that Democrats are now endorsing.
Perhaps there can still be a happy ending to this sad tale of U.S. decline. If there were ever a right time to trade in the junk heap of our federal tax code for a pro-growth Steve Forbes-style flat tax, now's the time.
Mr. Moore is a member of the The Journal's editorial board.
By STEPHEN MOORE
Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.
If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.
Here's the math behind that depressing calculation. Today's top federal income tax rate is 35%. Almost all Democrats in Washington want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than $250,000 and phase out certain deductions, so the effective income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%. The 3% millionaire surtax raises that rate to 44.5%.
But payroll taxes, which are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be included in the equation. So we have to add about 2.5 percentage points for the payroll tax for Medicare (employee and employer share after business deductions), which was applied to all income without a ceiling in 1993 as part of the Clinton tax hike. I am including in this analysis the employer share of all payroll taxes because it is a direct tax on a worker's salary and most economists agree that though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it is ultimately borne by the employee. That brings the tax rate to 47%.
Then last year, as part of the down payment for ObamaCare, Congress snuck in an extra 0.9% Medicare surtax on "high-income earners," meaning any individual earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000. This brings the total tax rate to 47.9%.
But that's not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.
Then we have to factor in state income taxes, which on average add after the deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we are at a tax rate of close to 62%.
Democrats have repeatedly stated they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. But after all these taxes on the "rich," we're headed back to the taxes that prevailed under Jimmy Carter, when the highest tax rate was 70%.
Taxes on investment income are also headed way up. Suspending the Bush tax cuts, which is favored by nearly every congressional Democrat, plus a 3.8% investment tax in the ObamaCare bill (which starts in 2014) brings the capital gains tax rate to 23.8% from 15%. The dividend tax would potentially climb to 45% from the current rate of 15%.
Now let's consider how our tax system today compares with the system that was in place in the late 1980s—when the deficit was only about one-quarter as large as a share of GDP as it is now. After the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which closed special-interest loopholes in exchange for top marginal rates of 28%, the highest combined federal-state marginal tax rate was about 33%. Now we may be headed to 62%. You don't have to be Jack Kemp or Arthur Laffer to understand that a 29 percentage point rise in top marginal rates would make America a highly uncompetitive place.
What is particularly worrisome about this trend is the deterioration of the U.S. tax position relative to the rest of our economic rivals. In 1990, the highest individual income tax rate of our major economic trading partners was 51%, while the U.S. was much lower at 33%. It's no wonder that during the 1980s and '90s the U.S. created more than twice as many new jobs as Japan and Western Europe combined.
It's true that the economy was able to absorb the Bush 41 and Clinton tax hikes and still grow at a very rapid pace. But what the soak-the-rich lobby ignores is how different the world is today versus the early 1990s. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past two decades the average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial nations has fallen to about 45%. Yet the highest U.S. tax rate would rise to more than 48% under the Obama/Democratic tax hikes. To make matters worse, if we include the average personal income tax rates of developing countries like India and China, the average tax rate around the world is closer to 30%, according to a new study by KPMG.
What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're nearly the highest.
Despite all of this, the refrain from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and most of the Democrats in Congress is our fiscal mess is a result of "tax cuts for the rich." When? Where? Who? The Tax Foundation recently noted that in 2009 the U.S. collected a higher share of income and payroll taxes (45%) from the richest 10% of tax filers than any other nation, including such socialist welfare states as Sweden (27%), France (28%) and Germany (31%). And this was before the rate hikes that Democrats are now endorsing.
Perhaps there can still be a happy ending to this sad tale of U.S. decline. If there were ever a right time to trade in the junk heap of our federal tax code for a pro-growth Steve Forbes-style flat tax, now's the time.
Mr. Moore is a member of the The Journal's editorial board.
STATE OF THE UNION via Drudge Headlines (8:30am Sat May 28, 2011)
STATE OF THE UNION
Metal Scrappers Swipe Teen's Wheelchair...
Copper strippers possibly posing as road crews darken DC...
Iron Thieves Caught Dismantling 100 Yards Of Railroad Tracks...
ATM Serviceman Cleans Out Machines, Refills With Photocopies Of Cash.
Metal Scrappers Swipe Teen's Wheelchair...
Copper strippers possibly posing as road crews darken DC...
Iron Thieves Caught Dismantling 100 Yards Of Railroad Tracks...
ATM Serviceman Cleans Out Machines, Refills With Photocopies Of Cash.
"Government Agency" VA agrees not to interfere with holiday prayers
Agency backs down after losing court fight over pastor's mention of Jesus in Memorial Day invocation at Houston cemetery
The nation's agency for military veterans has agreed to stay out of religious refereeing for now, backing down from its attempt to tell a minister how to craft a prayer for a Memorial Day invocation.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Fred Hindrichs told federal District Judge Lynn Hughes that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs will not demand that Memorial Day prayers at Houston National Cemetery Monday be as non-denominational as possible.
"(The agency) will let the prayer go on this Monday," Hindrichs told Hughes.
The change of heart came one day after the judge granted the Rev. Scott Rainey a temporary restraining order against the agency after officials told the pastor to edit his prayer to make it as general and non-denominational as possible. Rainey's prayer, submitted for review at the agency's request included the recitation of the Lord's Prayer and thanked Jesus Christ, the Christian savior, in closing.
"The ... prayer/message is specific to one belief," wrote Arleen Ocasio, director of the Houston National Cemetery.
"I've never said a prayer in my life that didn't end with Jesus Christ," Rainey said after Friday's hearing. "It was unrealistic expectation for me not to include the name of Jesus Christ."
Veterans Affairs officials informed Rainey that if he wanted to give the invocation, he would have to keep the language in his prayer "general" and "non-denominational."
Rainey filed a lawsuit against the agency Thursday, claiming the government was censoring his speech and asked the judge to stop the agency from doing so.
Judge warns agency
Hughes granted a temporary restraining order which will stay in place through Monday's Memorial Day. The judge said that while he was not doubting the government's word, he was "an experienced optimist" who didn't want to leave room for the government to change its mind before Monday.
Yesterday, the judge warned the agency it had stepped too far, saying officials were essentially "decreeing how citizens honor their veterans."
"The government cannot gag citizens when it says it is in the interest of national security, and it cannot do it in some bureaucrat's notion of cultural homogeneity," Hughes wrote.
For the past two years, Rainey has given the Memorial Day invocation at the cemetery to honor U.S. soldiers who have fought and died. The invocation is sponsored by a private group, the National Cemetery Council for Greater Houston, but held at the Houston National Cemetery, which is public property.
This year, however, the cemetery director asked to see the prayer beforehand. She then asked Rainey to edit it.
"... While it is very well written, I must ask you to edit it," Ocasio wrote on May 19. "The tone of all messages must be inclusive of all beliefs, need to be general and its fundamental purpose should be specific to those we are honoring, and non-denominational in nature."
Rabbi comments
Rabbi Roy Walter, senior rabbi at Congregation Emanu El, said he agrees with Rainey's free speech position.
"I do believe the government doesn't have the right to tell him what he can and cannot do," Walter said.
But the rabbi said Rainey's prayer doesn't reflect that all veterans are not Christians.
"I don't think it's sensitive to the fact that a great many people who are veterans, who gave their lives or lived through service, are not Christian."
The nation's agency for military veterans has agreed to stay out of religious refereeing for now, backing down from its attempt to tell a minister how to craft a prayer for a Memorial Day invocation.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Fred Hindrichs told federal District Judge Lynn Hughes that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs will not demand that Memorial Day prayers at Houston National Cemetery Monday be as non-denominational as possible.
"(The agency) will let the prayer go on this Monday," Hindrichs told Hughes.
The change of heart came one day after the judge granted the Rev. Scott Rainey a temporary restraining order against the agency after officials told the pastor to edit his prayer to make it as general and non-denominational as possible. Rainey's prayer, submitted for review at the agency's request included the recitation of the Lord's Prayer and thanked Jesus Christ, the Christian savior, in closing.
"The ... prayer/message is specific to one belief," wrote Arleen Ocasio, director of the Houston National Cemetery.
"I've never said a prayer in my life that didn't end with Jesus Christ," Rainey said after Friday's hearing. "It was unrealistic expectation for me not to include the name of Jesus Christ."
Veterans Affairs officials informed Rainey that if he wanted to give the invocation, he would have to keep the language in his prayer "general" and "non-denominational."
Rainey filed a lawsuit against the agency Thursday, claiming the government was censoring his speech and asked the judge to stop the agency from doing so.
Judge warns agency
Hughes granted a temporary restraining order which will stay in place through Monday's Memorial Day. The judge said that while he was not doubting the government's word, he was "an experienced optimist" who didn't want to leave room for the government to change its mind before Monday.
Yesterday, the judge warned the agency it had stepped too far, saying officials were essentially "decreeing how citizens honor their veterans."
"The government cannot gag citizens when it says it is in the interest of national security, and it cannot do it in some bureaucrat's notion of cultural homogeneity," Hughes wrote.
For the past two years, Rainey has given the Memorial Day invocation at the cemetery to honor U.S. soldiers who have fought and died. The invocation is sponsored by a private group, the National Cemetery Council for Greater Houston, but held at the Houston National Cemetery, which is public property.
This year, however, the cemetery director asked to see the prayer beforehand. She then asked Rainey to edit it.
"... While it is very well written, I must ask you to edit it," Ocasio wrote on May 19. "The tone of all messages must be inclusive of all beliefs, need to be general and its fundamental purpose should be specific to those we are honoring, and non-denominational in nature."
Rabbi comments
Rabbi Roy Walter, senior rabbi at Congregation Emanu El, said he agrees with Rainey's free speech position.
"I do believe the government doesn't have the right to tell him what he can and cannot do," Walter said.
But the rabbi said Rainey's prayer doesn't reflect that all veterans are not Christians.
"I don't think it's sensitive to the fact that a great many people who are veterans, who gave their lives or lived through service, are not Christian."
Rep. Graves questions Obama's autopen signing of Patriot Act extension
Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) is questioning President Obama's use of an autopen in signing an extension of the Patriot Act.
In a letter Friday, Graves asks Obama to confirm that he saw the law prior to its autopen signing.
"Mr. President, I write to request your confirmation that S. 990, as passed by Congress, was presented to you prior to the autopen signing, as well as a detailed, written explanation of your Constitutional authority to assign a surrogate the responsibility of signing bills passed into law," Graves wrote.
Obama signed the bill into law late Thursday night. The autopen was used because the president was in France, meeting with G8 leaders, and the bill's provisions expired at midnight.
Graves cited Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, which says that the president must sign a bill to approve it into law.
"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it," the article reads.
(Click title for copy of letter)
In a letter Friday, Graves asks Obama to confirm that he saw the law prior to its autopen signing.
"Mr. President, I write to request your confirmation that S. 990, as passed by Congress, was presented to you prior to the autopen signing, as well as a detailed, written explanation of your Constitutional authority to assign a surrogate the responsibility of signing bills passed into law," Graves wrote.
Obama signed the bill into law late Thursday night. The autopen was used because the president was in France, meeting with G8 leaders, and the bill's provisions expired at midnight.
Graves cited Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, which says that the president must sign a bill to approve it into law.
"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it," the article reads.
(Click title for copy of letter)
Obama Crackdown on For-Profit Colleges Faces Stiff Resistance
President Obama and his education secretary are facing a bipartisan revolt from almost 300 lawmakers, an inspector general's investigation and several lawsuits over a proposed crackdown on for-profit colleges, which train people for jobs ranging from plumbers to computer technicians.
"Can you think of any other issue that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the current Speaker John Boehner agree on?" asked Lanny Davis, a former legal counsel to President Clinton. "The policy is so wrongheaded that it brings liberals and conservatives together."
What's causing all the ruckus? A proposed regulation from the administration is aimed at what are known as career or vocational schools which train medical technicians, chefs, welders, electricians and the like. The rule would cut federal aid to programs where student debt levels are deemed to be too high and where students are struggling to repay their loans.
But many critics are puzzled by the administration's move. And they question whether the standards are too strict.
"There seems to be a big urgency here to go after for-profit colleges who educate a high number of African-American and Hispanic people in our communities," Harry Alford, the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, told Fox News. "And for some reason, it's full speed ahead."
Melanie Sloan of the liberal watchdog group Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington notes it is "a regulation that would affect only for-profit colleges, not non for-profit colleges."
Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., thinks he may know why. "I think there is a bias against for-profit schools that has informed this rule."
Many students at these colleges are poor and use federally backed student loans. Andrews told Fox News the idea behind the regulation idea was to make sure poor students aren't persuaded to borrow a lot of money, then get an education they can't afford and that doesn't lead to a job.
But he argues the proposed regulation goes about it the wrong way and sets a standard that would be almost impossible for poor graduates to satisfy.
"If your student loan payments make up more than about 8 per cent of your monthly income, the school can't get federal financial aid anymore," Andrews said. "It sort of knocks the school out of business."
Critics say most community colleges and universities couldn't pass that standard either, but aren't being asked to.
"There are first-year residents from Harvard Medical School whose student loan payments eat up 20 or 25 percent of their income. Is Harvard Medical School a bad medical school? I sure don't think so," Andrews said.
So, the proposed regulation would hit poor students the hardest because many can't afford college and depend on loans to attend career schools to develop new skills or a new career.
"Minority kids and lower income kids who go to these career colleges are about to be decimated if this regulation goes through," Davis said.
That's why the regulation is opposed by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, among others, who were among 113 lawmakers who wrote Obama a month ago and urged him to back off, saying "the implementation of these new rules will be so burdensome and the projected impact so broad that many reputable schools, particularly those serving the most at-risk students, will be adversely impacted."
The Education Department issued a statement to Fox News saying this is an effort to "curb abuses by for-profit colleges. Far too many of these schools are saddling students with unmanageable debts, in exchange for largely worthless degrees."
The critics of the regulation acknowledge some schools have questionable practices but say attacking the whole industry is not the solution.
"If someone is committing fraud, go after them, go after them with a vengeance," Alford said. "But don't paint all these schools, a certain segment of our educational system as being fraudulent."
Davis argued that the Education Department shouldn't even be considering such a rule. "You don't make law that has such immense impact on kids that are vulnerable by regulation. You do it by legislation," he said.
Nevertheless, many expect the regulation to be issued this week.
"Can you think of any other issue that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the current Speaker John Boehner agree on?" asked Lanny Davis, a former legal counsel to President Clinton. "The policy is so wrongheaded that it brings liberals and conservatives together."
What's causing all the ruckus? A proposed regulation from the administration is aimed at what are known as career or vocational schools which train medical technicians, chefs, welders, electricians and the like. The rule would cut federal aid to programs where student debt levels are deemed to be too high and where students are struggling to repay their loans.
But many critics are puzzled by the administration's move. And they question whether the standards are too strict.
"There seems to be a big urgency here to go after for-profit colleges who educate a high number of African-American and Hispanic people in our communities," Harry Alford, the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, told Fox News. "And for some reason, it's full speed ahead."
Melanie Sloan of the liberal watchdog group Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington notes it is "a regulation that would affect only for-profit colleges, not non for-profit colleges."
Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., thinks he may know why. "I think there is a bias against for-profit schools that has informed this rule."
Many students at these colleges are poor and use federally backed student loans. Andrews told Fox News the idea behind the regulation idea was to make sure poor students aren't persuaded to borrow a lot of money, then get an education they can't afford and that doesn't lead to a job.
But he argues the proposed regulation goes about it the wrong way and sets a standard that would be almost impossible for poor graduates to satisfy.
"If your student loan payments make up more than about 8 per cent of your monthly income, the school can't get federal financial aid anymore," Andrews said. "It sort of knocks the school out of business."
Critics say most community colleges and universities couldn't pass that standard either, but aren't being asked to.
"There are first-year residents from Harvard Medical School whose student loan payments eat up 20 or 25 percent of their income. Is Harvard Medical School a bad medical school? I sure don't think so," Andrews said.
So, the proposed regulation would hit poor students the hardest because many can't afford college and depend on loans to attend career schools to develop new skills or a new career.
"Minority kids and lower income kids who go to these career colleges are about to be decimated if this regulation goes through," Davis said.
That's why the regulation is opposed by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, among others, who were among 113 lawmakers who wrote Obama a month ago and urged him to back off, saying "the implementation of these new rules will be so burdensome and the projected impact so broad that many reputable schools, particularly those serving the most at-risk students, will be adversely impacted."
The Education Department issued a statement to Fox News saying this is an effort to "curb abuses by for-profit colleges. Far too many of these schools are saddling students with unmanageable debts, in exchange for largely worthless degrees."
The critics of the regulation acknowledge some schools have questionable practices but say attacking the whole industry is not the solution.
"If someone is committing fraud, go after them, go after them with a vengeance," Alford said. "But don't paint all these schools, a certain segment of our educational system as being fraudulent."
Davis argued that the Education Department shouldn't even be considering such a rule. "You don't make law that has such immense impact on kids that are vulnerable by regulation. You do it by legislation," he said.
Nevertheless, many expect the regulation to be issued this week.
FLASHBACK: Obama: U.S. Involvement Would Last 'Days, Not Weeks'
President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be actively involved in any military action against Libya for "days, not weeks," after which he said the U.S. would take more of a supporting role, sources tell ABC News.
The White House meeting with 18 lawmakers came as Obama delivered an ultimatum to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi that he must immediately implement a ceasefire in all parts of Libya and allow international humanitarian assistance, or risk military action against his regime.
"Moammar Gadhafi has a choice. The [U.N.] resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a ceasefire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop," the president said today. "Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya."
"These terms are not subject to negotiation," Obama said. "If Gadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences and the resolution will be enforced through military action."
Sources told ABC News that Obama's decision to support the use of force came Tuesday, following several days of internal administration deliberations and the realization that diplomatic efforts to stop the brutality of Gadhafi's regime weren't working.
Presented with intelligence about the push of the Gadhafi regime to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the president told his national security team, "What we're doing isn't stopping him."
Some in his administration, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had been pushing for stronger action, but it wasn't until Tuesday, administration sources tell ABC News, that the president became convinced sanctions and the threat of a no-fly zone wouldn't be enough.
Obama's speech Friday indicated that coalition forces are giving Gadhafi time to change course, but are also gearing up for an attack if their demands are not met.
He also reiterated that the potential conflict was international in form, saying that any action in Libya would be led by European and Arab forces, and that no ground troops will be deployed.
"We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians in Libya," he said.
The president is mindful that the American public is weary of war, and that the world community casts a skeptical eye at American plans to take military action against yet another Muslim country. Obama has tried hard not to feed into Gadhafi's megalomaniacal worldview by making this confrontation about him versus Obama, or the United States versus Gadhafi, officials say.
The United States has very much been leading the charge behind the scenes, but the White House has deferred public action to the State Department and the United Nations. The administration has also worked furiously to put a European and Arab face on the opposition to Gadhafi's action.
On Saturday, France will host a high level meeting of representatives from the Arab League and European Union to discuss the implementation of the no-fly zone or targeted strikes inside Libya. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also attend.
World Preparing for Military Action Against Libya
French President Nicolas Sarkozy will meet with the Emir of Qatar Saturday. Qatar and the UAE, and possibly Jordan, are expected to lend their jets to any military action. A European diplomat said that barring major developments on the ground prior to the meeting, there likely won't be any military action before then.
Gadhafi's regime, faced with U.N.-backed airstrikes, declared a ceasefire today as Libyan forces menaced the rebel capital of Benghazi.
The country's foreign minister said Libya accepted the United Nations Security Council resolution and had implemented a ceasefire. But there were reports of ongoing fighting and shelling in Misurata, an indication that the promise may not be in effect or not applied to all of Libya.
International military action against Libya could begin soon, but concerns about such an action remain high.
Most of Libya's air defenses are in the western part of the country, around the capital of Tripoli. The main military threat is in the east, where rebels have ascended to power, but even in the east there is a danger of man portable air defenses (MANPADS) or shoulder-fired missiles. There are hundreds of them, and there's not much that the international coalition can do about it because they can't be tracked.
Clinton said that the United States will continue to work with the international community to press Gadhafi to leave, but warned that it's too soon to tell what the final outcome might be.
"We do believe that a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Col. Gadhafi to leave. But let's take this one step at a time," Clinton said. "Until we can have a better idea of what actually happened, it's hard to know what the next steps will be."
The U.N. approved a resolution late Thursday authorizing the international community to take "all necessary measures," short of sending in ground troops, to protect civilians in Libya, and to impose a no-fly zone. The resolution does not authorize taking out Gadhafi or regime change.
The Libyan government closed its air space to traffic following the vote.
Prior to the vote, Gadhafi gave an interview to a Portuguese television station assailing the U.N. and vowing that Libya would retaliate strongly if the resolution were to pass.
"According to the U.N. Charter, the Security Council has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of any state," Gadhafi said. "We'll answer them, our response will make their lives hell as well, as they are making our lives hell. They will never enjoy peace because this is injustice, unfairness."
The world jumped into the conflict just as Gadhafi's forces threatened to attack the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya.
The longtime dictator issued a warning to the residents of Benghazi Thursday. "We are coming tonight," he said. "There won't be any mercy."
Gadhafi and his supporters remain defiant.
Gadhafi's son, Saif, told ABC News via a phone interview that the U.N. resolution is a "big mistake" and that if the United States wants to help, they should in fact help the government.
"We want to live in peace, so we want even Americans to help us get rid of the remnants of those people and to have a peaceful country, more democratic," he said. "If you want to help us, help us to, you know, to be democracy, more freedom, peaceful, not to threaten us with air strikes. We will not be afraid. Come on!"
No-Fly Zone Will Take Time
It would not be difficult for the international community to establish a no-fly zone, but the main question is whether forces would intervene just to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi or to ouster Gadhafi.
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norman Schwartz said Thursday it could take upwards of a week to fully establish a no-fly zone and that public comments by some that it could be done in a few days are "overly optimistic."
He acknowledged there are limited Air Force assets because most of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially transport aircraft.
Last week, Department of National Intelligence director James Clapper said the Libyan air force was large in raw numbers, but only a small number of aircraft were actually flying. A Pentagon analysis of Libya's air capabilities shows the overall readiness of Libyan aircraft is poor by western standards and most aircraft are now dated or obsolete in terms of avionics or upgrades. Eighty percent of the air force is judged to be "non-operational and "overhaul and combat repair capability is also limited."
ABC News' Christiane Amanpour, Kirit Radia and Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
The White House meeting with 18 lawmakers came as Obama delivered an ultimatum to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi that he must immediately implement a ceasefire in all parts of Libya and allow international humanitarian assistance, or risk military action against his regime.
"Moammar Gadhafi has a choice. The [U.N.] resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a ceasefire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop," the president said today. "Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya."
"These terms are not subject to negotiation," Obama said. "If Gadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences and the resolution will be enforced through military action."
Sources told ABC News that Obama's decision to support the use of force came Tuesday, following several days of internal administration deliberations and the realization that diplomatic efforts to stop the brutality of Gadhafi's regime weren't working.
Presented with intelligence about the push of the Gadhafi regime to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the president told his national security team, "What we're doing isn't stopping him."
Some in his administration, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had been pushing for stronger action, but it wasn't until Tuesday, administration sources tell ABC News, that the president became convinced sanctions and the threat of a no-fly zone wouldn't be enough.
Obama's speech Friday indicated that coalition forces are giving Gadhafi time to change course, but are also gearing up for an attack if their demands are not met.
He also reiterated that the potential conflict was international in form, saying that any action in Libya would be led by European and Arab forces, and that no ground troops will be deployed.
"We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians in Libya," he said.
The president is mindful that the American public is weary of war, and that the world community casts a skeptical eye at American plans to take military action against yet another Muslim country. Obama has tried hard not to feed into Gadhafi's megalomaniacal worldview by making this confrontation about him versus Obama, or the United States versus Gadhafi, officials say.
The United States has very much been leading the charge behind the scenes, but the White House has deferred public action to the State Department and the United Nations. The administration has also worked furiously to put a European and Arab face on the opposition to Gadhafi's action.
On Saturday, France will host a high level meeting of representatives from the Arab League and European Union to discuss the implementation of the no-fly zone or targeted strikes inside Libya. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also attend.
World Preparing for Military Action Against Libya
French President Nicolas Sarkozy will meet with the Emir of Qatar Saturday. Qatar and the UAE, and possibly Jordan, are expected to lend their jets to any military action. A European diplomat said that barring major developments on the ground prior to the meeting, there likely won't be any military action before then.
Gadhafi's regime, faced with U.N.-backed airstrikes, declared a ceasefire today as Libyan forces menaced the rebel capital of Benghazi.
The country's foreign minister said Libya accepted the United Nations Security Council resolution and had implemented a ceasefire. But there were reports of ongoing fighting and shelling in Misurata, an indication that the promise may not be in effect or not applied to all of Libya.
International military action against Libya could begin soon, but concerns about such an action remain high.
Most of Libya's air defenses are in the western part of the country, around the capital of Tripoli. The main military threat is in the east, where rebels have ascended to power, but even in the east there is a danger of man portable air defenses (MANPADS) or shoulder-fired missiles. There are hundreds of them, and there's not much that the international coalition can do about it because they can't be tracked.
Clinton said that the United States will continue to work with the international community to press Gadhafi to leave, but warned that it's too soon to tell what the final outcome might be.
"We do believe that a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Col. Gadhafi to leave. But let's take this one step at a time," Clinton said. "Until we can have a better idea of what actually happened, it's hard to know what the next steps will be."
The U.N. approved a resolution late Thursday authorizing the international community to take "all necessary measures," short of sending in ground troops, to protect civilians in Libya, and to impose a no-fly zone. The resolution does not authorize taking out Gadhafi or regime change.
The Libyan government closed its air space to traffic following the vote.
Prior to the vote, Gadhafi gave an interview to a Portuguese television station assailing the U.N. and vowing that Libya would retaliate strongly if the resolution were to pass.
"According to the U.N. Charter, the Security Council has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of any state," Gadhafi said. "We'll answer them, our response will make their lives hell as well, as they are making our lives hell. They will never enjoy peace because this is injustice, unfairness."
The world jumped into the conflict just as Gadhafi's forces threatened to attack the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya.
The longtime dictator issued a warning to the residents of Benghazi Thursday. "We are coming tonight," he said. "There won't be any mercy."
Gadhafi and his supporters remain defiant.
Gadhafi's son, Saif, told ABC News via a phone interview that the U.N. resolution is a "big mistake" and that if the United States wants to help, they should in fact help the government.
"We want to live in peace, so we want even Americans to help us get rid of the remnants of those people and to have a peaceful country, more democratic," he said. "If you want to help us, help us to, you know, to be democracy, more freedom, peaceful, not to threaten us with air strikes. We will not be afraid. Come on!"
No-Fly Zone Will Take Time
It would not be difficult for the international community to establish a no-fly zone, but the main question is whether forces would intervene just to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi or to ouster Gadhafi.
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norman Schwartz said Thursday it could take upwards of a week to fully establish a no-fly zone and that public comments by some that it could be done in a few days are "overly optimistic."
He acknowledged there are limited Air Force assets because most of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially transport aircraft.
Last week, Department of National Intelligence director James Clapper said the Libyan air force was large in raw numbers, but only a small number of aircraft were actually flying. A Pentagon analysis of Libya's air capabilities shows the overall readiness of Libyan aircraft is poor by western standards and most aircraft are now dated or obsolete in terms of avionics or upgrades. Eighty percent of the air force is judged to be "non-operational and "overhaul and combat repair capability is also limited."
ABC News' Christiane Amanpour, Kirit Radia and Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
Sarah Palin's Calling the Shots for the 2012 GOP Field
If the 2012 Republican field may be a circus, Sarah Palin is unquestionably its ringmaster, kicking off a bus tour next week that’s much more than a publicity stunt. But Mark McKinnon says she’s about to hit an immovable object.
She’s become the P.T. Barnum of politics. She’s the ringmaster of a political media circus who commands attention wherever she goes. Next week Palinpalooza kicks off another round of frenzy and speculation.
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? That is the Palin paradox.
The wheels on her bus go ’round and ’round, propelled by the power of the Tea Party movement—and the compulsive binge-purge mania of the media. Her every move is publicized, analyzed. Her every foible magnified. She is irresistible. And the pundits are riveted, asking, as if watching the low-speed chase of a white Ford Bronco all over again: Where the hell is she going?
Next week, iconic images of Palin on a hawg will light up the Internet. It will be like Caesar on a chariot with six white horses.
Sarah Palin is brilliant. She is a media magnet and a media magnate. She creates headlines and draws crowds wherever she goes, whether it’s 98 degrees in the desert of Arizona or below freezing in the snow of Wisconsin. She has built “Sarah Palin Inc.,” a conglomerate of publishing, political analysis, and public-speaking ventures. Her online posts are relished by her more than 3 million Facebook followers, and ridiculed by the political class. But her endorsement in the historic midterm GOP sweep was the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for many social conservatives in mainstream America. And that ability to ignite a movement is what her opponents fear most.
With pundits and the public atwitter, Palin begins her “One Nation” tour this weekend at the annual Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally in Washington aboard a shiny new cross-country coach boldly emblazoned: “One Nation. Under God. Indivisible. With Liberty and Justice for All.” Next week, iconic images of Palin on a hawg will light up the Internet. It will be like Caesar on a chariot with six white horses.
It would be easy to dismiss this tour of historic locales along the East Coast, coincidentally including New Hampshire, site of the nation’s first presidential primary for 2012, as a publicity stunt. But Palin is about more than publicity. She is the voice of many who share her conservative beliefs and feel they are still not being heard, not being represented in Washington. To belittle her as a thumper/clinger is to diminish many hardworking folks in the heart of the nation.
But Palin is hurtling at high speed toward three seemingly immovable objects: declining favorable ratings among Republican voters, high unfavorables among the media, and high unfavorables among the GOP establishment elite.
According to recent Gallup polling of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, Palin enjoys the highest name recognition among declared and undeclared 2012 Republican presidential candidates, but with less positive intensity than Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. In a March Washington Post-ABC News poll, her unfavorable rating was at 37 percent, higher than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. And although 58 percent of those same folks rate Palin favorably, that’s a 12-point drop from last year, and a 30-point drop from 2008.
For the media, she is like crack, especially for those who criticize her the most. The thoroughly addicted Chris Matthews offers: “[O]f course I want her to run, in the worst way...”
And her opponents dismiss her, but at their own peril. A Republican adviser close to front-runner Mitt Romney scoffs, “[S]he’s kind of an entertainer...” If Mitt had a little entertainer in him, he might be leaving the pack behind.
This supposedly boring GOP field may be about to get pretty entertaining. Palin, Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Cain battling for the same space? Look out, folks. Here comes the circus. And right now, the ringmaster is calling the shots.
She’s become the P.T. Barnum of politics. She’s the ringmaster of a political media circus who commands attention wherever she goes. Next week Palinpalooza kicks off another round of frenzy and speculation.
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? That is the Palin paradox.
The wheels on her bus go ’round and ’round, propelled by the power of the Tea Party movement—and the compulsive binge-purge mania of the media. Her every move is publicized, analyzed. Her every foible magnified. She is irresistible. And the pundits are riveted, asking, as if watching the low-speed chase of a white Ford Bronco all over again: Where the hell is she going?
Next week, iconic images of Palin on a hawg will light up the Internet. It will be like Caesar on a chariot with six white horses.
Sarah Palin is brilliant. She is a media magnet and a media magnate. She creates headlines and draws crowds wherever she goes, whether it’s 98 degrees in the desert of Arizona or below freezing in the snow of Wisconsin. She has built “Sarah Palin Inc.,” a conglomerate of publishing, political analysis, and public-speaking ventures. Her online posts are relished by her more than 3 million Facebook followers, and ridiculed by the political class. But her endorsement in the historic midterm GOP sweep was the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for many social conservatives in mainstream America. And that ability to ignite a movement is what her opponents fear most.
With pundits and the public atwitter, Palin begins her “One Nation” tour this weekend at the annual Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally in Washington aboard a shiny new cross-country coach boldly emblazoned: “One Nation. Under God. Indivisible. With Liberty and Justice for All.” Next week, iconic images of Palin on a hawg will light up the Internet. It will be like Caesar on a chariot with six white horses.
It would be easy to dismiss this tour of historic locales along the East Coast, coincidentally including New Hampshire, site of the nation’s first presidential primary for 2012, as a publicity stunt. But Palin is about more than publicity. She is the voice of many who share her conservative beliefs and feel they are still not being heard, not being represented in Washington. To belittle her as a thumper/clinger is to diminish many hardworking folks in the heart of the nation.
But Palin is hurtling at high speed toward three seemingly immovable objects: declining favorable ratings among Republican voters, high unfavorables among the media, and high unfavorables among the GOP establishment elite.
According to recent Gallup polling of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, Palin enjoys the highest name recognition among declared and undeclared 2012 Republican presidential candidates, but with less positive intensity than Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. In a March Washington Post-ABC News poll, her unfavorable rating was at 37 percent, higher than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. And although 58 percent of those same folks rate Palin favorably, that’s a 12-point drop from last year, and a 30-point drop from 2008.
For the media, she is like crack, especially for those who criticize her the most. The thoroughly addicted Chris Matthews offers: “[O]f course I want her to run, in the worst way...”
And her opponents dismiss her, but at their own peril. A Republican adviser close to front-runner Mitt Romney scoffs, “[S]he’s kind of an entertainer...” If Mitt had a little entertainer in him, he might be leaving the pack behind.
This supposedly boring GOP field may be about to get pretty entertaining. Palin, Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Cain battling for the same space? Look out, folks. Here comes the circus. And right now, the ringmaster is calling the shots.
Obama Getting His Ground Game Running (Video HERE)
The Obama campaign today sent this video out to its vast email list as part of its effort recruit volunteers. I thought you might want to see what’s going on.
The campaign seems well organized and is trying to get a very early start getting its ground operation up and running. This is the first phase of the operation – in addition to raising money for Obama and the DNC. The Obama campaign is using the phrase”Are You In?” to get commitments from volunteers. Training starts this summer.
The Republican National Committee is still recovering from the Michael Steele years. But if Republicans think they can beat Obama with a bunch of money-siphoning groups that put up an ad war campaign to try to destroy the president, they’re mistaken.
They will need to galvanize the loosely affiliated organizations and Tea Party members into their own ground war which, given the passion of the opposition to Obama, can become a powerful force. But it needs to be organized. I’m not seeing that.
The video below shows Mitch Stewart, who is now labeled “Battleground Director” for the campaign. He has been in charge of keeping Obama’s personal political army, Organizing for America, active during the two and a half years following the election.
H/T Keith Koffler http://www.whitehousedossier.com
The campaign seems well organized and is trying to get a very early start getting its ground operation up and running. This is the first phase of the operation – in addition to raising money for Obama and the DNC. The Obama campaign is using the phrase”Are You In?” to get commitments from volunteers. Training starts this summer.
The Republican National Committee is still recovering from the Michael Steele years. But if Republicans think they can beat Obama with a bunch of money-siphoning groups that put up an ad war campaign to try to destroy the president, they’re mistaken.
They will need to galvanize the loosely affiliated organizations and Tea Party members into their own ground war which, given the passion of the opposition to Obama, can become a powerful force. But it needs to be organized. I’m not seeing that.
The video below shows Mitch Stewart, who is now labeled “Battleground Director” for the campaign. He has been in charge of keeping Obama’s personal political army, Organizing for America, active during the two and a half years following the election.
H/T Keith Koffler http://www.whitehousedossier.com
Not-guilty plea in 'Allahu akbar' cockpit storming
A Yemeni immigrant who authorities say tried to slam his way into the cockpit of a San Francisco-bound jetliner while yelling "Allahu akbar" pleaded not guilty in federal court Friday to one felony charge of interfering with a flight crew.
If convicted, Rageh Ahmed Mohammed Al-Murisi could face 20 years in federal prison and $350,000 in fines and restitution payments.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley ordered Al-Murisi to remain jailed without bail until his next hearing June 23 in San Francisco.
The crew members and passengers who tackled the 26-year-old Al-Murisi on May 8 said they were afraid he was planning to crash the plane as an act of terrorism.
Al-Murisi's lawyer says his client was in mental crisis and had no nefarious intentions.
"No, no, he did not want to crash the plane," attorney Christopher Morales said. "The Muslim faith he practices is against violence, and he absolutely rejects al Qaeda and terrorism.
"He was scared and nervous in his own mind. It all had to do with his mental health issues."
Attorneys in the case said Al-Murisi had been hallucinating and hearing voices for two months before he boarded American Airlines Flight 1561 in Chicago, which was the second leg of a trip from New York to visit relatives in Vallejo. They said Al-Murisi, who was a math teacher in Yemen, recently lost his job at a convenience store in New York and expressed suicidal intentions on the flight.
He underwent a mental exam this week at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, where he is being held. Although court officials would not reveal the results, Morales said, "If he was not found competent, he wouldn't have been arraigned today."
If convicted, Rageh Ahmed Mohammed Al-Murisi could face 20 years in federal prison and $350,000 in fines and restitution payments.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley ordered Al-Murisi to remain jailed without bail until his next hearing June 23 in San Francisco.
The crew members and passengers who tackled the 26-year-old Al-Murisi on May 8 said they were afraid he was planning to crash the plane as an act of terrorism.
Al-Murisi's lawyer says his client was in mental crisis and had no nefarious intentions.
"No, no, he did not want to crash the plane," attorney Christopher Morales said. "The Muslim faith he practices is against violence, and he absolutely rejects al Qaeda and terrorism.
"He was scared and nervous in his own mind. It all had to do with his mental health issues."
Attorneys in the case said Al-Murisi had been hallucinating and hearing voices for two months before he boarded American Airlines Flight 1561 in Chicago, which was the second leg of a trip from New York to visit relatives in Vallejo. They said Al-Murisi, who was a math teacher in Yemen, recently lost his job at a convenience store in New York and expressed suicidal intentions on the flight.
He underwent a mental exam this week at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, where he is being held. Although court officials would not reveal the results, Morales said, "If he was not found competent, he wouldn't have been arraigned today."
29 dead, 700 flee as gang battles hit west Mexico
MORELIA, Mexico – A gunbattle between rival drug gangs in western Mexico left 29 bullet-ridden bodies in fake military uniforms heaped across a roadway and inside bullet-riddled vehicles in the Pacific coast state of Nayarit, the army said Thursday.
The bodies, all male, were found Wednesday scattered around 14 shot-up pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, two of which had bulletproofing.
Television images of the scene near the town of Ruiz showed what appeared to have been a convoy of cartel vehicles that was ambushed or engaged by another column of gunmen on a stretch of rural highway. Military-style boots, bulletproof vests, hand grenades and thousands of rounds of ammunition were found at the scene.
Federal and state officials gave conflicting reports on the incident.
Nayarit state police said officers responding to reports of a kidnapping found four wounded men at the scene of the shootout. One injured person died later, and three remain at the hospital, Nayarit officials said.
The army said two suspects wounded in the battle were found at the scene. It was unclear if the two reported by the army were included in, or additional to, the state figure.
The army said in a statement that around the same time Wednesday, soldiers engaged in a shootout with armed suspects in a town about 35 miles (60 kilometers) north of Ruiz. Two suspects — a man and a woman — were killed in that confrontation. The military statement did not say whether the two shootouts were related.
Nayarit's attorney general Oscar Herrera told a radio station that preliminary reports indicated the two gangs involved in the fierce highway battle were the Sinaloa and the Zetas drug cartels. He said one of the two cartels kidnapped a man of the rival gang, which resulted in a car chase and subsequent gunfight.
Nayarit and the nearby states of Michoacan and Zacatecas have become battlegrounds for drug cartels fighting for control of the area.
The Sinaloa cartel, Mexico's most powerful, has long been active in Nayarit, which borders its home base in Sinaloa state, but the gang has recently been challenged by the Zetas and by remnants of the Beltran Leyva cartel.
In Michoacan, officials said more than 700 people fled their villages amid fighting between rival drug traffickers, which appeared to be unrelated to the Nayarit conflict.
Michoacan state Civil Defense Director Carlos Mandujano said Wednesday that the villagers were given refuge at five shelters.
It is at least the second time a large number of rural residents have been displaced by drug violence in Mexico. In November, about 400 people in the northern border town of Ciudad Mier took refuge in the neighboring city of Ciudad Aleman following cartel gunbattles. That shelter has since been closed and most have returned to their homes.
Mandujano said the villagers spent Tuesday night at a primitive water park in the town of Buenavista Tomatlan, with most sleeping under open thatched-roof structures.
Mandujano said state authorities were providing sleeping mats, blankets and food for those in the shelter.
Residents told local authorities that gunbattles between rival drug cartel factions had made it too dangerous for them to stay in outlying hamlets. The latest reports said arsonists were burning avocado farms in the nearby town of Acahuato.
"We woke up with fear (on Monday), but things appeared to have quieted down. It wasn't until later that morning that we saw SUVs with armed men driving by very fast and shooting at each other," said a woman who did not want to be named for security reasons.
Several displaced people said they would stay at the shelters all week before considering going back to their villages.
"I am not scared, but my children are," said a mother, who asked not to be quoted by name because of fear of retaliation.
The fighting in Michoacan is believed to involve rival factions of the Michoacan-based La Familia drug cartel, some of whose members now call themselves "The Knights Templar."
Mexico still has fewer people displaced by violence than countries like Colombia, according to the Norway-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, which tracks such figures. It estimates about 230,000 people in Mexico have been driven from their homes, often to stay with relatives or in the United States. An estimated 3.6 million to 5.2 million people have been displaced by decades of drug- and guerrilla-war violence in Colombia.
Buenavista police chief Othoniel Montes Herrera said he has neither the manpower nor the armament to patrol rural areas frequented by drug gangs. Sending ill-armed officers out there "would be certain death, and we're not thinking of putting our personnel at that risk."
Drug violence has been on the rise in Nayarit, a Pacific Coast state known for its surfing and beach towns. In October, gunmen killed 15 people at a car wash in the capital of Tepic, an attack that police said bore the characteristics of organized crime. The bodies of 12 murder victims, eight of them partially burned, were found on a Nayarit dirt road a year ago. Officials have not identified the gangs fighting there.
And in Durango state, which borders Nayarit to the north, authorities have been excavating dozens of corpses from mass burial grounds used by drug cartel killers.
On Thursday, state police reported that two more bodies had been found in the latest excavation, bringing the total of bodies found at a seven lots in the state capital to 223.
___
Associated Press writer Adriana Gomez Licon in Mexico City contributed to this report.
The bodies, all male, were found Wednesday scattered around 14 shot-up pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, two of which had bulletproofing.
Television images of the scene near the town of Ruiz showed what appeared to have been a convoy of cartel vehicles that was ambushed or engaged by another column of gunmen on a stretch of rural highway. Military-style boots, bulletproof vests, hand grenades and thousands of rounds of ammunition were found at the scene.
Federal and state officials gave conflicting reports on the incident.
Nayarit state police said officers responding to reports of a kidnapping found four wounded men at the scene of the shootout. One injured person died later, and three remain at the hospital, Nayarit officials said.
The army said two suspects wounded in the battle were found at the scene. It was unclear if the two reported by the army were included in, or additional to, the state figure.
The army said in a statement that around the same time Wednesday, soldiers engaged in a shootout with armed suspects in a town about 35 miles (60 kilometers) north of Ruiz. Two suspects — a man and a woman — were killed in that confrontation. The military statement did not say whether the two shootouts were related.
Nayarit's attorney general Oscar Herrera told a radio station that preliminary reports indicated the two gangs involved in the fierce highway battle were the Sinaloa and the Zetas drug cartels. He said one of the two cartels kidnapped a man of the rival gang, which resulted in a car chase and subsequent gunfight.
Nayarit and the nearby states of Michoacan and Zacatecas have become battlegrounds for drug cartels fighting for control of the area.
The Sinaloa cartel, Mexico's most powerful, has long been active in Nayarit, which borders its home base in Sinaloa state, but the gang has recently been challenged by the Zetas and by remnants of the Beltran Leyva cartel.
In Michoacan, officials said more than 700 people fled their villages amid fighting between rival drug traffickers, which appeared to be unrelated to the Nayarit conflict.
Michoacan state Civil Defense Director Carlos Mandujano said Wednesday that the villagers were given refuge at five shelters.
It is at least the second time a large number of rural residents have been displaced by drug violence in Mexico. In November, about 400 people in the northern border town of Ciudad Mier took refuge in the neighboring city of Ciudad Aleman following cartel gunbattles. That shelter has since been closed and most have returned to their homes.
Mandujano said the villagers spent Tuesday night at a primitive water park in the town of Buenavista Tomatlan, with most sleeping under open thatched-roof structures.
Mandujano said state authorities were providing sleeping mats, blankets and food for those in the shelter.
Residents told local authorities that gunbattles between rival drug cartel factions had made it too dangerous for them to stay in outlying hamlets. The latest reports said arsonists were burning avocado farms in the nearby town of Acahuato.
"We woke up with fear (on Monday), but things appeared to have quieted down. It wasn't until later that morning that we saw SUVs with armed men driving by very fast and shooting at each other," said a woman who did not want to be named for security reasons.
Several displaced people said they would stay at the shelters all week before considering going back to their villages.
"I am not scared, but my children are," said a mother, who asked not to be quoted by name because of fear of retaliation.
The fighting in Michoacan is believed to involve rival factions of the Michoacan-based La Familia drug cartel, some of whose members now call themselves "The Knights Templar."
Mexico still has fewer people displaced by violence than countries like Colombia, according to the Norway-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, which tracks such figures. It estimates about 230,000 people in Mexico have been driven from their homes, often to stay with relatives or in the United States. An estimated 3.6 million to 5.2 million people have been displaced by decades of drug- and guerrilla-war violence in Colombia.
Buenavista police chief Othoniel Montes Herrera said he has neither the manpower nor the armament to patrol rural areas frequented by drug gangs. Sending ill-armed officers out there "would be certain death, and we're not thinking of putting our personnel at that risk."
Drug violence has been on the rise in Nayarit, a Pacific Coast state known for its surfing and beach towns. In October, gunmen killed 15 people at a car wash in the capital of Tepic, an attack that police said bore the characteristics of organized crime. The bodies of 12 murder victims, eight of them partially burned, were found on a Nayarit dirt road a year ago. Officials have not identified the gangs fighting there.
And in Durango state, which borders Nayarit to the north, authorities have been excavating dozens of corpses from mass burial grounds used by drug cartel killers.
On Thursday, state police reported that two more bodies had been found in the latest excavation, bringing the total of bodies found at a seven lots in the state capital to 223.
___
Associated Press writer Adriana Gomez Licon in Mexico City contributed to this report.
Michael Savage reads what the Bible says about Israel (Audio link is HERE)
A call to the doubters....Let's see you dispel this as fiction!
Muslims desecrate Christian tombs, gang-rape young woman
Muslim landowners use tractors to plough over a Christian cemetery in order to seize the land illegally. A 29-year-old mother is drugged and raped by six men. In both cases, police covers up for the culprits. Government must act, Faisalabad priest says.
Faisalabad (AsiaNews) – Christian tombs were recently desecrated and a young Christian woman was gang-raped for an entire night. In both cases, police refused to file a First Information Report, allowing the culprits to escape justice. These are examples of the ordinary violence visited upon Pakistan’s Christian minority. Whether it involves Christian-owned land and property or individuals who are targeted because they are defenceless, victims will not find justice with the country’s legal system. Gradually, Pakistan’s ‘Islamisation’ slowly progresses, especially in the densely populated province of Punjab.
The Pakistan Christian Post reports that, in Chak Jhumra (Faisalabad), Muslim landowners destroyed and desecrated a Christian graveyard, using a tractor to plough over a number of tombs. Buried coffins were broken and the bones of the dead were brought to the surface. The local police refused to open an inquiry, whilst the landowners utter threats against local Christians to get them to stop legal proceedings.
The Faisalabad chapter of the National Commission for Justice and Peace of the Pakistani Catholic Church has intervened in the affair. A team sent by the commission visited the desecrated graveyard and collected evidence.
However, a local Muslim has filed a claim, saying he owned the land on which the cemetery is located. The first hearing in the case is scheduled for 13 June 2011.
Fr Joseph Jamil, a Faisalabad priest, strongly condemned the anti-Christian violence. “The Church,” he said, “is closing monitoring the issue.”
“Landowners and extremists are actively involved against the Christian minority in Punjab,” he told AsiaNews. “Most attacks happen in the central part of the province.” The government, he said, should “take charge of the situation and defend the minority.”
As additional evidence of the prevailing atmosphere of violence, a story came to light involving a 29-year-old Christian woman who was abducted by a Muslim co-worker, roughed up, drugged and gang-raped.
Afshan Sabir is a factory worker and a mother of three. She was assaulted over night on 27 March in an unspecified area near Gojra. When she woke up, she sought help in a state of disorientation. She later tried to file a complaint with the local police station. However, instead of helping the woman, police officers helped the rapists cover their tracks.
On this occasion, the National Commission for Justice and Peace also intervened, providing the victim with legal counsel and following the case on her behalf.
(Jibran Khan contributed to the article)
Faisalabad (AsiaNews) – Christian tombs were recently desecrated and a young Christian woman was gang-raped for an entire night. In both cases, police refused to file a First Information Report, allowing the culprits to escape justice. These are examples of the ordinary violence visited upon Pakistan’s Christian minority. Whether it involves Christian-owned land and property or individuals who are targeted because they are defenceless, victims will not find justice with the country’s legal system. Gradually, Pakistan’s ‘Islamisation’ slowly progresses, especially in the densely populated province of Punjab.
The Pakistan Christian Post reports that, in Chak Jhumra (Faisalabad), Muslim landowners destroyed and desecrated a Christian graveyard, using a tractor to plough over a number of tombs. Buried coffins were broken and the bones of the dead were brought to the surface. The local police refused to open an inquiry, whilst the landowners utter threats against local Christians to get them to stop legal proceedings.
The Faisalabad chapter of the National Commission for Justice and Peace of the Pakistani Catholic Church has intervened in the affair. A team sent by the commission visited the desecrated graveyard and collected evidence.
However, a local Muslim has filed a claim, saying he owned the land on which the cemetery is located. The first hearing in the case is scheduled for 13 June 2011.
Fr Joseph Jamil, a Faisalabad priest, strongly condemned the anti-Christian violence. “The Church,” he said, “is closing monitoring the issue.”
“Landowners and extremists are actively involved against the Christian minority in Punjab,” he told AsiaNews. “Most attacks happen in the central part of the province.” The government, he said, should “take charge of the situation and defend the minority.”
As additional evidence of the prevailing atmosphere of violence, a story came to light involving a 29-year-old Christian woman who was abducted by a Muslim co-worker, roughed up, drugged and gang-raped.
Afshan Sabir is a factory worker and a mother of three. She was assaulted over night on 27 March in an unspecified area near Gojra. When she woke up, she sought help in a state of disorientation. She later tried to file a complaint with the local police station. However, instead of helping the woman, police officers helped the rapists cover their tracks.
On this occasion, the National Commission for Justice and Peace also intervened, providing the victim with legal counsel and following the case on her behalf.
(Jibran Khan contributed to the article)
Imam convicted of trying to blow up JFK airport
Brooklyn jury convicts Imam Kareem Ibrahim in Kennedy Airport plot
A Brooklyn jury on Thursday convicted a Trinidadian national of conspiring to blow up the fuel lines and fuel tanks at Kennedy Airport in a fiery attack that would rival 9/11.
Kareem Ibrahim, the fourth would-be terrorist convicted in the plot, gave his daughter a double thumbs-up sign after the jury returned the verdict in Brooklyn Federal Court.
Ibrahim, 65, an imam and leader of the Shiite Muslim community in Trinidad, faces life in prison when he's sentenced in October.
The plot was hatched in Guyana by former Kennedy Airport cargo handler Russell Defreitas, who assembled a group of evildoers to launch the attack to avenge what they perceived was the oppression of Muslims by the U.S.
"It was a plan to bomb, to kill, to destroy, a plan that would rival the horrors of Sept. 11," Assistant U.S. Attorney Zainab Ahmad said in her closing argument.
Defreitas and co-defendant Abdul Kadir were convicted last year and are serving life sentences. A fourth plotter, Abdel Nur pleaded guilty to supporting the plot and was sentenced to 15 years.
A Brooklyn jury on Thursday convicted a Trinidadian national of conspiring to blow up the fuel lines and fuel tanks at Kennedy Airport in a fiery attack that would rival 9/11.
Kareem Ibrahim, the fourth would-be terrorist convicted in the plot, gave his daughter a double thumbs-up sign after the jury returned the verdict in Brooklyn Federal Court.
Ibrahim, 65, an imam and leader of the Shiite Muslim community in Trinidad, faces life in prison when he's sentenced in October.
The plot was hatched in Guyana by former Kennedy Airport cargo handler Russell Defreitas, who assembled a group of evildoers to launch the attack to avenge what they perceived was the oppression of Muslims by the U.S.
"It was a plan to bomb, to kill, to destroy, a plan that would rival the horrors of Sept. 11," Assistant U.S. Attorney Zainab Ahmad said in her closing argument.
Defreitas and co-defendant Abdul Kadir were convicted last year and are serving life sentences. A fourth plotter, Abdel Nur pleaded guilty to supporting the plot and was sentenced to 15 years.
Impeachable Offense: Obama Was In On Senate Seat 'Pay for Play' Scheme Virginia Right
A bombshell was dropped in the courtroom trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
According to CBS Chicago:
Jurors in ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial got a purported look Thursday at a short list of candidates President Obama favored to replace him in the U.S. Senate.
Federal prosecutors played a tape that revealed the first official message from the budding Obama administration about who the president supported for the Senate seat.
In the call, Blagojevich’s chief of staff, John Harris, tells his boss that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s soon-to-be top aide, had called him to give him a list of four people that Obama would find acceptable as his successor in the Senate. They were Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.; injured Iraq War vet Tammy Duckworth; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes.
Harris tells Blagojevich “He doesn’t want to say who he doesn’t like,” adding that if a person Blagojevich was considering was not on Emanuel’s list, “he’s not high on them.” Harris explained that the message from Emanuel was that Illinois Senate President Emil Jones was not a favored candidate for the U.S. Senate spot.
Harris also testified that Emanuel told him that no one else in the Obama camp was authorized to talk about the Senate seat. That seemed to be an indication that previous messages from a union official that Jackson Jr. was not one of Obama’s preferred candidates were unauthorized.
According to CBS Chicago:
Jurors in ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial got a purported look Thursday at a short list of candidates President Obama favored to replace him in the U.S. Senate.
Federal prosecutors played a tape that revealed the first official message from the budding Obama administration about who the president supported for the Senate seat.
In the call, Blagojevich’s chief of staff, John Harris, tells his boss that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s soon-to-be top aide, had called him to give him a list of four people that Obama would find acceptable as his successor in the Senate. They were Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.; injured Iraq War vet Tammy Duckworth; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes.
Harris tells Blagojevich “He doesn’t want to say who he doesn’t like,” adding that if a person Blagojevich was considering was not on Emanuel’s list, “he’s not high on them.” Harris explained that the message from Emanuel was that Illinois Senate President Emil Jones was not a favored candidate for the U.S. Senate spot.
Harris also testified that Emanuel told him that no one else in the Obama camp was authorized to talk about the Senate seat. That seemed to be an indication that previous messages from a union official that Jackson Jr. was not one of Obama’s preferred candidates were unauthorized.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Accuses the Europeans of Emptying the Clouds So That Iran Would Have No Rain
The delusional effects of talking to Hugo Chavez too much?
Following are excerpts from an address by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on IRINN, the Iranian news channel, on May 19, 2011.
To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2945.htm.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "In Europe, there is a lot of rain – an average rainfall of over 1,500 millimeters. They do not need [watering] systems because they have natural irrigation, but they used equipment at their disposal to empty the clouds.
"As you know, clouds move from west to east. They are formed over the ocean, and then move over the Mediterranean, where the air undergoes changes. Then they pass over Iran, moving eastward. The clouds were emptied of most of their content.
"As you saw on the news, there was an unusual amount of rainfall and snow in Europe, while [Iran] was dry during the fall. A certain politician, who is not an expert on water or construction, wrote an article, 7 or 8 months ago, about a water crisis in the next 30 years, in which he included a map of the world, with an area that he claimed would be arid, stretching from Turkey to us, and then further east. This is precisely the area that they are afraid of, due to the creation of [our] civilization and culture. These were the arid areas.
"I was at a meeting where someone said that there was a water crisis, and that someone had written an article about it. I told him that this guy does not work in this field, and that he is not an expert on water, meteorology, or hydrology. How did he reach this conclusion? We had reports that they are doing this in Europe. They are emptying the clouds, so that they will not move our way.
"Then we conducted studies and became convinced that what this gentleman had written was not a scientific forecast. Rather, this is a premeditated event. We will deal with this through legal channels. We will not permit such a disgraceful thing to take place.
"It is clear that when rain becomes scarce, more conflicts develop over water in border areas." [...]
Following are excerpts from an address by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on IRINN, the Iranian news channel, on May 19, 2011.
To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2945.htm.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "In Europe, there is a lot of rain – an average rainfall of over 1,500 millimeters. They do not need [watering] systems because they have natural irrigation, but they used equipment at their disposal to empty the clouds.
"As you know, clouds move from west to east. They are formed over the ocean, and then move over the Mediterranean, where the air undergoes changes. Then they pass over Iran, moving eastward. The clouds were emptied of most of their content.
"As you saw on the news, there was an unusual amount of rainfall and snow in Europe, while [Iran] was dry during the fall. A certain politician, who is not an expert on water or construction, wrote an article, 7 or 8 months ago, about a water crisis in the next 30 years, in which he included a map of the world, with an area that he claimed would be arid, stretching from Turkey to us, and then further east. This is precisely the area that they are afraid of, due to the creation of [our] civilization and culture. These were the arid areas.
"I was at a meeting where someone said that there was a water crisis, and that someone had written an article about it. I told him that this guy does not work in this field, and that he is not an expert on water, meteorology, or hydrology. How did he reach this conclusion? We had reports that they are doing this in Europe. They are emptying the clouds, so that they will not move our way.
"Then we conducted studies and became convinced that what this gentleman had written was not a scientific forecast. Rather, this is a premeditated event. We will deal with this through legal channels. We will not permit such a disgraceful thing to take place.
"It is clear that when rain becomes scarce, more conflicts develop over water in border areas." [...]
Is Studying Shrimp on Treadmills Really a Good Use of Taxpayer Dollars?
The National Science Foundation has an annual budget of about $7 billion. That’s a lot of money. So, what are they spending money on? Things like studying shrimp exercising on treadmills. I’m not making this up. In fact, almost half their budget is wasted.
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, said he identified more than $3 billion in mismanagement at NSF, ranging from questionable studies to exorbitant operating costs, and in some cases the agency duplicates operations performed by other agencies.
At a time when the government is struggling with record deficits and bumping up against its borrowing limit, he said the agency is an example of the kinds of spending taxpayers should no longer tolerate.
“There is little, if any, obvious scientific benefit to some NSF projects, such as a YouTube rap video, a review of event ticket prices on stubhub.com, a ‘robot hoedown and rodeo,’ or a virtual recreation of the 1964/65 New York World’s Fair,” Mr. Coburn said in a letter to taxpayers he wrote introducing the 73-page report, documented by more than 350 footnotes.
In one instance, he said NSF employees, in their spare time, engaged in a jello-wrestling contest at the agency’s McMurdo research station in Antarctica. In another instance, the agency paid $559,681 to test sick shrimps’ metabolism, which one researcher said was “the first time that shrimp have been exercised on a treadmill.”
Mr. Coburn’s report noted that the researchers found sick shrimp “did not perform as well and did not recover as well from exercise as healthy shrimp.”
The NSF spokeswoman bragged that the person responsible for Jello wrestling was fired. But the article doesn’t include any defense of the shrimp study, the recreation of the 1964/65 World’s Fair or any of the other wasteful projects they’ve done.
Here’s a news report showing a shrimp on a treadmill. This is what we get for that $500,000. Watch for more examples of the wasteful spending in this one agency.
(Click Title for Video)
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, said he identified more than $3 billion in mismanagement at NSF, ranging from questionable studies to exorbitant operating costs, and in some cases the agency duplicates operations performed by other agencies.
At a time when the government is struggling with record deficits and bumping up against its borrowing limit, he said the agency is an example of the kinds of spending taxpayers should no longer tolerate.
“There is little, if any, obvious scientific benefit to some NSF projects, such as a YouTube rap video, a review of event ticket prices on stubhub.com, a ‘robot hoedown and rodeo,’ or a virtual recreation of the 1964/65 New York World’s Fair,” Mr. Coburn said in a letter to taxpayers he wrote introducing the 73-page report, documented by more than 350 footnotes.
In one instance, he said NSF employees, in their spare time, engaged in a jello-wrestling contest at the agency’s McMurdo research station in Antarctica. In another instance, the agency paid $559,681 to test sick shrimps’ metabolism, which one researcher said was “the first time that shrimp have been exercised on a treadmill.”
Mr. Coburn’s report noted that the researchers found sick shrimp “did not perform as well and did not recover as well from exercise as healthy shrimp.”
The NSF spokeswoman bragged that the person responsible for Jello wrestling was fired. But the article doesn’t include any defense of the shrimp study, the recreation of the 1964/65 World’s Fair or any of the other wasteful projects they’ve done.
Here’s a news report showing a shrimp on a treadmill. This is what we get for that $500,000. Watch for more examples of the wasteful spending in this one agency.
(Click Title for Video)
Teen Tramp Cyrus attacks POTUS Candidate Santorum
Hey, I like “Party in the U.S.A.,” but I don’t think it’s particularly patriotic of Miley Cyrus to pop off about potential presidential candidates.
The teen pop sensation took to Twitter to ding Rick Santorum in a roundabout way Thursday.
Cyrus isn’t a fan of Urban Outfitters after stories emerged alleging that the store has copied jewelry designs, so she pointed out that the company’s president had contributed to Santorum.
“IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE NEXT THING U KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE MARRYING GOLD FISH’ – Rick Santorum UO [Urban Outfitters] contributed $13,000 to this mans campaign” tweeted Cyrus, mocking Santorum for some earlier remarks regarding gay marriage.
She also wrote about Urban Outfitters and Santorum: “Not only do they steal from artists but every time you give them money you help finance a campaign against gay equality.”
I doubt former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) worries much about Cyrus’ effect on his potential campaign, even if she does have more than a million Twitter followers. For that matter, I doubt he worries that Keira Knightley recently said she had to google his name. (And he shouldn’t — I know firsthand several high school senior girls who don’t know who Joe Biden is. Not that that’s excusable.)
But I had to pipe up about this because, when I read her comments, I couldn’t help but think, “Right. And every time you give Miley Cyrus money you help finance a girl who clearly doesn’t understand the value of the world she’s been given.” She’s a Southern-bred gal who grew up with an essentially intact family. She should know better than to be less than gracious. And Santorum is a stand-up guy who has always been solidly in support of family values — who suddenly seems pretty cool to me.
The teen pop sensation took to Twitter to ding Rick Santorum in a roundabout way Thursday.
Cyrus isn’t a fan of Urban Outfitters after stories emerged alleging that the store has copied jewelry designs, so she pointed out that the company’s president had contributed to Santorum.
“IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE NEXT THING U KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE MARRYING GOLD FISH’ – Rick Santorum UO [Urban Outfitters] contributed $13,000 to this mans campaign” tweeted Cyrus, mocking Santorum for some earlier remarks regarding gay marriage.
She also wrote about Urban Outfitters and Santorum: “Not only do they steal from artists but every time you give them money you help finance a campaign against gay equality.”
I doubt former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) worries much about Cyrus’ effect on his potential campaign, even if she does have more than a million Twitter followers. For that matter, I doubt he worries that Keira Knightley recently said she had to google his name. (And he shouldn’t — I know firsthand several high school senior girls who don’t know who Joe Biden is. Not that that’s excusable.)
But I had to pipe up about this because, when I read her comments, I couldn’t help but think, “Right. And every time you give Miley Cyrus money you help finance a girl who clearly doesn’t understand the value of the world she’s been given.” She’s a Southern-bred gal who grew up with an essentially intact family. She should know better than to be less than gracious. And Santorum is a stand-up guy who has always been solidly in support of family values — who suddenly seems pretty cool to me.
Targeted by the EPA
A three-inch lizard scuttled into the spotlight in December after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed moving it onto the Endangered Species List. The dunes sagebrush lizard’s habitat covers just eight counties on the Texas-New Mexico border, right in the heart of the Permian Basin, a major oil-producing region. Particularly in Texas, industry leaders and local businesses see the action as hostile—another Obama administration environmental policy targeting their successful, energy-sparked economy.
“This is a lizard versus families,” says Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, the state’s largest business interest group. “Nothing is more important than a job.”
Setting 1980s Dallas stereotypes aside, oil and gas production is between 12 and 15 percent of the Texas economy. It’s more than 70 percent of the economy in the vast and sparsely populated Permian Basin. The 17-county basin produces nearly 20 percent of all domestic crude oil. Of the eight counties in the lizard’s habitat, four are in Texas. All those are among the top ten oil-yielding counties in the state.
In its proposal to list the lizard as endangered, U.S. Fish and Wildlife argues that several activities fragment the creature’s habitat. Together these constitute a clean sweep of the region’s economic drivers: oil and gas (particularly exploration), wind turbine erection, and agriculture. The dunes sagebrush lizard resides only in areas with sandy dunes covered by low-lying shinnery oak trees.
A public comment period closed May 9, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife will decide by mid-December whether to put the lizard on the Endangered Species List. An “endangered” finding triggers an assessment period to define the lizard’s range and identify protection strategies. At that time, new surface-disrupting economic activity and perhaps maintenance of existing wells and windmills could be hampered.
Steve Pruett, president and CFO of Midland-based Legacy Reserves LP, explains that stifling exploration threatens the most jobs. He hires subcontractors to operate his rigs, the towering structures used to drill wells. Legacy runs just one rig in the lizard’s presumptive habitat, but 131 other rigs are active, each of which drills two wells a month and employs about 150 people.
“We wouldn’t be contracting as many wells to be drilled,” Pruett says. “Not to mention the general loss of confidence of our investors. We would have less production and less cash to pay out.”
According to Permian Basin Petroleum Association president Ben Shepperd, wells produce at diminishing rates, making new exploration vital to retaining blue-collar workers like roughnecks and roustabouts. He cites a study that found a majority of jobs even in the cities of Midland and Odessa depend on oil and gas production.
“If oil and gas were to stop out here, these West Texas towns would just dry up and blow away,” Shepperd says. Excluding giants like Chevron, the average Permian Basin Petroleum Association member employs about 10 people.
Texas opponents of listing the lizard dispute the thoroughness of U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s science and say they will work cooperatively to rehabilitate the population. Conservation agreements—another way to restore species populations—are already in place in New Mexico. With the agreements, private landowners, businesses, and the government follow a prearranged plan, although Sheppard says signing on can cost an oil business as much as $20,000 per well.
Texas land commissioner Jerry Patterson told an industry rally in Midland in late April that the state’s landowners and businesses need a chance to work out agreements with the fish and wildlife service. The state currently enforces mitigation for turtle populations near drilling along the Gulf Coast, an arrangement that followed a court battle. “We can plant a lot of shinnery oak if we need to,” Patterson said. “It’s not the lizard or us. It’s both of us.”
Even if Texas, with New Mexico’s help, is able to avoid endangered species classification for the dunes sagebrush lizard, a proposed listing for another species in the Permian Basin, the lesser prairie chicken, lurks in the future.
Hammond, with the business association, says the effort to list the lizard as endangered is but one grievance his group has with the Obama administration, which he says is engaged in a “job-killing enterprise” against Texas.
Texas’s showdown with the Environmental Protection Agency over air permitting is the major concern.
“Industry has spent literally trillions of dollars to bring air quality to a level that is perfectly acceptable,” according to Hammond.
Industry efforts aside, last year the EPA ruled that certain permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—which had regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act—do not comply with federal law. Operating under the permits since 1994, more than 100 businesses have been left in legal limbo while Texas contests the decision.
One affected business is EBAA Iron, Inc., a family-owned iron foundry with 250 employees at plants in Eastland and Albany, Texas. Until last year, the foundry ran under a flexible permit issued by the state environmental agency. The flexible permits emphasized results over an entire organization, while EPA concerns itself with individual sources of emissions.
Jim Keffer, president of EBAA Iron, Inc., says his staff has contacted EPA for guidance but keeps getting put off. The business, which opened in 1964, may be operating illegally.
Keffer runs the iron foundry full time, but he also serves as the state representative for his area and chairs the Texas House Energy Resources Committee.
“Everywhere you look, every time you turn around, the federal government is trying to stop exploration, to stop the use of fossil fuels,” Keffer says. “We’re trying to work on self-reliance. We’re trying to explore and bring to the country the resources that Texas has been blessed with.”
While the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s mission requires it to consider economic impacts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and EPA don’t have to. Keffer points out EPA’s December emergency order to a Fort Worth company under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency acted in response to alleged contamination of two drinking water wells, even though the state’s gas regulatory agency had been on the scene. More than a mile separates the shallow wells from Range Resources’ natural gas wells. The company says it has spent $1.5 million defending itself against the EPA order.
“The EPA was having a press conference before they had all the facts,” Keffer says. “If you sit back and take in all that’s happened, it’s easy to look at a conspiracy theory.”
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free-market think tank, held a briefing last month on 10 proposed and adopted rules it says constitute an “Approaching EPA Avalanche.” The organization is most concerned with EPA’s order that states regulate greenhouse gas emissions from major sources. The Lone Star State alone refused to comply, although at least 20 others are also suing the agency over greenhouse gas regulations.
TPPF scholar Kathleen Hartnett White, a former state environmental director, says the rules also require “Rolls Royce” emissions control technologies on industrial boilers and certain cement kilns. Unions claim the boiler rule alone could send 700,000 U.S. jobs to countries less concerned about air quality.
EPA is also considering tightening standards on “coarse particulate matter,” White says, and the proposed rule would drop the exemption for rural dust, a fact of life in West Texas. Remediation techniques for rural dust suggested by EPA include watering dirt roads and no-till days for farmers.
Because of the makeup of its economy, including the nation’s largest petrochemical complex, in Houston, Texas will be disproportionately affected by most air quality regulations. White says it doesn’t matter if Washington is deliberately picking on her state, though the administration’s actions speak to a strong desire to make alternatives to fossil fuels more appealing.
“We are a bad example,” White says. “We are not what the administration would like to see.”
“This is a lizard versus families,” says Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, the state’s largest business interest group. “Nothing is more important than a job.”
Setting 1980s Dallas stereotypes aside, oil and gas production is between 12 and 15 percent of the Texas economy. It’s more than 70 percent of the economy in the vast and sparsely populated Permian Basin. The 17-county basin produces nearly 20 percent of all domestic crude oil. Of the eight counties in the lizard’s habitat, four are in Texas. All those are among the top ten oil-yielding counties in the state.
In its proposal to list the lizard as endangered, U.S. Fish and Wildlife argues that several activities fragment the creature’s habitat. Together these constitute a clean sweep of the region’s economic drivers: oil and gas (particularly exploration), wind turbine erection, and agriculture. The dunes sagebrush lizard resides only in areas with sandy dunes covered by low-lying shinnery oak trees.
A public comment period closed May 9, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife will decide by mid-December whether to put the lizard on the Endangered Species List. An “endangered” finding triggers an assessment period to define the lizard’s range and identify protection strategies. At that time, new surface-disrupting economic activity and perhaps maintenance of existing wells and windmills could be hampered.
Steve Pruett, president and CFO of Midland-based Legacy Reserves LP, explains that stifling exploration threatens the most jobs. He hires subcontractors to operate his rigs, the towering structures used to drill wells. Legacy runs just one rig in the lizard’s presumptive habitat, but 131 other rigs are active, each of which drills two wells a month and employs about 150 people.
“We wouldn’t be contracting as many wells to be drilled,” Pruett says. “Not to mention the general loss of confidence of our investors. We would have less production and less cash to pay out.”
According to Permian Basin Petroleum Association president Ben Shepperd, wells produce at diminishing rates, making new exploration vital to retaining blue-collar workers like roughnecks and roustabouts. He cites a study that found a majority of jobs even in the cities of Midland and Odessa depend on oil and gas production.
“If oil and gas were to stop out here, these West Texas towns would just dry up and blow away,” Shepperd says. Excluding giants like Chevron, the average Permian Basin Petroleum Association member employs about 10 people.
Texas opponents of listing the lizard dispute the thoroughness of U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s science and say they will work cooperatively to rehabilitate the population. Conservation agreements—another way to restore species populations—are already in place in New Mexico. With the agreements, private landowners, businesses, and the government follow a prearranged plan, although Sheppard says signing on can cost an oil business as much as $20,000 per well.
Texas land commissioner Jerry Patterson told an industry rally in Midland in late April that the state’s landowners and businesses need a chance to work out agreements with the fish and wildlife service. The state currently enforces mitigation for turtle populations near drilling along the Gulf Coast, an arrangement that followed a court battle. “We can plant a lot of shinnery oak if we need to,” Patterson said. “It’s not the lizard or us. It’s both of us.”
Even if Texas, with New Mexico’s help, is able to avoid endangered species classification for the dunes sagebrush lizard, a proposed listing for another species in the Permian Basin, the lesser prairie chicken, lurks in the future.
Hammond, with the business association, says the effort to list the lizard as endangered is but one grievance his group has with the Obama administration, which he says is engaged in a “job-killing enterprise” against Texas.
Texas’s showdown with the Environmental Protection Agency over air permitting is the major concern.
“Industry has spent literally trillions of dollars to bring air quality to a level that is perfectly acceptable,” according to Hammond.
Industry efforts aside, last year the EPA ruled that certain permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—which had regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act—do not comply with federal law. Operating under the permits since 1994, more than 100 businesses have been left in legal limbo while Texas contests the decision.
One affected business is EBAA Iron, Inc., a family-owned iron foundry with 250 employees at plants in Eastland and Albany, Texas. Until last year, the foundry ran under a flexible permit issued by the state environmental agency. The flexible permits emphasized results over an entire organization, while EPA concerns itself with individual sources of emissions.
Jim Keffer, president of EBAA Iron, Inc., says his staff has contacted EPA for guidance but keeps getting put off. The business, which opened in 1964, may be operating illegally.
Keffer runs the iron foundry full time, but he also serves as the state representative for his area and chairs the Texas House Energy Resources Committee.
“Everywhere you look, every time you turn around, the federal government is trying to stop exploration, to stop the use of fossil fuels,” Keffer says. “We’re trying to work on self-reliance. We’re trying to explore and bring to the country the resources that Texas has been blessed with.”
While the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s mission requires it to consider economic impacts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and EPA don’t have to. Keffer points out EPA’s December emergency order to a Fort Worth company under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency acted in response to alleged contamination of two drinking water wells, even though the state’s gas regulatory agency had been on the scene. More than a mile separates the shallow wells from Range Resources’ natural gas wells. The company says it has spent $1.5 million defending itself against the EPA order.
“The EPA was having a press conference before they had all the facts,” Keffer says. “If you sit back and take in all that’s happened, it’s easy to look at a conspiracy theory.”
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free-market think tank, held a briefing last month on 10 proposed and adopted rules it says constitute an “Approaching EPA Avalanche.” The organization is most concerned with EPA’s order that states regulate greenhouse gas emissions from major sources. The Lone Star State alone refused to comply, although at least 20 others are also suing the agency over greenhouse gas regulations.
TPPF scholar Kathleen Hartnett White, a former state environmental director, says the rules also require “Rolls Royce” emissions control technologies on industrial boilers and certain cement kilns. Unions claim the boiler rule alone could send 700,000 U.S. jobs to countries less concerned about air quality.
EPA is also considering tightening standards on “coarse particulate matter,” White says, and the proposed rule would drop the exemption for rural dust, a fact of life in West Texas. Remediation techniques for rural dust suggested by EPA include watering dirt roads and no-till days for farmers.
Because of the makeup of its economy, including the nation’s largest petrochemical complex, in Houston, Texas will be disproportionately affected by most air quality regulations. White says it doesn’t matter if Washington is deliberately picking on her state, though the administration’s actions speak to a strong desire to make alternatives to fossil fuels more appealing.
“We are a bad example,” White says. “We are not what the administration would like to see.”
U.N.-Backed Summit Seeks ‘Social Justice’ for African Descendants
(CNSNews.com) – Only three months to go until the First World Summit of African Descendants, a U.N.-sponsored event that aims to “right historical wrongs.”
The August 18-21 summit in La Ceiba, Honduras, will focus on the socioeconomic conditions of Afro-descendant populations and establish a plan to “ensure development with equity for these groups,” said the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which announced the event in Washington on Thursday.
The event is part of the United Nations-declared International Year of African Descendants.
“This International Year of African Descendants provides an opportunity to right historical wrongs: in health, education, poverty, land rights, jobs, and financial credit for economic and social progress,” said Pan American Health Organization Director Mirta Roses in a news release. “This celebration is important for recognizing the strength and resilience of Afro-descendant communities throughout the Americas, who have thrived despite historical discrimination and repression.”
The U.N. says an estimated 150 million African descendants live in Mexico and Central and South America.
Health, contraceptives and social justice
According to PAHO/WHO, compared with Caucasians, the babies of African descendants are more likely to die, their mothers face more risks in childbirth, adult men have higher rates of homicide and HIV, and adolescents are more likely to become pregnant.
At the same time, “equal access to health services and contraceptives remains a challenge,” said Dr. Roses. “This year is a time to celebrate the power of Afro-descendant organizations in challenging and changing these inequalities.”
The summit will provide an opportunity to analyze international cooperation and “close the existing development gaps through concrete commitments, clear strategies, and adequate resources,” said Jorge Ramón Hernández Alcerro, the Honduran ambassador to the United States.
“We are in 2011, and this will be the First World Summit of African Descendants,” said Jim Coffin, of Phelps-Stokes, a philanthropist group that promotes “social justice” in Africa and the Americas. “People will be empowered, commitments will be made. This summit will make a big difference.”
One of the Americas’ pending debts is to “put an end to historical and structural discrimination against African descendants,” said Santiago Cantón, executive secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). He said initiatives such as the summit are “essential steps” toward ending such discrimination. He said the summit will raise awareness of violations of the human rights of African descendants, and thereby help put an end to them.
Organizers say the summit also will follow up on previous commitments, such as those made at the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, the Durban conference was marked by strong disagreements over issues, including attempts to equate Zionism with apartheid and calls for the U.S. and other Western nations to pay reparations for slavery. The conference and a parallel NGO gathering eventually degenerated into what critics described as an anti-Israel "hate-fest," and the Bush administration withdrew its already-downgraded delegation in protest. The Israeli representatives also walked out.
Discussions at the Honduras summit will focus on politics, society, culture, and education. Organizers expect up to 800 people to participate in the summit, including representatives of international organizations and “Afro-descendant social movements.”
Celeo Álvarez Casildo, president of the Organization for Ethnic Community Development (ODECO) and executive secretary of the World Summit of African Descendants, on Thursday thanked organizations including IACHR, the Inter-American Development Bank, and PAHO/WHO for their support.
PAHO Director Roses praised ODECO for providing “global leadership by bringing together people from all over the world to celebrate their African heritage and their achievements.”
Álvarez Casildo said the summit was expected to conclude with a “Declaration of the Decade of African Descendants and the creation of a new fund for Afro-descendant Development.
“The summit is not the end, it’s a means for transformation,” he said. “It’s an extremely important medium to ensure that these voices no longer remain silent.”
The August 18-21 summit in La Ceiba, Honduras, will focus on the socioeconomic conditions of Afro-descendant populations and establish a plan to “ensure development with equity for these groups,” said the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which announced the event in Washington on Thursday.
The event is part of the United Nations-declared International Year of African Descendants.
“This International Year of African Descendants provides an opportunity to right historical wrongs: in health, education, poverty, land rights, jobs, and financial credit for economic and social progress,” said Pan American Health Organization Director Mirta Roses in a news release. “This celebration is important for recognizing the strength and resilience of Afro-descendant communities throughout the Americas, who have thrived despite historical discrimination and repression.”
The U.N. says an estimated 150 million African descendants live in Mexico and Central and South America.
Health, contraceptives and social justice
According to PAHO/WHO, compared with Caucasians, the babies of African descendants are more likely to die, their mothers face more risks in childbirth, adult men have higher rates of homicide and HIV, and adolescents are more likely to become pregnant.
At the same time, “equal access to health services and contraceptives remains a challenge,” said Dr. Roses. “This year is a time to celebrate the power of Afro-descendant organizations in challenging and changing these inequalities.”
The summit will provide an opportunity to analyze international cooperation and “close the existing development gaps through concrete commitments, clear strategies, and adequate resources,” said Jorge Ramón Hernández Alcerro, the Honduran ambassador to the United States.
“We are in 2011, and this will be the First World Summit of African Descendants,” said Jim Coffin, of Phelps-Stokes, a philanthropist group that promotes “social justice” in Africa and the Americas. “People will be empowered, commitments will be made. This summit will make a big difference.”
One of the Americas’ pending debts is to “put an end to historical and structural discrimination against African descendants,” said Santiago Cantón, executive secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). He said initiatives such as the summit are “essential steps” toward ending such discrimination. He said the summit will raise awareness of violations of the human rights of African descendants, and thereby help put an end to them.
Organizers say the summit also will follow up on previous commitments, such as those made at the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, the Durban conference was marked by strong disagreements over issues, including attempts to equate Zionism with apartheid and calls for the U.S. and other Western nations to pay reparations for slavery. The conference and a parallel NGO gathering eventually degenerated into what critics described as an anti-Israel "hate-fest," and the Bush administration withdrew its already-downgraded delegation in protest. The Israeli representatives also walked out.
Discussions at the Honduras summit will focus on politics, society, culture, and education. Organizers expect up to 800 people to participate in the summit, including representatives of international organizations and “Afro-descendant social movements.”
Celeo Álvarez Casildo, president of the Organization for Ethnic Community Development (ODECO) and executive secretary of the World Summit of African Descendants, on Thursday thanked organizations including IACHR, the Inter-American Development Bank, and PAHO/WHO for their support.
PAHO Director Roses praised ODECO for providing “global leadership by bringing together people from all over the world to celebrate their African heritage and their achievements.”
Álvarez Casildo said the summit was expected to conclude with a “Declaration of the Decade of African Descendants and the creation of a new fund for Afro-descendant Development.
“The summit is not the end, it’s a means for transformation,” he said. “It’s an extremely important medium to ensure that these voices no longer remain silent.”
Allen West on the Patriot Act
Although a four-year Patriot Act extension passed both houses of Congress yesterday by a large margin -- despite Rand Paul's one-man crusade against it in the Senate -- the number of "no" votes increased. One surprising new no vote came from Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a freshman who is interesting to watch because he is both hawkish and sympathetic to constitutionalist arguments.
West sent FBI Director Robert Mueller the following questions about the provisions up for extension:
* Can you provide a breakdown of how many times these provisions have been used on citizens and non-citizens?
* How many people were ever convicted or investigated?
* Out of those held, how many were released without being charged?
* Are there any individuals that are still being held that were never charged?
* What intelligence, if anything, came from these instances in which Section 206 was implemented?
Mueller didn't write back and West voted against the extensions.
West sent FBI Director Robert Mueller the following questions about the provisions up for extension:
* Can you provide a breakdown of how many times these provisions have been used on citizens and non-citizens?
* How many people were ever convicted or investigated?
* Out of those held, how many were released without being charged?
* Are there any individuals that are still being held that were never charged?
* What intelligence, if anything, came from these instances in which Section 206 was implemented?
Mueller didn't write back and West voted against the extensions.
Corrupt Politicians list (Links here)
At the end of every year, Judicial Watch publishes a top ten list of the most corrupt politicians in Washington, D.C.
Enjoy your read!!!
Enjoy your read!!!
Health Insurance Premiums Continue to Rise Under RomneyCare
Not only are Masachusetts' health insurance premiums higher than elsewhere in the U.S. on average, they've grown at a faster rate since the adoption of RomneyCare, according to a report released yesterday by the state government. The report, which was published by the state's Division of Health Care Finance & Policy, notes that for the last two years, private group insurance premiums rose by between five and 10 percent per year despite the fact that the regional consumer price index, which measures inflation on common goods and services, rose by just two percent.
This is hardly a surprise for those who've been following along: The RAND Corporation recently found that "in the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to increase about 8 percent faster than the state's GDP over the next decade." In 2009, the state's family insurance premiums were honored as the most expensive in the country. And last year, economists at Stanford and Columbia University recently found that RomneyCare "increased single-coverage employer-sponsored insurance premiums by about 6 percent in aggregate, and by about 7 percent for firms with fewer than 50 employees.” The Obama administration has explicitly stated on numerous occasions that RomneyCare was the model for the federal overhaul. Given the Bay State's spiraling costs, it seems more and more likely that, thanks to ObamaCare, we can all expect higher health insurance premiums in our future.
This is hardly a surprise for those who've been following along: The RAND Corporation recently found that "in the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to increase about 8 percent faster than the state's GDP over the next decade." In 2009, the state's family insurance premiums were honored as the most expensive in the country. And last year, economists at Stanford and Columbia University recently found that RomneyCare "increased single-coverage employer-sponsored insurance premiums by about 6 percent in aggregate, and by about 7 percent for firms with fewer than 50 employees.” The Obama administration has explicitly stated on numerous occasions that RomneyCare was the model for the federal overhaul. Given the Bay State's spiraling costs, it seems more and more likely that, thanks to ObamaCare, we can all expect higher health insurance premiums in our future.
The Religion of Rape (Video is HERE)
We reported last year on the fact that culture-enrichers seem to have a monopoly on rape in Oslo. The latest figures have come in, and the situation hasn’t changed — for the past five years, in every single case in which the perpetrator could be identified, the rapist was of non-Western origin.
Let’s be honest: that means they were Muslims. The vast majority of non-Western immigrants in Oslo are Muslim, and I’d bet money that none of those rapists were Hindus, Buddhists, Baal-worshippers, etc. The victim interviewed in the news story below reports that her attacker told her that his religion allowed him to do what he did. Do you think he was a Mormon?
What’s more, virtually all the victims were women and girls “of Norwegian background.”
This trend is not centrally planned, organized, and directed, but it is systematic nonetheless. It is part of the system called “Islam”, and it’s what a Western country can expect when it imports Muslims en masse. The systematic rape of infidel women is part of the process of Islamization.
Many thanks to Kitman for translating, subtitling, and YouTubing this clip. The video and a transcript are below the jump:
Let’s be honest: that means they were Muslims. The vast majority of non-Western immigrants in Oslo are Muslim, and I’d bet money that none of those rapists were Hindus, Buddhists, Baal-worshippers, etc. The victim interviewed in the news story below reports that her attacker told her that his religion allowed him to do what he did. Do you think he was a Mormon?
What’s more, virtually all the victims were women and girls “of Norwegian background.”
This trend is not centrally planned, organized, and directed, but it is systematic nonetheless. It is part of the system called “Islam”, and it’s what a Western country can expect when it imports Muslims en masse. The systematic rape of infidel women is part of the process of Islamization.
Many thanks to Kitman for translating, subtitling, and YouTubing this clip. The video and a transcript are below the jump:
The fake Chrysler loan “payoff”
You probably remember when GM made the big announcement that it had paid off its loans from the bailout? You most likely also remember that subsequent investigation found that GM was simply using borrowed money from a government extended line of credit to “pay back” part of what was loaned under the bailout? In other words it took taxpayer money extended under the LOC and gave it to the government as a payment of “debt”. Overall, though, it’s debt remained the same.
This week Chrysler went through the same sort of shenanigans as Conn Carroll reports:
American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?
The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion.
This is simply more smoke and mirrors from the “Smoke and Mirrors” administration, now engaged in pre-election image burnishing. In fact, the payback (someone call Debbie Wasserman Shultz) involves allowing a foreign auto company to take more control of Chrysler and then tossing a loan for 3.5 billion from government on top of the Fiat purchase of Chrysler stock at a reduced price.
They want you to believe this signals a stronger and profitable Chrysler. In fact, it is a pathetic attempt to fool the public.
But it is even worse than that:
So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.
Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.
Again, don’t forget the $4 billion in loans the Obama administration has “forgiven” that taxpayers will never get back – all in an effort to make this truly horrendous deal for taxpayers seem better than it is so he can claim credit for “saving the US auto industry” during the coming political re-election campaign.
This week Chrysler went through the same sort of shenanigans as Conn Carroll reports:
American taxpayers have already spent more than $13 billion bailing out Chrysler. The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. But how is Chrysler now paying off the rest of the $7.6 billion they owe the Treasury Department?
The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion.
This is simply more smoke and mirrors from the “Smoke and Mirrors” administration, now engaged in pre-election image burnishing. In fact, the payback (someone call Debbie Wasserman Shultz) involves allowing a foreign auto company to take more control of Chrysler and then tossing a loan for 3.5 billion from government on top of the Fiat purchase of Chrysler stock at a reduced price.
They want you to believe this signals a stronger and profitable Chrysler. In fact, it is a pathetic attempt to fool the public.
But it is even worse than that:
So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.
Oh, and Obama plans to make this “success” a centerpiece of his 2012 campaign.
Again, don’t forget the $4 billion in loans the Obama administration has “forgiven” that taxpayers will never get back – all in an effort to make this truly horrendous deal for taxpayers seem better than it is so he can claim credit for “saving the US auto industry” during the coming political re-election campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)