Townhall.com
Salena Zito
Feb 13, 2012
During a drive between the Mon Valley towns of McKeesport and Elizabeth, a man named Ray was overheard calling into a local radio station to talk about the subject of the hour: November's presidential election.
The first thing he said is that he is a Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Pressed by the talk-show host, he said he would not vote for Obama this time.
The rest of Ray's answer was not unique or remarkable: Yes, he is a union member. Yes, he wanted Obama to succeed. And, yes, he is very disappointed after giving the president more than enough chances to prove he can lead.
Ray said he had finally given up.
It is a story heard over and over across the country, one that began not long after Obama took office in 2009 and followed a series of heavy-handed moves such as appointing policy "czars" to avoid Senate confirmation fights and a lack of transparency with the press and the public (a list too long to elaborate) despite vows to the contrary.
Stimulus signs that dotted highways after a trillion-dollar federal spending spree became signs to mock when the economy failed to improve -- and guys like Ray began to detach.
Following the messy passage of Obama's health-care bill in 2010, the disconnect between him and Americans escalated -- evidenced by a massive sweep of Democrats from state legislatures, governors' offices and the U.S. House of Representatives.
Obama will find no redemption with Pennsylvania Democrats such as Ray. Yet that does not necessarily mean that, come January, he will not be sworn in again.
The data from a yearlong measure of his approval rating, conducted by Gallup in Pennsylvania, aren't promising: 45 percent approve of his performance, 48 percent disapprove.
While Obama campaigners salivate over the primary battle among Republicans Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, they fail to realize that the GOP's family feud will heal more easily than did Democrats' in 2008.
Independents and Jacksonian Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton grudgingly came over to Obama after their primaries but never felt he was their guy; they were bruised by his treatment of their hero, Bill Clinton, and Hillary.
Back then, Hillary's fatal problem was simple: She couldn't hit hard on Obama's experience and qualifications, or question how he would fulfill his lofty promises -- or even request something as routine as the release of his college records.
Why? Because the disciplined, brilliantly manipulative Obama team and an adoring press would have cried "Racism!"
Those wounds have not healed among Democrats who feel they did not receive in Obama what they would have received in Hillary.
Obama needs Pennsylvania to win re-election. Yet his Electoral College calculus is complicated by his failure to poll well among Jacksonian voters (mostly rural or blue-collar whites) and worsened by his mandate that religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals -- whose objections he sought to mollify on Friday -- provide contraception to employees.
Such government intervention does not sit well with many voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other critical, Catholic-rich Midwestern states. Catholic Democrats may lean left on social-justice issues -- but don't try to tell their priests, parishes or hospitals what to do about contraception and abortion.
Even the class-based populist attacks that Obama emphasizes in his political rhetoric, traditionally thought to appeal to Jacksonian white voters, are falling on deaf ears this time around. He is polling the worst with those very voters -- and his rhetoric may repel the professional white voters with whom he has always done especially well.
As the election draws nearer, Pennsylvania no doubt will be the key to the political world. Its microcosm of voters -- ranging from rich-gentry whites who shifted to Obama in 2008, to somewhat more downscale Jacksonian whites who shifted to Republicans in 2010 -- will be at the center of attention.
For Obama to win here, his coalition will need to maximize the minority vote, keep single women and the youth vote firmly in his corner, eke out a win with gentry whites, split the independent vote and hold down the losses among Jacksonian whites.
That is going to be a problem for him, with the loss of the Rays in this state.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Obama Student Loan Debt Bubble About to Blow
Townhall.com
Mike Shedlock
Feb 13, 2012
It's interesting to watch some of the terms bandied about in headline news. For example, the LA Times headline reads S&P says student loan debt could be next financial bubble.
Next? Could Be?
What with the word "next"? Also what's with the words "could be"? Without a doubt student loans are in a bubble and have been for many years. The source of the problem, as it always is with financial bubbles, is cheap money, loans to nearly anyone, and in the case of student loans, no way to discharge the debt, even in bankruptcy.
From the article ...
"Student-loan debt has ballooned and may turn into a bubble," S&P said. "There are more defaults and downgrades for some student loan asset-backed securities."
Federal and private student-loan debt is approaching $1 trillion and surpassed credit-card debt for the first time in 2010, according to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.org, a college grant and loan website. Under U.S. law, student-loan debt -- unlike credit-card borrowings -- can rarely be discharged in bankruptcy court.
President Barack Obama last month proposed linking federal aid to a college's ability to control tuition costs. The plan calls for increasing campus-based aid only for schools that limit tuition-cost increases and penalizing those that don't.
The Next "Debt Bomb"
The Huffington Post says Student Loans Could Be America's Next "Debt Bomb"
Growing numbers of Americans are finding themselves bankrupt, with their college diplomas partially to blame.
Slightly more than 80 percent of bankruptcy attorneys say the number of their potential clients with student loan debt have increased "significantly" or "somewhat" in the past three to four years, according to a survey by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. And there's little hope those debtors will get out of their obligations; 95 percent of bankruptcy attorneys surveyed said that very few student loan debtors will be discharged from their loan as a result of undue hardship.
"Take it from those of us on the frontline of economic distress in America: This could very well be the next debt bomb for the U.S. economy," William E. Brewer, Jr., president of the NACBA said in a statement accompanying the survey.
With so many college graduates burdened with so much debt, the potential for bankruptcies is huge. Nearly 25 percent of bankruptcy attorneys said they've seen potential student loan client cases surge by 50 to more than 100 percent, according to the NACBA survey. That despite the number of Americans that filed for bankruptcy overall falling last year, according to The New York Times.
Americans that graduated college with loans in 2010 owe an average of about $25,000 -- a five percent boost from the year before, according to The Project on Student Debt. In addition, because they faced an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent upon graduation they're at a disadvantage when it comes to paying back the loans.
4 of 5 Bankruptcy Attorneys Report Major Jump in Student Loan Debtors Seeking Help
Inquiring minds may be interested in a link to Student Loan Survey taken by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA).
The NACBA survey of 860 bankruptcy attorneys nationwide found that:
More than four out of five bankruptcy attorneys (81 percent) say that potential clients with student loan debt have increased “significantly” or “somewhat” in the last three-four years. Overall, about half (48 percent) of bankruptcy attorneys reported significant increases in such potential clients.
Nearly two out of five of bankruptcy attorneys (39 percent) have seen potential student loan client cases jump 25-50 percent in the last three-four years. An additional quarter (23 percent) of bankruptcy attorneys have seen such cases jump by 50 percent to more than 100 percent.
Most bankruptcy attorneys (95 percent) report that few student loan debtors are seen as having any chance of obtaining a discharge as a result of undue hardship.
Titled “Student Loan ‘Debt Bomb’: America’s Next Mortgage-Style Economic Crisis,” the companion NACBA paper published today points out:
College seniors who graduated with student loans in 2010 owed an average of $25,250, up five percent from the previous year. Borrowing has grown far more quickly for those in the 35-49 age group, with school debt burden increasing by a staggering 47 percent.
Students are not alone in borrowing at record rates, so too are their parents. Loans to parents for the college education of children have jumped 75 percent since the 2005-2006 academic year. Parents have an average of $34,000 in student loans and that figure rises to about $50,000 over a standard 10-year loan repayment period. An estimated 17 percent of parents whose children graduated in 2010 took out loans, up from 5.6 percent in 1992-1993.
Of the Class of 2005 borrowers who began repayments the year they graduated, one analysis found 25 percent became delinquent at some point and 15 percent defaulted. The Chronicle of Education puts the default rate on government loans at 20 percent.
Obama's Misguided Plan to Fix the Problem
President Obama proposes to "fix" the problem by throwing more money at it. Instead, I propose the problem and solution is two-fold.
Two-Point Problem
Guaranteed loans of any kind are a huge problem. An even bigger problem is guaranteed loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Schools have every incentive to drive up costs and to make loans to kids who simply do not belong in school at all, as well as to kids whose benefit of education is far less than the cost of education.
Lack of competition. We need more accredited universities that can offer online programs, at far cheaper prices.
Two-Point Solution
Cancel the student loan program in entirety for new students and phase out student loans over the next three years for anyone already in such programs.
Accrediting some online education programs say from India, would certainly go a long way towards massively increasing competition and reducing costs. Obviously some classes need to be hands-on type (lab work), but I am sure that can easily be arranged in conjunction with local colleges.
My proposal would get government out of the student loan business where it does not belong, while increasing free-market competition to dramatically drive down prices.
Obama's solution is to throw more money at the problem.
Recent Rise in Non-Revolving Loans
By the way, the recent reported rise in non-revolving loans was entirely due to a huge rise in student loans, further increasing the size of the problem.
Please take a look at Consumer Credit "Demolishes Expectations" Really? No Not Really! The "Non-Bounce" in Non-Revolving Credit for some very interesting graphs and comments on the rise in student loans.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Mike Shedlock
Feb 13, 2012
It's interesting to watch some of the terms bandied about in headline news. For example, the LA Times headline reads S&P says student loan debt could be next financial bubble.
Next? Could Be?
What with the word "next"? Also what's with the words "could be"? Without a doubt student loans are in a bubble and have been for many years. The source of the problem, as it always is with financial bubbles, is cheap money, loans to nearly anyone, and in the case of student loans, no way to discharge the debt, even in bankruptcy.
From the article ...
"Student-loan debt has ballooned and may turn into a bubble," S&P said. "There are more defaults and downgrades for some student loan asset-backed securities."
Federal and private student-loan debt is approaching $1 trillion and surpassed credit-card debt for the first time in 2010, according to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.org, a college grant and loan website. Under U.S. law, student-loan debt -- unlike credit-card borrowings -- can rarely be discharged in bankruptcy court.
President Barack Obama last month proposed linking federal aid to a college's ability to control tuition costs. The plan calls for increasing campus-based aid only for schools that limit tuition-cost increases and penalizing those that don't.
The Next "Debt Bomb"
The Huffington Post says Student Loans Could Be America's Next "Debt Bomb"
Growing numbers of Americans are finding themselves bankrupt, with their college diplomas partially to blame.
Slightly more than 80 percent of bankruptcy attorneys say the number of their potential clients with student loan debt have increased "significantly" or "somewhat" in the past three to four years, according to a survey by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. And there's little hope those debtors will get out of their obligations; 95 percent of bankruptcy attorneys surveyed said that very few student loan debtors will be discharged from their loan as a result of undue hardship.
"Take it from those of us on the frontline of economic distress in America: This could very well be the next debt bomb for the U.S. economy," William E. Brewer, Jr., president of the NACBA said in a statement accompanying the survey.
With so many college graduates burdened with so much debt, the potential for bankruptcies is huge. Nearly 25 percent of bankruptcy attorneys said they've seen potential student loan client cases surge by 50 to more than 100 percent, according to the NACBA survey. That despite the number of Americans that filed for bankruptcy overall falling last year, according to The New York Times.
Americans that graduated college with loans in 2010 owe an average of about $25,000 -- a five percent boost from the year before, according to The Project on Student Debt. In addition, because they faced an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent upon graduation they're at a disadvantage when it comes to paying back the loans.
4 of 5 Bankruptcy Attorneys Report Major Jump in Student Loan Debtors Seeking Help
Inquiring minds may be interested in a link to Student Loan Survey taken by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA).
The NACBA survey of 860 bankruptcy attorneys nationwide found that:
More than four out of five bankruptcy attorneys (81 percent) say that potential clients with student loan debt have increased “significantly” or “somewhat” in the last three-four years. Overall, about half (48 percent) of bankruptcy attorneys reported significant increases in such potential clients.
Nearly two out of five of bankruptcy attorneys (39 percent) have seen potential student loan client cases jump 25-50 percent in the last three-four years. An additional quarter (23 percent) of bankruptcy attorneys have seen such cases jump by 50 percent to more than 100 percent.
Most bankruptcy attorneys (95 percent) report that few student loan debtors are seen as having any chance of obtaining a discharge as a result of undue hardship.
Titled “Student Loan ‘Debt Bomb’: America’s Next Mortgage-Style Economic Crisis,” the companion NACBA paper published today points out:
College seniors who graduated with student loans in 2010 owed an average of $25,250, up five percent from the previous year. Borrowing has grown far more quickly for those in the 35-49 age group, with school debt burden increasing by a staggering 47 percent.
Students are not alone in borrowing at record rates, so too are their parents. Loans to parents for the college education of children have jumped 75 percent since the 2005-2006 academic year. Parents have an average of $34,000 in student loans and that figure rises to about $50,000 over a standard 10-year loan repayment period. An estimated 17 percent of parents whose children graduated in 2010 took out loans, up from 5.6 percent in 1992-1993.
Of the Class of 2005 borrowers who began repayments the year they graduated, one analysis found 25 percent became delinquent at some point and 15 percent defaulted. The Chronicle of Education puts the default rate on government loans at 20 percent.
Obama's Misguided Plan to Fix the Problem
President Obama proposes to "fix" the problem by throwing more money at it. Instead, I propose the problem and solution is two-fold.
Two-Point Problem
Guaranteed loans of any kind are a huge problem. An even bigger problem is guaranteed loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Schools have every incentive to drive up costs and to make loans to kids who simply do not belong in school at all, as well as to kids whose benefit of education is far less than the cost of education.
Lack of competition. We need more accredited universities that can offer online programs, at far cheaper prices.
Two-Point Solution
Cancel the student loan program in entirety for new students and phase out student loans over the next three years for anyone already in such programs.
Accrediting some online education programs say from India, would certainly go a long way towards massively increasing competition and reducing costs. Obviously some classes need to be hands-on type (lab work), but I am sure that can easily be arranged in conjunction with local colleges.
My proposal would get government out of the student loan business where it does not belong, while increasing free-market competition to dramatically drive down prices.
Obama's solution is to throw more money at the problem.
Recent Rise in Non-Revolving Loans
By the way, the recent reported rise in non-revolving loans was entirely due to a huge rise in student loans, further increasing the size of the problem.
Please take a look at Consumer Credit "Demolishes Expectations" Really? No Not Really! The "Non-Bounce" in Non-Revolving Credit for some very interesting graphs and comments on the rise in student loans.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Why it should be Obama vs. Santorum
BY KYLE SCOTT
DURHAM -- Mitt Romney was the inevitable nominee - until he wasn't.
In order to sustain a lead, a candidate's message must resonate with the heart and the mind. Romney's cakewalk to the Republican presidential nomination has been stymied by the inability to get anyone excited about his campaign. He has supporters, but not believers.
Rick Santorum's message resonates with voters' hearts and minds, lately at least, because he is a true believer. He believes in his message and his message is consistent with core Republican values. What gave Santorum the edge in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri last week can give him an edge in the general election against President Barack Obama.
Santorum speaks directly to issues that are most relevant to core Republicans. He focuses on social and cultural issues that evoke emotions, and emotions move people to vote, especially those who align themselves with a particular party. This has helped him do well in primaries and caucuses when core conservatives turn out to vote in greater numbers than independents.
Conventional wisdom states a candidate must win independents to win an election. But this is only true if independents show up to vote in large numbers.
Generally, independents are less likely to vote than party-identifiers. In 2008, Obama's message and charisma evoked an emotional response from independents. But with the president failing to meet the expectations of many who he energized in 2008, turnout among this block of voters is expected to be small in 2012, which means winning independents will be less important.
When independents stay at home, getting the party base to turn out becomes more important. Santorum has been able to do this and Romney has not.
What pushed Santorum to the front in the most recent contests was his ability to stay above the bickering and negativity that took place between Romney and Newt Gingrich. Santorum is not as susceptible to personal attacks as he seems to have a clean personal life, as far as we know. This means to attack Santorum, one must attack his policy positions. This cannot be done in the GOP nomination process because to attack Santorum's policy positions would be to attack the Republican platform.
This wouldn't stop the president from criticizing Santorum's policy positions in the general election, but it also means we would see a campaign in which policy would have to be discussed in a meaningful way. Could we be so lucky?
If Gingrich wins the nomination, the Obama campaign will go after his personal life and his over-the-top persona. If Romney wins the right to go up against the president, the focus will be on his tax returns, flip-flopping and his work at Bain Capital.
But if Santorum wins the nomination, he and the president will be forced to defend their parties' view of what good government entails and which policies are best for the country. In other words, an Obama-Santorum matchup will focus on things that actually matter.
An election about issues is what this country needs. It may be too much to hope for, but it is a prospect we should all get excited about. To win the GOP nomination Santorum must find a way to keep his campaign positive and issue-focused. Not only will it help him win the nomination, but it is the right thing to do.
Kyle Scott teaches political science at Duke University.
DURHAM -- Mitt Romney was the inevitable nominee - until he wasn't.
In order to sustain a lead, a candidate's message must resonate with the heart and the mind. Romney's cakewalk to the Republican presidential nomination has been stymied by the inability to get anyone excited about his campaign. He has supporters, but not believers.
Rick Santorum's message resonates with voters' hearts and minds, lately at least, because he is a true believer. He believes in his message and his message is consistent with core Republican values. What gave Santorum the edge in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri last week can give him an edge in the general election against President Barack Obama.
Santorum speaks directly to issues that are most relevant to core Republicans. He focuses on social and cultural issues that evoke emotions, and emotions move people to vote, especially those who align themselves with a particular party. This has helped him do well in primaries and caucuses when core conservatives turn out to vote in greater numbers than independents.
Conventional wisdom states a candidate must win independents to win an election. But this is only true if independents show up to vote in large numbers.
Generally, independents are less likely to vote than party-identifiers. In 2008, Obama's message and charisma evoked an emotional response from independents. But with the president failing to meet the expectations of many who he energized in 2008, turnout among this block of voters is expected to be small in 2012, which means winning independents will be less important.
When independents stay at home, getting the party base to turn out becomes more important. Santorum has been able to do this and Romney has not.
What pushed Santorum to the front in the most recent contests was his ability to stay above the bickering and negativity that took place between Romney and Newt Gingrich. Santorum is not as susceptible to personal attacks as he seems to have a clean personal life, as far as we know. This means to attack Santorum, one must attack his policy positions. This cannot be done in the GOP nomination process because to attack Santorum's policy positions would be to attack the Republican platform.
This wouldn't stop the president from criticizing Santorum's policy positions in the general election, but it also means we would see a campaign in which policy would have to be discussed in a meaningful way. Could we be so lucky?
If Gingrich wins the nomination, the Obama campaign will go after his personal life and his over-the-top persona. If Romney wins the right to go up against the president, the focus will be on his tax returns, flip-flopping and his work at Bain Capital.
But if Santorum wins the nomination, he and the president will be forced to defend their parties' view of what good government entails and which policies are best for the country. In other words, an Obama-Santorum matchup will focus on things that actually matter.
An election about issues is what this country needs. It may be too much to hope for, but it is a prospect we should all get excited about. To win the GOP nomination Santorum must find a way to keep his campaign positive and issue-focused. Not only will it help him win the nomination, but it is the right thing to do.
Kyle Scott teaches political science at Duke University.
Romney's Santorum problem: no easy targets
PORTLAND, Maine (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has a Rick Santorum problem that can't be easily swept aside, even with wins in the sparsely attended Maine caucuses and a poll of conservative activists.
The former Massachusetts governor arguably has fewer effective weapons against Santorum than he was able to pull out against Newt Gingrich after getting a thumping in South Carolina from the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
As they battled for the 2012 Republican nomination, Romney attacked Gingrich on several fronts, scoring a big hit with ads focused on Gingrich's ethics violations in Congress.
The attacks helped carry Romney to front-runner status in the race to face Democratic President Barack Obama in November -
until Santorum roared back into the winner's circle with three victories last week in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.
But his criticism of the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania has been confined to subjects like his support for spending bills and local spending projects known as earmarks.
It would be difficult for Romney to find a foothold in using social issues against Santorum, a Catholic veteran of the American culture wars who has prayed on the floor of the U.S. Senate and whose campaign events are often dubbed part of a "Faith, Family and Freedom" tour.
Santorum and Gingrich have been vying for the "true conservative" mantle to lure more conservative Republican primary voters who mistrust Romney as too moderate.
By contrast, Romney has essentially staked his White House big on one selling point: jobs.
Recently, Romney, along with his rivals, has sharpened his rhetoric in the controversy that is pitting Catholic bishops against the Obama administration over birth control.
The former venture capitalist made a mini-comeback on Saturday with a 39 percent victory in Maine's caucuses, beating U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by a few hundred votes in a poorly attended contest. Romney also won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll that day.
Santorum brushed off the straw poll victory, accusing Romney on CNN of "buying" his 7-point win. The New York Times reported that the Romney campaign bussed in students from local colleges, an evergreen tactic at straw polls from Iowa to Washington.
Santorum also embraced his third-place finish in Maine. "We ended up with 18 percent, really having not appeared up there or done anything," he said on ABC's "This Week."
"BEATING THE TAR OUT OF HIS OPPONENTS"
Romney has the money to fund a campaign of negative ads against Santorum similar to the hardball policy used against Gingrich in Florida's primary last month.
The Romney campaign and "Restore Our Future," the Super PAC supporting him, spent an estimated $15 million on TV ads in Florida to tear down Gingrich after his South Carolina win.
"He's been able to win in these early primary states by, you know, beating the tar out of his opponents by four- and five-to-one on television," Santorum said on ABC.
The next test will come at the February 28 primary in Michigan where Romney's father was a three-term governor.
Romney's attacks have been centered on Santorum's Senate legislative record, including support for spending earmarks and votes to raise the debt ceiling. That tactic may not be a dealbreaker for some of the conservatives Christians and others now flocking to Santorum's campaign.
A national poll on Saturday by Public Policy Polling showed Santorum at 38 percent to Romney's 23 percent, 17 percent for Gingrich, and 13 percent for Paul.
"Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity," the group said. "But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich."
Romney's favorability was barely above water at 44 percent to 43 percent, a 23-point net decline from December, suggesting his response to releasing his tax returns, negative campaigning and other missteps are hurting his image.
The polling institute said Santorum was "completely dominating" the most right-leaning Republicans.
The former senator faced questions on ABC on Sunday about his book "It Takes a Family" where he seemed to suggest women were pressurized by radical feminists to work outside the home.
Years before the current Catholic birth control controversy, Santorum said that contraceptives harm women and society. He has also enraged the gay community, as recently as January, by equating same-sex marriage with polygamy.
Santorum's conservative credentials may land him in trouble in a larger, more diverse electorate, but for the voters who typically turn out for Republican primaries, he seems to be hitting a sweet spot.
Susan Wiswell, 56, of Kittery, a nurse who said social issues should be more prominent in the national discourse, voted for Santorum in the Maine caucus.
"He's a consistent conservative both on fiscal and social issues as well. He's very clean-cut. It would be hard for Obama to smear him. He's just a very solid, modest individual that I could trust," Wiswell said.
(Editing by Doina Chiacu)
The former Massachusetts governor arguably has fewer effective weapons against Santorum than he was able to pull out against Newt Gingrich after getting a thumping in South Carolina from the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
As they battled for the 2012 Republican nomination, Romney attacked Gingrich on several fronts, scoring a big hit with ads focused on Gingrich's ethics violations in Congress.
The attacks helped carry Romney to front-runner status in the race to face Democratic President Barack Obama in November -
until Santorum roared back into the winner's circle with three victories last week in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.
But his criticism of the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania has been confined to subjects like his support for spending bills and local spending projects known as earmarks.
It would be difficult for Romney to find a foothold in using social issues against Santorum, a Catholic veteran of the American culture wars who has prayed on the floor of the U.S. Senate and whose campaign events are often dubbed part of a "Faith, Family and Freedom" tour.
Santorum and Gingrich have been vying for the "true conservative" mantle to lure more conservative Republican primary voters who mistrust Romney as too moderate.
By contrast, Romney has essentially staked his White House big on one selling point: jobs.
Recently, Romney, along with his rivals, has sharpened his rhetoric in the controversy that is pitting Catholic bishops against the Obama administration over birth control.
The former venture capitalist made a mini-comeback on Saturday with a 39 percent victory in Maine's caucuses, beating U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by a few hundred votes in a poorly attended contest. Romney also won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll that day.
Santorum brushed off the straw poll victory, accusing Romney on CNN of "buying" his 7-point win. The New York Times reported that the Romney campaign bussed in students from local colleges, an evergreen tactic at straw polls from Iowa to Washington.
Santorum also embraced his third-place finish in Maine. "We ended up with 18 percent, really having not appeared up there or done anything," he said on ABC's "This Week."
"BEATING THE TAR OUT OF HIS OPPONENTS"
Romney has the money to fund a campaign of negative ads against Santorum similar to the hardball policy used against Gingrich in Florida's primary last month.
The Romney campaign and "Restore Our Future," the Super PAC supporting him, spent an estimated $15 million on TV ads in Florida to tear down Gingrich after his South Carolina win.
"He's been able to win in these early primary states by, you know, beating the tar out of his opponents by four- and five-to-one on television," Santorum said on ABC.
The next test will come at the February 28 primary in Michigan where Romney's father was a three-term governor.
Romney's attacks have been centered on Santorum's Senate legislative record, including support for spending earmarks and votes to raise the debt ceiling. That tactic may not be a dealbreaker for some of the conservatives Christians and others now flocking to Santorum's campaign.
A national poll on Saturday by Public Policy Polling showed Santorum at 38 percent to Romney's 23 percent, 17 percent for Gingrich, and 13 percent for Paul.
"Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity," the group said. "But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich."
Romney's favorability was barely above water at 44 percent to 43 percent, a 23-point net decline from December, suggesting his response to releasing his tax returns, negative campaigning and other missteps are hurting his image.
The polling institute said Santorum was "completely dominating" the most right-leaning Republicans.
The former senator faced questions on ABC on Sunday about his book "It Takes a Family" where he seemed to suggest women were pressurized by radical feminists to work outside the home.
Years before the current Catholic birth control controversy, Santorum said that contraceptives harm women and society. He has also enraged the gay community, as recently as January, by equating same-sex marriage with polygamy.
Santorum's conservative credentials may land him in trouble in a larger, more diverse electorate, but for the voters who typically turn out for Republican primaries, he seems to be hitting a sweet spot.
Susan Wiswell, 56, of Kittery, a nurse who said social issues should be more prominent in the national discourse, voted for Santorum in the Maine caucus.
"He's a consistent conservative both on fiscal and social issues as well. He's very clean-cut. It would be hard for Obama to smear him. He's just a very solid, modest individual that I could trust," Wiswell said.
(Editing by Doina Chiacu)
WA Senate passes $100 annual electric car fee
Updated 05:26 p.m., Saturday, February 11, 2012
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington state Senate has passed a bill to charge electric car owners a $100 annual fee to compensate for the lack of gas taxes they pay.
Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, the Camano Island Democrat who sponsored the bill, says while electric cars are good for the environment, they put the same wear and tear on the state's roads that gas vehicles do.
The same bill passed in the Senate last year but failed in the House.
Washington's gas tax stands at 37.5 cents per gallon, and is the state's largest source of transportation dollars.
The bill does not apply to hybrid vehicles or to those that don't exceed 35 mph.
The bill passed Saturday on a 31-16 vote and goes next to the House.
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington state Senate has passed a bill to charge electric car owners a $100 annual fee to compensate for the lack of gas taxes they pay.
Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, the Camano Island Democrat who sponsored the bill, says while electric cars are good for the environment, they put the same wear and tear on the state's roads that gas vehicles do.
The same bill passed in the Senate last year but failed in the House.
Washington's gas tax stands at 37.5 cents per gallon, and is the state's largest source of transportation dollars.
The bill does not apply to hybrid vehicles or to those that don't exceed 35 mph.
The bill passed Saturday on a 31-16 vote and goes next to the House.
Which Is Anti-Immigrant, Arizona or California?
Which Is Anti-Immigrant, Arizona or California?
By David C. Stolinsky
February 13, 2012
If you relied on the mainstream media, you would conclude that Arizona is anti-immigrant, while California is pro-immigrant. You would conclude that Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer must hate immigrants. After all, she signed SB-1070, which requires police to refer illegal immigrants to Immigration if they are arrested for other crimes. The law was passed after illegals committed a series of crimes, culminating in the murder of well-known rancher Robert Krentz, a man who went out of his way to help others.
But Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown would never sign such a law, and the Democratic California legislature would never pass it. Besides, many Arizonans agitate for better border enforcement by the federal government, while fewer Californians seem concerned with this problem.
So at first glance, Arizona seems anti-immigrant, while California seems pro-immigrant. But if we look more deeply, we might come to another conclusion. First of all, we need definitions of “anti-immigrant” and “pro-immigrant.”
Is it “anti-immigrant” to insist that immigration laws be enforced by the federal government? Or is this simply remembering that the Constitution requires that the president “…shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” Not “may” but “shall.” It’s mandatory, not optional. The president − and the executive branch he heads − have no power to choose which laws they will enforce. A president who had that power would be a dictator.
Those who object to immigration laws have the obligation to petition Congress to amend them. Urging that these laws be ignored is an invitation for the government to ignore other laws as well − perhaps laws you depend on. A government that ignores laws whenever it pleases loses the respect of the people. The anger of Arizonans is an early manifestation of that fact. Arizona is neither anti-immigrant nor pro-immigrant − it is pro-law.
That brings us to California. A recent source of controversy is the law that when a driver is stopped for a traffic violation and has no license, the car can be impounded for 30 days. The law was passed by the Democratic legislature to deal with the epidemic of unlicensed, uninsured drivers.
But “pro-immigrant” groups point out that impounding the vehicle of an illegal immigrant will impair his ability to work and support his family. Yes, and impounding the vehicle of a citizen or a legal immigrant will have precisely the same effect. But Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa prevailed on Police Chief Beck to amend the policy. If the unlicensed driver is an illegal immigrant, he has the option to call a licensed driver to take his car away, so that it will not be impounded. That is, another law will be enforced or not at the whim of those in power.
This policy will help illegals to keep their jobs − which are illegal for them to have in the first place. But what will the policy do to the way illegals are viewed by the general public? Rather than being an unfortunate group deserving of sympathy, some people will now see them as a privileged group deserving of anger. Ordinary people have to go through the hassle and expense of renewing their license and registration, getting smog checks, and buying insurance − which is more expensive because of uninsured drivers. But when the law-abiding citizen’s car is rear-ended by an unlicensed, uninsured driver, that anger may manifest itself.
Poor immigrants deserve sympathy. Yes, but do illegal immigrants deserve more sympathy than legal immigrants? Public hospitals and public schools in California, and all the Southwest, are overcrowded. Immigrants deserve humane health care, and their children deserve decent educations. But how, exactly, are we meeting these obligations? Not too well.
In the 1960s, the L.A. County-USC Medical Center had about 1200 beds − and Los Angeles had about one million fewer people. In recent years, the hospital had shrunk to 800 beds, and the old building was replaced with a new one with 600 beds. That is, the “pro-immigrant” rulers of Los Angeles reduced the number of public-hospital beds by 25% − at the same time that they encourage a continuing influx of immigrants.
The same holds for schools. But here, we deal not only with overcrowding, but also with appalling behavior that would never be tolerated in the upscale public or private schools where the “elite” sent their children.
Consider Miramonte Elementary School. A teacher has been accused of sexual child abuse since 1994, but he remained in the classroom. A few years ago, a teacher’s aide was convicted of sexual child abuse and sent to prison. More recently, a female teacher’s aide in her fifties sent love notes to a student. She was transferred to another school. Finally, yet another teacher was arrested for sexual child abuse − the fourth member of the teaching staff to be accused by children who never met one another, but who tell similar stories. Lawsuits will cost the school district millions, further depleting funds needed for education.
This school is located in an area where most residents are immigrants, some illegal, from Mexico and Central America. They were afraid to call the police and told only the principal and a counselor, who did nothing. Years passed until the situation was brought to light − by a photo clerk at a drugstore.
This is one school, but is it an isolated incident? I believe it is part of a pattern of modern peonage − a kinder, gentler, more progressive peonage, but peonage nonetheless. The process is as follows:
1. Pretend to do something about border security. Build half a fence. Raid a few businesses that hire illegals. But really do as little as possible. On the contrary, punish border patrol officers who vigorously enforce the law.
2. Build a new public hospital to show off to visitors, but make sure it has 25% fewer beds. Spend taxpayers’ money to benefit contractors, not to benefit patients. Turn the older, larger hospital into offices for bureaucrats. More paper-shufflers, fewer patients − the bureaucrat’s dream. (ObamaCare, anyone?)
3. Build a few lavish public schools to show off to visitors, but not nearly enough for the children of the immigrants you let in. In one case, a high school cost over one-quarter billion dollars, while other students lacked textbooks and clean water, or even any water.
4. Make sure that the schools have Aztec-style murals, that the schools observe Cinco de Mayo, and that bilingual classes continue for all 12 years. The object is to produce manual workers (some named Manuel) who are subservient, have limited English skills, and always vote Democratic − but who have little sense of being Americans.
5. Ensnare immigrants from Latin America into recreating the conditions from which they escaped − deficient schools, corrupt politicians, and a rigid class system from which it is difficult to escape. How “pro-immigrant” is that?
Now Los Angeles may cancel all adult education because of lack of money. This would remove the only resource 350,000 adults have to learn the English and computer skills they need to get good jobs. But those who keep immigrants in an underclass still portray themselves as “pro-immigrant.”
In fact, many people are pro-immigration but anti-immigrant. That is, they favor unlimited immigration, but then do nothing for the immigrants − or for those the immigrants affect adversely. If you cook, you will find many recipes that say, “Add ingredients slowly while stirring.” You will find no recipes that say, “Dump ingredients into pot without stirring.” That is sure to produce a nasty mess.
America doesn’t just have immigrants. America is immigrants. No one appreciates freedom like someone who grew up without it. But freedom requires people who are educated to be free, not to be members of a subservient underclass.
The truly pro-immigrant are those who want to allow in only the number of immigrants we can accommodate, and then assure that they have adequate public hospitals and public schools. Pro-immigrant is as pro-immigrant does.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com
By David C. Stolinsky
February 13, 2012
If you relied on the mainstream media, you would conclude that Arizona is anti-immigrant, while California is pro-immigrant. You would conclude that Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer must hate immigrants. After all, she signed SB-1070, which requires police to refer illegal immigrants to Immigration if they are arrested for other crimes. The law was passed after illegals committed a series of crimes, culminating in the murder of well-known rancher Robert Krentz, a man who went out of his way to help others.
But Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown would never sign such a law, and the Democratic California legislature would never pass it. Besides, many Arizonans agitate for better border enforcement by the federal government, while fewer Californians seem concerned with this problem.
So at first glance, Arizona seems anti-immigrant, while California seems pro-immigrant. But if we look more deeply, we might come to another conclusion. First of all, we need definitions of “anti-immigrant” and “pro-immigrant.”
Is it “anti-immigrant” to insist that immigration laws be enforced by the federal government? Or is this simply remembering that the Constitution requires that the president “…shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” Not “may” but “shall.” It’s mandatory, not optional. The president − and the executive branch he heads − have no power to choose which laws they will enforce. A president who had that power would be a dictator.
Those who object to immigration laws have the obligation to petition Congress to amend them. Urging that these laws be ignored is an invitation for the government to ignore other laws as well − perhaps laws you depend on. A government that ignores laws whenever it pleases loses the respect of the people. The anger of Arizonans is an early manifestation of that fact. Arizona is neither anti-immigrant nor pro-immigrant − it is pro-law.
That brings us to California. A recent source of controversy is the law that when a driver is stopped for a traffic violation and has no license, the car can be impounded for 30 days. The law was passed by the Democratic legislature to deal with the epidemic of unlicensed, uninsured drivers.
But “pro-immigrant” groups point out that impounding the vehicle of an illegal immigrant will impair his ability to work and support his family. Yes, and impounding the vehicle of a citizen or a legal immigrant will have precisely the same effect. But Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa prevailed on Police Chief Beck to amend the policy. If the unlicensed driver is an illegal immigrant, he has the option to call a licensed driver to take his car away, so that it will not be impounded. That is, another law will be enforced or not at the whim of those in power.
This policy will help illegals to keep their jobs − which are illegal for them to have in the first place. But what will the policy do to the way illegals are viewed by the general public? Rather than being an unfortunate group deserving of sympathy, some people will now see them as a privileged group deserving of anger. Ordinary people have to go through the hassle and expense of renewing their license and registration, getting smog checks, and buying insurance − which is more expensive because of uninsured drivers. But when the law-abiding citizen’s car is rear-ended by an unlicensed, uninsured driver, that anger may manifest itself.
Poor immigrants deserve sympathy. Yes, but do illegal immigrants deserve more sympathy than legal immigrants? Public hospitals and public schools in California, and all the Southwest, are overcrowded. Immigrants deserve humane health care, and their children deserve decent educations. But how, exactly, are we meeting these obligations? Not too well.
In the 1960s, the L.A. County-USC Medical Center had about 1200 beds − and Los Angeles had about one million fewer people. In recent years, the hospital had shrunk to 800 beds, and the old building was replaced with a new one with 600 beds. That is, the “pro-immigrant” rulers of Los Angeles reduced the number of public-hospital beds by 25% − at the same time that they encourage a continuing influx of immigrants.
The same holds for schools. But here, we deal not only with overcrowding, but also with appalling behavior that would never be tolerated in the upscale public or private schools where the “elite” sent their children.
Consider Miramonte Elementary School. A teacher has been accused of sexual child abuse since 1994, but he remained in the classroom. A few years ago, a teacher’s aide was convicted of sexual child abuse and sent to prison. More recently, a female teacher’s aide in her fifties sent love notes to a student. She was transferred to another school. Finally, yet another teacher was arrested for sexual child abuse − the fourth member of the teaching staff to be accused by children who never met one another, but who tell similar stories. Lawsuits will cost the school district millions, further depleting funds needed for education.
This school is located in an area where most residents are immigrants, some illegal, from Mexico and Central America. They were afraid to call the police and told only the principal and a counselor, who did nothing. Years passed until the situation was brought to light − by a photo clerk at a drugstore.
This is one school, but is it an isolated incident? I believe it is part of a pattern of modern peonage − a kinder, gentler, more progressive peonage, but peonage nonetheless. The process is as follows:
1. Pretend to do something about border security. Build half a fence. Raid a few businesses that hire illegals. But really do as little as possible. On the contrary, punish border patrol officers who vigorously enforce the law.
2. Build a new public hospital to show off to visitors, but make sure it has 25% fewer beds. Spend taxpayers’ money to benefit contractors, not to benefit patients. Turn the older, larger hospital into offices for bureaucrats. More paper-shufflers, fewer patients − the bureaucrat’s dream. (ObamaCare, anyone?)
3. Build a few lavish public schools to show off to visitors, but not nearly enough for the children of the immigrants you let in. In one case, a high school cost over one-quarter billion dollars, while other students lacked textbooks and clean water, or even any water.
4. Make sure that the schools have Aztec-style murals, that the schools observe Cinco de Mayo, and that bilingual classes continue for all 12 years. The object is to produce manual workers (some named Manuel) who are subservient, have limited English skills, and always vote Democratic − but who have little sense of being Americans.
5. Ensnare immigrants from Latin America into recreating the conditions from which they escaped − deficient schools, corrupt politicians, and a rigid class system from which it is difficult to escape. How “pro-immigrant” is that?
Now Los Angeles may cancel all adult education because of lack of money. This would remove the only resource 350,000 adults have to learn the English and computer skills they need to get good jobs. But those who keep immigrants in an underclass still portray themselves as “pro-immigrant.”
In fact, many people are pro-immigration but anti-immigrant. That is, they favor unlimited immigration, but then do nothing for the immigrants − or for those the immigrants affect adversely. If you cook, you will find many recipes that say, “Add ingredients slowly while stirring.” You will find no recipes that say, “Dump ingredients into pot without stirring.” That is sure to produce a nasty mess.
America doesn’t just have immigrants. America is immigrants. No one appreciates freedom like someone who grew up without it. But freedom requires people who are educated to be free, not to be members of a subservient underclass.
The truly pro-immigrant are those who want to allow in only the number of immigrants we can accommodate, and then assure that they have adequate public hospitals and public schools. Pro-immigrant is as pro-immigrant does.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com
George Soros and his Fascist Tendencies
Notes From Underground
Yes, I know Athens is burning as some of the more violent demonstrators threw some Molotov cocktails and the media was given some photo ops so the situation can be understood by those too involved with life’s challenges to read. If that sounds acerbic it is because I have been writing about the Greek debt crisis since December of 2009 when the Chinese investment funds reneged on a promise to purchase $25 Billion of Greek bonds and the debt crisis was in full swing. Again, Athens may be the present battleground but the political and financial games are being played out in Paris and Berlin and of course in the offices of the IMF.
The Greeks will get their money so that the French banks don’t have a credit crisis prior to France’s elections that begin in late April. I am not minimizing the PAIN that the AUSTERITY PROGRAM is causing the average Greek citizen, but the pain is going to come one way or another. George Soros again lays the pain in Greece with German Chancellor Merkel. It is amazing that Soros, a student of Karl Popper, has so little respect for the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Soros has been a long time cheerleader of the EU, hoping that a strong EUROPE would be a monetary and diplomatic counterweight to U.S. global supremacy. In an article to be published Monday in Der Spiegel, Soros claims that Merkel is leading Europe down the wrong path.
“Rather than simply forcing troubled governments to save, Euro-Zone leaders should also boost growth in those states with capital injections.” Soros goes on to explain that if there are not huge capital infusions, meaning TRANSFER PAYMENTS FROM GERMAN CITIZENS, “…we will repeat the mistakes that led America into the Great Depression in 1929. Angela Merkel simply doesn’t understand that.”
What Soros fails to accept is that Germany is a democratic country and is bound by rules of law. If the German Chancellor overreaches her authority on the EU, the German Constitutional Court (GCC) will have its say–as will the Bavarian Burghers. Soros conveniently forgets that Merkel’s party suffered several regional election defeats, which forced her to change tactics and take a tougher stance on the European bailouts. It is not that Merkel doesn’t understand. It is that unlike the GLOBAL PHILOSOPHER KING, the German Chancellor is held accountable. Those who would override the rule of law for political expediency are FASCISTS. That much should be understood. Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave.
***In tomorrow’s Financial Times there is a story that CHINA has told its banks to roll over loans that were made to regional governments as part of the large Chinese stimulus program that was enacted to counteract the 2008 Global Recession. The Chinese government has told the regulators to not pressure the banks and to allow “regulatory forbearance to extend the duration of the loans by up to four years.” The Chinese claim they need more time say as to work through the problems of overextended regional and city balance sheets.
This is why it is so difficult to get a handle on what is really happening in China and it is important to examine all data with a very critical eye. The total amount of loans made to regional and local governments to fund infrastructure projects was on the order of $1.7 trillion, a huge number relative to the size of the economy. The markets will applaud this extend and pretend model for it will prevent a near-term hard landing.
***Just a quick hit on the housing bailout plan worked out by the Justice Department, 49 States Attorney Generals and the TOO BIG TO FAIL banks. It is so complex so I don’t really know what to make of it, but the criticism most often hear is that the TBTF BANKS got the best of the deal and BOND HOLDERS and PENSION FUNDS got the worst of it. The mortgages will be written down but owners of first and second mortgages will share the loss rather than the HOME EQUITY LOANS BEING REDUCED/OR WIPED OUT, as would generally be the case.
Again, the Geithner group has prevailed and softened the blow for the banks. The bondholders will be forced to take some hit but they would be hit even bigger in a massive REFI. The Obama group should just REFI all mortgages for as I have argued, that would be a much more significant stimulus. The BOND HOLDERS should not really be upset for ultimately TARP bailed out the BOND HOLDERS by not allowing a massive meltdown of the entire housing market and rendering the entire MBS market a massive default.
Bloomberg’s Kathleen Hays has a guest on her radio show Friday, Feb. 10, who explained how the BOND and MBS holders were to take a hit and the banks get off easy. I failed to catch the guest’s name but he had the line of the year in explaining the agreement’s outcome:
“IN WASHINGTON IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE YOU ARE PROBABLY ON THE MENU.”
Think about that for a moment and understand who is not at the table…
Yes, I know Athens is burning as some of the more violent demonstrators threw some Molotov cocktails and the media was given some photo ops so the situation can be understood by those too involved with life’s challenges to read. If that sounds acerbic it is because I have been writing about the Greek debt crisis since December of 2009 when the Chinese investment funds reneged on a promise to purchase $25 Billion of Greek bonds and the debt crisis was in full swing. Again, Athens may be the present battleground but the political and financial games are being played out in Paris and Berlin and of course in the offices of the IMF.
The Greeks will get their money so that the French banks don’t have a credit crisis prior to France’s elections that begin in late April. I am not minimizing the PAIN that the AUSTERITY PROGRAM is causing the average Greek citizen, but the pain is going to come one way or another. George Soros again lays the pain in Greece with German Chancellor Merkel. It is amazing that Soros, a student of Karl Popper, has so little respect for the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Soros has been a long time cheerleader of the EU, hoping that a strong EUROPE would be a monetary and diplomatic counterweight to U.S. global supremacy. In an article to be published Monday in Der Spiegel, Soros claims that Merkel is leading Europe down the wrong path.
“Rather than simply forcing troubled governments to save, Euro-Zone leaders should also boost growth in those states with capital injections.” Soros goes on to explain that if there are not huge capital infusions, meaning TRANSFER PAYMENTS FROM GERMAN CITIZENS, “…we will repeat the mistakes that led America into the Great Depression in 1929. Angela Merkel simply doesn’t understand that.”
What Soros fails to accept is that Germany is a democratic country and is bound by rules of law. If the German Chancellor overreaches her authority on the EU, the German Constitutional Court (GCC) will have its say–as will the Bavarian Burghers. Soros conveniently forgets that Merkel’s party suffered several regional election defeats, which forced her to change tactics and take a tougher stance on the European bailouts. It is not that Merkel doesn’t understand. It is that unlike the GLOBAL PHILOSOPHER KING, the German Chancellor is held accountable. Those who would override the rule of law for political expediency are FASCISTS. That much should be understood. Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave.
***In tomorrow’s Financial Times there is a story that CHINA has told its banks to roll over loans that were made to regional governments as part of the large Chinese stimulus program that was enacted to counteract the 2008 Global Recession. The Chinese government has told the regulators to not pressure the banks and to allow “regulatory forbearance to extend the duration of the loans by up to four years.” The Chinese claim they need more time say as to work through the problems of overextended regional and city balance sheets.
This is why it is so difficult to get a handle on what is really happening in China and it is important to examine all data with a very critical eye. The total amount of loans made to regional and local governments to fund infrastructure projects was on the order of $1.7 trillion, a huge number relative to the size of the economy. The markets will applaud this extend and pretend model for it will prevent a near-term hard landing.
***Just a quick hit on the housing bailout plan worked out by the Justice Department, 49 States Attorney Generals and the TOO BIG TO FAIL banks. It is so complex so I don’t really know what to make of it, but the criticism most often hear is that the TBTF BANKS got the best of the deal and BOND HOLDERS and PENSION FUNDS got the worst of it. The mortgages will be written down but owners of first and second mortgages will share the loss rather than the HOME EQUITY LOANS BEING REDUCED/OR WIPED OUT, as would generally be the case.
Again, the Geithner group has prevailed and softened the blow for the banks. The bondholders will be forced to take some hit but they would be hit even bigger in a massive REFI. The Obama group should just REFI all mortgages for as I have argued, that would be a much more significant stimulus. The BOND HOLDERS should not really be upset for ultimately TARP bailed out the BOND HOLDERS by not allowing a massive meltdown of the entire housing market and rendering the entire MBS market a massive default.
Bloomberg’s Kathleen Hays has a guest on her radio show Friday, Feb. 10, who explained how the BOND and MBS holders were to take a hit and the banks get off easy. I failed to catch the guest’s name but he had the line of the year in explaining the agreement’s outcome:
“IN WASHINGTON IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE YOU ARE PROBABLY ON THE MENU.”
Think about that for a moment and understand who is not at the table…
Inside Media Matters: Erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations
Daily Caller:
02/12/2012
This is the first in a Daily Caller investigative series on Media Matters For America. Daily Caller reporters Alex Pappas and Will Rahn contributed to this report.
David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.
Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.
The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.
“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.
Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.
Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.
Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.
Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”
The group scored its first significant public coup in 2007 with the firing of host Don Imus from MSNBC. Just before Easter that year, a Media Matters employee recorded Imus’s now-famous attack on the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and immediately recognized its inflammatory potential. The organization swung into action, notifying organizations like the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, all of which joined the fight.
Over the course of a week, Media Matters mobilized more than 50 people to work full-time adding fuel to the Imus story. Researchers searched the massive Media Matters database for controversial statements Imus had made over the years. The group issued press release after press release. Brock personally called the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message. By the end of the week, Imus was fired.
NEXT: How Media Matters targets network anchors, while avoiding taking credit
Media Matters soon became more sophisticated in its campaigns against non-liberal cable news anchors. Lou Dobbs, then of CNN, was a frequent target.
“As part of the Drop Dobbs campaign,” explains one internal memo prepared for fundraising, “Media Matters produced and was prepared to run an advertisement against Ford Motor Company on Spanish Language stations in Houston, San Antonio, and other cities targeting its top selling product, pick-up trucks, in its top truck buying markets.”
Ford pulled its advertising from Dobbs’s program before the television ad aired, but Media Matters kept up its efforts, working primarily with Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and with the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other self-described civil rights groups.
In November of 2009, Dobbs left CNN. “We got him fired,” says one staffer flatly.
“Certainly Media Matters deserves a lot of credit for the work they did,” Nogales said in an interview. “They’re very effective.”
Glenn Beck, the former Fox News Channel host, drew the ire of a wide spectrum of liberal groups while his program aired nationally. But according to several people who watched the process from the inside, it was Media Matters that orchestrated much of the opposition to Beck.
“We called it ‘fingerprint coverage,’” explains one former staffer, “where you know it was the result of your work.” As an example, he cites the left-wing group Color of Change, co-founded by the controversial former White House “green jobs” czar Van Jones, which received much of the credit for pressuring advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Beck’s show. But in fact, he says, Media Matters developed the campaign that cowed Beck’s sponsors.
Media Matters, according to its 2010 tax filing, gave a $200,000 grant to Citizen Engagement Laboratory, Color of Change’s parent group. The purpose of the grant, according to the document, was for a “campaign to expose Glenn Beck’s racist rhetoric in an effort to educate advertisers about the practices on his show.”
High profile though these victories against conservatives were, Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands of liberal journalists. “In ‘08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” says one source. “They were using our research to write their stories. They were eager to use our stuff.” Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls.
Stories about Fox News were especially well received by MSNBC anchors and executives: “If we published something about Fox in the morning, they’d have it on the air that night verbatim.”
But MSNBC executives weren’t the only ones talking regularly to Media Matters.
NEXT: Sources reveal reporters, bloggers among those who lean on Media Matters
“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”
“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.
Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.
“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”
“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”
“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”
Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.
Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”
A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.
It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”
NEXT: Media Matters' weekly call... with the White House
Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.
Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.
In the past several years, Media Matters has focused much of its considerable energy on the Fox News Channel. The network, declares one internal memo, “is the de facto leader of the GOP and it is long past time that it was treated as such by the media, elected officials, and the public.” At the end of September 2009, Burns made the case publicly in an interview on MSNBC.
Fox, he said, “is a political organization, and their aim is to destroy a progressive policy agenda.”
Less than a month later, in language that could have been copied directly from a Media Matters press release, White House communications director Anita Dunn leveled almost precisely the same charge, dismissing Fox as “more a wing of the Republican Party.”
Were the lines of attack coordinated? “To my knowledge, there wasn’t coordination,” says a source. But at times there has seemed to be a kind of mind meld between the Obama political team and Media Matters.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, author Jerome Corsi wrote a highly critical book about the Democratic candidate, titled “The Obama Nation.” The Obama campaign responded immediately with a detailed memo. The title of that memo, “Unfit For Publication” (a play on Corsi’s 2004 book, “Unfit for Command,” about then-presidential candidate Senator John Kerry), was the same title used by Media Matters just weeks before in a similar memo about the same book.
The irony of Brock’s relationship with the White House is that at certain points he has been openly hostile to Barack Obama, especially in conversations in social settings. Described by some who know him as a passionate and emotional Hillary Clinton supporter, many Democrats believe Brock maintained regular contact with the highest levels of Clinton’s campaign and its advisers.
As late as 2010, Brock was still exchanging personal emails with longtime Hillary Clinton consigliore Sidney Blumenthal, in which the two seemed to grouse about Obama and bond over their shared connection to Hillary.
The intensity of the 2008 campaign, say those who knew Brock at the time, seemed to exacerbate his bouts of what appeared to be mania, a condition from which he had apparently suffered for some time. In 2002, the Drudge Report reported that Brock had “suffered a breakdown” the year before and was treated in the psychiatric ward of Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington.
NEXT: Brock's behavior becomes a problem
During a 2008 meeting of the left-wing umbrella group Democracy Alliance outside San Diego, Brock’s unusual behavior drew considerable attention. According to a fellow attendee, “David completely lost his shit. He started getting incredibly aggressive. He alienated important people in the progressive movement, like John Podesta [of the Center for American Progress] and Anna Burger [of the Service Employees International Union]. Lots of drama. There were a lot of conversations about David’s mental health.”
Two years later, at another Democracy Alliance meeting shortly after the 2010 election, Brock behaved in a way one prominent liberal who was there described as “erratic, unstable and disturbing.” Brock’s aggression, this person said, was “hard to ignore and noticed by a number of people,” generating “quite a bit of concern” about his condition. A number of demonstrably odd media appearances Brock made around this time only reinforced those concerns.
All of this, sources say, has caused anxiety for prominent Democrats. Brock’s profile has risen recently, mostly due to American Bridge 21st Century, the political action committee he founded and runs. Brock boasted loudly and in public that American Bridge would be an answer to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads GPS, a claim some found unsettlingly grandiose.
At some point, Brock received a prescription for his condition. “Some days he’d come in and you could tell he was on his meds because he would just sit in his office alone and not engage with staff,” says a coworker. Other days, “he’d be intensely engaged. He’d get manic, very reckless and grandiose. You’d see this level of self-confidence in him that would spiral.”
Last spring, some at Media Matters headquarters and in other parts of the progressive world were caught off guard by an interview Brock gave to Ben Smith at Politico, in which he promised to wage “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News. “It was insane,” says a coworker. “David was totally manic at the time. We were all shocked.”
Friends say Brock, who has publicly admitted drug use in the past, was working obsessively and staying out late with compatriots. “They’d close [local bars] and party till six in the morning,” said one.
A number of people in Brock’s orbit believe he was regularly using illegal drugs, including cocaine. “It’s not like he was trying to keep it a secret,” says a female friend of Brock’s.
Sources back at the Media Matters offices describe an atmosphere of tension and paranoia. “Many of us lived in fear that at any point we could be fired,” one said. Brock believed he had received credible death threats, and employed a two-man security detail, at least one of whom was armed and acted as his driver. A new security system was installed in his house. He became concerned that one of his bodyguards was plotting against him.
NEXT: The explosive information that Brock was 'terrified' would get out
By 2010, Brock’s personal assistant, a man named Haydn Price-Morris, was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events, including events in Washington, D.C., a city with famously restrictive gun laws. Price-Morris told others he carried the gun to protect Brock from threats.
Late in 2010, other Media Matters employees learned about Price-Morris’s gun, and he was fired due to their objections. No public announcement was made.
According to one source with knowledge of what happened next, Brock was “terrified” that news of the gun would leak. “George Soros and a lot of groups connected to gun control are funding this group, and they wouldn’t be too happy that an employee of Media Matters was carrying a gun, especially when it was illegal in D.C.”
Meanwhile, Brock became rigid and harsh with his employees — “viciously mean,” in the words of someone who witnessed it. “He spent a lot of time ripping up researchers. It was abusive. I never understood why more people didn’t quit.” One staffer recalls Brock saying he would like to fire a researcher for being physically repugnant. “David definitely does not like ugly people.”
At times, Brock would become crazed with intensity, “obsessively” involving himself in research: “There was a point at which he would pore over every single piece of research we put out, 10 or 15 dense items a day. He would line-item all of it.”
David Saldana, the former deputy editorial director at Media Matters, concedes that under Brock’s leadership, “there were very harsh penalties for getting things wrong. And justifiably so. … There was no room for weakness. Things had to be gotten right.”
The atmosphere in the office was considerably more tolerant on non-editorial matters. “There were these two folks who got caught [having sex] in the communications war room on the weekend,” said one employee.
“People came in, and lo and behold there were two of their colleagues doing the nasty on a desk.” Neither one was fired.
02/12/2012
This is the first in a Daily Caller investigative series on Media Matters For America. Daily Caller reporters Alex Pappas and Will Rahn contributed to this report.
David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.
Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.
The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.
“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.
Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.
Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.
Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.
Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”
The group scored its first significant public coup in 2007 with the firing of host Don Imus from MSNBC. Just before Easter that year, a Media Matters employee recorded Imus’s now-famous attack on the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and immediately recognized its inflammatory potential. The organization swung into action, notifying organizations like the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, all of which joined the fight.
Over the course of a week, Media Matters mobilized more than 50 people to work full-time adding fuel to the Imus story. Researchers searched the massive Media Matters database for controversial statements Imus had made over the years. The group issued press release after press release. Brock personally called the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message. By the end of the week, Imus was fired.
NEXT: How Media Matters targets network anchors, while avoiding taking credit
Media Matters soon became more sophisticated in its campaigns against non-liberal cable news anchors. Lou Dobbs, then of CNN, was a frequent target.
“As part of the Drop Dobbs campaign,” explains one internal memo prepared for fundraising, “Media Matters produced and was prepared to run an advertisement against Ford Motor Company on Spanish Language stations in Houston, San Antonio, and other cities targeting its top selling product, pick-up trucks, in its top truck buying markets.”
Ford pulled its advertising from Dobbs’s program before the television ad aired, but Media Matters kept up its efforts, working primarily with Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and with the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other self-described civil rights groups.
In November of 2009, Dobbs left CNN. “We got him fired,” says one staffer flatly.
“Certainly Media Matters deserves a lot of credit for the work they did,” Nogales said in an interview. “They’re very effective.”
Glenn Beck, the former Fox News Channel host, drew the ire of a wide spectrum of liberal groups while his program aired nationally. But according to several people who watched the process from the inside, it was Media Matters that orchestrated much of the opposition to Beck.
“We called it ‘fingerprint coverage,’” explains one former staffer, “where you know it was the result of your work.” As an example, he cites the left-wing group Color of Change, co-founded by the controversial former White House “green jobs” czar Van Jones, which received much of the credit for pressuring advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Beck’s show. But in fact, he says, Media Matters developed the campaign that cowed Beck’s sponsors.
Media Matters, according to its 2010 tax filing, gave a $200,000 grant to Citizen Engagement Laboratory, Color of Change’s parent group. The purpose of the grant, according to the document, was for a “campaign to expose Glenn Beck’s racist rhetoric in an effort to educate advertisers about the practices on his show.”
High profile though these victories against conservatives were, Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands of liberal journalists. “In ‘08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” says one source. “They were using our research to write their stories. They were eager to use our stuff.” Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls.
Stories about Fox News were especially well received by MSNBC anchors and executives: “If we published something about Fox in the morning, they’d have it on the air that night verbatim.”
But MSNBC executives weren’t the only ones talking regularly to Media Matters.
NEXT: Sources reveal reporters, bloggers among those who lean on Media Matters
“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”
“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.
Reached by phone, Sargent declined to comment.
“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”
“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”
“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”
Smith, who refused to comment on the substance of these claims, later took to Twitter to say that he has been critical of Media Matters.
Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”
A group with the ability to shape news coverage is of incalculable value to the politicians it supports, so it’s no surprise that Media Matters has been in regular contact with political operatives in the Obama administration. According to visitor logs, on June 16, 2010, Brock and then-Media Matters president Eric Burns traveled to the White House for a meeting with Valerie Jarrett, arguably the president’s closest adviser. Recently departed Obama communications director Anita Dunn returned to the White House for the meeting as well.
It’s not clear what the four spoke about — no one in the meeting returned repeated calls for comment — but the apparent coordination continued. “Anita Dunn became a regular presence at the office,” says someone who worked there. Then-president of Media Matters, Eric Burns, “lunched with her, met with her and chatted with her frequently on any number of matters.”
NEXT: Media Matters' weekly call... with the White House
Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.
Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.
In the past several years, Media Matters has focused much of its considerable energy on the Fox News Channel. The network, declares one internal memo, “is the de facto leader of the GOP and it is long past time that it was treated as such by the media, elected officials, and the public.” At the end of September 2009, Burns made the case publicly in an interview on MSNBC.
Fox, he said, “is a political organization, and their aim is to destroy a progressive policy agenda.”
Less than a month later, in language that could have been copied directly from a Media Matters press release, White House communications director Anita Dunn leveled almost precisely the same charge, dismissing Fox as “more a wing of the Republican Party.”
Were the lines of attack coordinated? “To my knowledge, there wasn’t coordination,” says a source. But at times there has seemed to be a kind of mind meld between the Obama political team and Media Matters.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, author Jerome Corsi wrote a highly critical book about the Democratic candidate, titled “The Obama Nation.” The Obama campaign responded immediately with a detailed memo. The title of that memo, “Unfit For Publication” (a play on Corsi’s 2004 book, “Unfit for Command,” about then-presidential candidate Senator John Kerry), was the same title used by Media Matters just weeks before in a similar memo about the same book.
The irony of Brock’s relationship with the White House is that at certain points he has been openly hostile to Barack Obama, especially in conversations in social settings. Described by some who know him as a passionate and emotional Hillary Clinton supporter, many Democrats believe Brock maintained regular contact with the highest levels of Clinton’s campaign and its advisers.
As late as 2010, Brock was still exchanging personal emails with longtime Hillary Clinton consigliore Sidney Blumenthal, in which the two seemed to grouse about Obama and bond over their shared connection to Hillary.
The intensity of the 2008 campaign, say those who knew Brock at the time, seemed to exacerbate his bouts of what appeared to be mania, a condition from which he had apparently suffered for some time. In 2002, the Drudge Report reported that Brock had “suffered a breakdown” the year before and was treated in the psychiatric ward of Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington.
NEXT: Brock's behavior becomes a problem
During a 2008 meeting of the left-wing umbrella group Democracy Alliance outside San Diego, Brock’s unusual behavior drew considerable attention. According to a fellow attendee, “David completely lost his shit. He started getting incredibly aggressive. He alienated important people in the progressive movement, like John Podesta [of the Center for American Progress] and Anna Burger [of the Service Employees International Union]. Lots of drama. There were a lot of conversations about David’s mental health.”
Two years later, at another Democracy Alliance meeting shortly after the 2010 election, Brock behaved in a way one prominent liberal who was there described as “erratic, unstable and disturbing.” Brock’s aggression, this person said, was “hard to ignore and noticed by a number of people,” generating “quite a bit of concern” about his condition. A number of demonstrably odd media appearances Brock made around this time only reinforced those concerns.
All of this, sources say, has caused anxiety for prominent Democrats. Brock’s profile has risen recently, mostly due to American Bridge 21st Century, the political action committee he founded and runs. Brock boasted loudly and in public that American Bridge would be an answer to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads GPS, a claim some found unsettlingly grandiose.
At some point, Brock received a prescription for his condition. “Some days he’d come in and you could tell he was on his meds because he would just sit in his office alone and not engage with staff,” says a coworker. Other days, “he’d be intensely engaged. He’d get manic, very reckless and grandiose. You’d see this level of self-confidence in him that would spiral.”
Last spring, some at Media Matters headquarters and in other parts of the progressive world were caught off guard by an interview Brock gave to Ben Smith at Politico, in which he promised to wage “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News. “It was insane,” says a coworker. “David was totally manic at the time. We were all shocked.”
Friends say Brock, who has publicly admitted drug use in the past, was working obsessively and staying out late with compatriots. “They’d close [local bars] and party till six in the morning,” said one.
A number of people in Brock’s orbit believe he was regularly using illegal drugs, including cocaine. “It’s not like he was trying to keep it a secret,” says a female friend of Brock’s.
Sources back at the Media Matters offices describe an atmosphere of tension and paranoia. “Many of us lived in fear that at any point we could be fired,” one said. Brock believed he had received credible death threats, and employed a two-man security detail, at least one of whom was armed and acted as his driver. A new security system was installed in his house. He became concerned that one of his bodyguards was plotting against him.
NEXT: The explosive information that Brock was 'terrified' would get out
By 2010, Brock’s personal assistant, a man named Haydn Price-Morris, was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events, including events in Washington, D.C., a city with famously restrictive gun laws. Price-Morris told others he carried the gun to protect Brock from threats.
Late in 2010, other Media Matters employees learned about Price-Morris’s gun, and he was fired due to their objections. No public announcement was made.
According to one source with knowledge of what happened next, Brock was “terrified” that news of the gun would leak. “George Soros and a lot of groups connected to gun control are funding this group, and they wouldn’t be too happy that an employee of Media Matters was carrying a gun, especially when it was illegal in D.C.”
Meanwhile, Brock became rigid and harsh with his employees — “viciously mean,” in the words of someone who witnessed it. “He spent a lot of time ripping up researchers. It was abusive. I never understood why more people didn’t quit.” One staffer recalls Brock saying he would like to fire a researcher for being physically repugnant. “David definitely does not like ugly people.”
At times, Brock would become crazed with intensity, “obsessively” involving himself in research: “There was a point at which he would pore over every single piece of research we put out, 10 or 15 dense items a day. He would line-item all of it.”
David Saldana, the former deputy editorial director at Media Matters, concedes that under Brock’s leadership, “there were very harsh penalties for getting things wrong. And justifiably so. … There was no room for weakness. Things had to be gotten right.”
The atmosphere in the office was considerably more tolerant on non-editorial matters. “There were these two folks who got caught [having sex] in the communications war room on the weekend,” said one employee.
“People came in, and lo and behold there were two of their colleagues doing the nasty on a desk.” Neither one was fired.
The GOP Can Add 10 Million Jobs and $15 Trillion to US Economy without Spending a Dime
Townhall.com
John Ransom
Feb 13, 2012
There are many contrasts that the GOP can use to go after Obama on the economy.
None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.
The State Department gave preliminary approval to build the Keystone pipeline late last summer, saying that it posed no significant environmental risks. But like a lot of things with this administration, it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the left-wing was doing.
Instead of allowing the project to go through, along with the hundreds of thousands of jobs it would create, Obama sided with whack-job environmentalists who raised bogus fears that oil spills could pollute the aquifer that lies underneath its path.
Ok, he only apparently sided with them.
He actually did what Obama likes to do best when pandering to… whomever. He bravely told the rest of us that for right now he wouldn’t approve the pipeline, but he might change his mind. Oh, and if we try to rush him to make a decision, we’ll all be very, very sorry.
So Canada’s prime minister has decided to look for a new partner for their oil.
“Harper’s second official trip to the Middle Kingdom comes at an important juncture in Canada-China relations,” writes Canada’s National Post “and will help dictate the Conservative government’s economic and foreign policy with the Asian superpower for years to come. The prime minister is courting China as a customer for Canadian natural resources — insisting it’s in Canada’s national interest to send oil and gas to Asia — and looking to sew stronger economic ties with the world’s fastest-growing economy.”
Never will an Obama administration be accused of shepherding the “world’s fastest-growing economy.”
You wanna grow debt quickly?
Sure they are your guys.
But on the economy?
Turn to the much more reliable capitalists in Communist China. That’s at least the message from Stephen Harper.
The pipeline could ultimately supply about a million barrels of Canadian oil to the US per day and 400,000 US jobs, most of them almost immediately.
But instead, the president, who has been railing against Congress for not passing another expensive jobs bill, and talks about income equality like it’s the most pressing issue of the day, just killed 400,000 American jobs that would battle income inequality in the most productive sense by providing ordinary Americans with the opportunity to earn some income.
And despite everything the Obama administration has done to slow down domestic development of oil and gas resources, the oil and gas sector is one of the fastest growing jobs markets in a very anemic job market. While other sectors are shedding jobs, oil and gas is hot.
“The use of new drilling techniques to tap oil and gas in shale rocks far underground helped add 158,000 new oil and gas jobs over the past five years,” writes the Wall Street Journal “and economists think that it has created even more jobs in companies supplying the energy industry and in the broader services industry.”
“This is probably the biggest stimulus we have going,” Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research told the WSJ.
According to the Journal “$145 billion will be spent drilling and completing wells this year, up from $13 billion in 2000.”
While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.
4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.
As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.
The only thing left then for those bitter climate clingers would be the shoddy science of Global Something-or-Another.
Oil from tar sands, reports the BBC on the Keystone decision, “is so plentiful that full-scale development would seriously delay the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels,” which is the holy grail of the left. And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.
Full scale development of tar sands can only be stopped by taxing oil out of existence, like was tried with cap and trade. Cape and trade was never about trying to cool the earth. It was about giving "green" technologies a competitive advantage over fossil fuels that free markets won't concede.
Building out the infrastructure to drill and transport that oil just from the Rocky Mountains in the US could supply literally millions of jobs for American workers, while supplying literally millions of barrels of oil per day, repairing our energy security for the next century. But moist importantly it would repair our economy.
I mean we went to war to protect the supply of oil coming from Libya for Europe.
Couldn’t the GOP at least first go to work making sure Keystone provides work for Americans?
That’s an issue to go to war over.
John Ransom
Feb 13, 2012
There are many contrasts that the GOP can use to go after Obama on the economy.
None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.
The State Department gave preliminary approval to build the Keystone pipeline late last summer, saying that it posed no significant environmental risks. But like a lot of things with this administration, it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the left-wing was doing.
Instead of allowing the project to go through, along with the hundreds of thousands of jobs it would create, Obama sided with whack-job environmentalists who raised bogus fears that oil spills could pollute the aquifer that lies underneath its path.
Ok, he only apparently sided with them.
He actually did what Obama likes to do best when pandering to… whomever. He bravely told the rest of us that for right now he wouldn’t approve the pipeline, but he might change his mind. Oh, and if we try to rush him to make a decision, we’ll all be very, very sorry.
So Canada’s prime minister has decided to look for a new partner for their oil.
“Harper’s second official trip to the Middle Kingdom comes at an important juncture in Canada-China relations,” writes Canada’s National Post “and will help dictate the Conservative government’s economic and foreign policy with the Asian superpower for years to come. The prime minister is courting China as a customer for Canadian natural resources — insisting it’s in Canada’s national interest to send oil and gas to Asia — and looking to sew stronger economic ties with the world’s fastest-growing economy.”
Never will an Obama administration be accused of shepherding the “world’s fastest-growing economy.”
You wanna grow debt quickly?
Sure they are your guys.
But on the economy?
Turn to the much more reliable capitalists in Communist China. That’s at least the message from Stephen Harper.
The pipeline could ultimately supply about a million barrels of Canadian oil to the US per day and 400,000 US jobs, most of them almost immediately.
But instead, the president, who has been railing against Congress for not passing another expensive jobs bill, and talks about income equality like it’s the most pressing issue of the day, just killed 400,000 American jobs that would battle income inequality in the most productive sense by providing ordinary Americans with the opportunity to earn some income.
And despite everything the Obama administration has done to slow down domestic development of oil and gas resources, the oil and gas sector is one of the fastest growing jobs markets in a very anemic job market. While other sectors are shedding jobs, oil and gas is hot.
“The use of new drilling techniques to tap oil and gas in shale rocks far underground helped add 158,000 new oil and gas jobs over the past five years,” writes the Wall Street Journal “and economists think that it has created even more jobs in companies supplying the energy industry and in the broader services industry.”
“This is probably the biggest stimulus we have going,” Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research told the WSJ.
According to the Journal “$145 billion will be spent drilling and completing wells this year, up from $13 billion in 2000.”
While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.
4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.
As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.
The only thing left then for those bitter climate clingers would be the shoddy science of Global Something-or-Another.
Oil from tar sands, reports the BBC on the Keystone decision, “is so plentiful that full-scale development would seriously delay the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels,” which is the holy grail of the left. And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.
Full scale development of tar sands can only be stopped by taxing oil out of existence, like was tried with cap and trade. Cape and trade was never about trying to cool the earth. It was about giving "green" technologies a competitive advantage over fossil fuels that free markets won't concede.
Building out the infrastructure to drill and transport that oil just from the Rocky Mountains in the US could supply literally millions of jobs for American workers, while supplying literally millions of barrels of oil per day, repairing our energy security for the next century. But moist importantly it would repair our economy.
I mean we went to war to protect the supply of oil coming from Libya for Europe.
Couldn’t the GOP at least first go to work making sure Keystone provides work for Americans?
That’s an issue to go to war over.
A Forced Entitlement?
Shyness could be defined as a mental illness
Shyness, bereavement and eccentric behaviour could be classed as a mental illness under new guidelines, leaving millions of people at risk of being diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder, experts fear.
By Donna Bowater
7:20AM GMT 10 Feb 2012
Under changes planned to the diagnosis handbook used by doctors in the US, common behavioural traits are likely to be listed as a mental illness, it was reported.
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders could also include internet addiction and gambling as a medical problem.
Although the guidelines are not used in the UK, experts said they feared it would affect thinking on the subjects.
"We need to be very careful before further broadening the boundaries of illness and disorder," Simon Wessely, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, told the Daily Mail.
"Back in 1840 the census of the United States included just one category for mental disorder.
"By 1917 the American Psychiatric Association recognised 59, rising to 128 in 1959, 227 in 1980, and 347 in the last revision. Do we really need all these labels?
"Probably not. And there is a real danger that shyness will become social phobia, bookish kids labelled as Asperger's and so on."
Peter Kinderman, head of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Liverpool, said it was not "humane" to describe shy or bereaved people as "mentally ill".
The British Psychological Society has opposed the changes to the DSM while psychiatrists in the US have also spoken out against them.
A petition launched to try to stop the publication of the new edition was backed by 11,000 signatures from psychologists.
There are fears the new classifications are being driven by drug companies seeking to profit from a greater number of illnesses while the private health care system in the States requires a diagnosis recognised by the manual for a patient to be treated as ill.
"DSM5 will radically and recklessly expand the boundaries of psychiatry. Many millions will receive inaccurate diagnosis and inappropriate treatment.," said Allen Frances of Duke University, North Carolina.
Shyness, bereavement and eccentric behaviour could be classed as a mental illness under new guidelines, leaving millions of people at risk of being diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder, experts fear.
By Donna Bowater
7:20AM GMT 10 Feb 2012
Under changes planned to the diagnosis handbook used by doctors in the US, common behavioural traits are likely to be listed as a mental illness, it was reported.
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders could also include internet addiction and gambling as a medical problem.
Although the guidelines are not used in the UK, experts said they feared it would affect thinking on the subjects.
"We need to be very careful before further broadening the boundaries of illness and disorder," Simon Wessely, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, told the Daily Mail.
"Back in 1840 the census of the United States included just one category for mental disorder.
"By 1917 the American Psychiatric Association recognised 59, rising to 128 in 1959, 227 in 1980, and 347 in the last revision. Do we really need all these labels?
"Probably not. And there is a real danger that shyness will become social phobia, bookish kids labelled as Asperger's and so on."
Peter Kinderman, head of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Liverpool, said it was not "humane" to describe shy or bereaved people as "mentally ill".
The British Psychological Society has opposed the changes to the DSM while psychiatrists in the US have also spoken out against them.
A petition launched to try to stop the publication of the new edition was backed by 11,000 signatures from psychologists.
There are fears the new classifications are being driven by drug companies seeking to profit from a greater number of illnesses while the private health care system in the States requires a diagnosis recognised by the manual for a patient to be treated as ill.
"DSM5 will radically and recklessly expand the boundaries of psychiatry. Many millions will receive inaccurate diagnosis and inappropriate treatment.," said Allen Frances of Duke University, North Carolina.
Obama vs. Our “Obsolete” Constitution
February 13, 2012
Obama vs. Our “Obsolete” Constitution
by Paul Kengor
I’ve gotten some very interesting emails regarding President Obama’s mandate commanding Roman Catholics (and many evangelical Protestants) to violate their consciences by providing mandatory contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. The emailers noted that Obama’s action will force Catholics to challenge the president in court, particularly given that bishops are saying they will not comply with the law. It could mean another constitutional showdown over “Obama-care,” one that could likewise end up in the Supreme Court. Imagine: “The Catholic Bishops v. Obama.”
What a fitting capstone to the Obama presidency. And imagine that a majority of professing Roman Catholics elected this man in November 2008.
If this issue goes to the high court, I wouldn’t bet my money on Obama, even with the two new “pro-choice,” pro-Roe liberals he added to the bench: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Even the most “progressive” Supreme Court justice cannot avoid that old freedom-of-religion thing in the First Amendment.
All of that is remarkable enough. But I find it especially ironic given two other fascinating current news item relating to the Constitution:
Last week, President Obama did an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer. Obama expressed frustration at his inability to be the “transformational political figure” Americans elected. The “change agent” lamented that this was the fault of the American Founders—who Obama refers to as “men of property and wealth”—and their Constitution. Obama told Lauer:
What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction. And what I’m going to keep on doing is plot away, very persistent.
Obama is quite correct. His primary obstacle is the Founders’ system of separation of powers and checks and balances. His problem is a Congress and Supreme Court that is empowered to say, “No, Mr. President, that isn’t constitutional. You can’t do that in America.”
Well, Obama’s mandate to the Catholic Church could be the next such challenge, again impeding his self-perceived rise to transcendent political greatness. A Democrat-controlled Congress approved Obama-care, but the Supreme Court now must scrutinize its provisions. That’s the court’s duty.
That brings me to the second news item: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an interview to Egyptian television. Ginsburg will likely be the next justice to step down. Once Obama replaces her with a much younger pro-Roe judge, this nation will have Roe v. Wade for another 39 years. In the interview, Ginsburg advised Middle East democrats on drafting a constitution. She did not, however, recommend the U.S. Constitution. Ginsburg stated:
I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation; and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world…. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, and had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
Actually, why not take advantage of what’s in the U.S. Constitution? The paradox in Ginsburg’s statement is her dismissal of the U.S. Constitution because it’s “rather old;” in fact, “the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.”
Well, why is it so old and still in force? Because it was done right. It is based on timeless values and virtues and universal rights that work; that are true. It has been amended less than 30 times in 220-some years. It is the most stable, successful, remarkable constitution in history, bringing together a vast array of peoples and assimilating them into history’s most prosperous, awe-inspiring nation—a nation that spent the 20th century winning freedom for other nations, so those nations could produce democracies and constitutions.
The U.S. Constitution is the perfect model, at once both beautifully broad and specific.
And among the things it got right are separation of powers and checks in balances. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama may be learning that again very soon—compliments of Obama-care and its constitutional assault on the consciences of religious believers.
Obama vs. Our “Obsolete” Constitution
by Paul Kengor
I’ve gotten some very interesting emails regarding President Obama’s mandate commanding Roman Catholics (and many evangelical Protestants) to violate their consciences by providing mandatory contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. The emailers noted that Obama’s action will force Catholics to challenge the president in court, particularly given that bishops are saying they will not comply with the law. It could mean another constitutional showdown over “Obama-care,” one that could likewise end up in the Supreme Court. Imagine: “The Catholic Bishops v. Obama.”
What a fitting capstone to the Obama presidency. And imagine that a majority of professing Roman Catholics elected this man in November 2008.
If this issue goes to the high court, I wouldn’t bet my money on Obama, even with the two new “pro-choice,” pro-Roe liberals he added to the bench: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Even the most “progressive” Supreme Court justice cannot avoid that old freedom-of-religion thing in the First Amendment.
All of that is remarkable enough. But I find it especially ironic given two other fascinating current news item relating to the Constitution:
Last week, President Obama did an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer. Obama expressed frustration at his inability to be the “transformational political figure” Americans elected. The “change agent” lamented that this was the fault of the American Founders—who Obama refers to as “men of property and wealth”—and their Constitution. Obama told Lauer:
What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction. And what I’m going to keep on doing is plot away, very persistent.
Obama is quite correct. His primary obstacle is the Founders’ system of separation of powers and checks and balances. His problem is a Congress and Supreme Court that is empowered to say, “No, Mr. President, that isn’t constitutional. You can’t do that in America.”
Well, Obama’s mandate to the Catholic Church could be the next such challenge, again impeding his self-perceived rise to transcendent political greatness. A Democrat-controlled Congress approved Obama-care, but the Supreme Court now must scrutinize its provisions. That’s the court’s duty.
That brings me to the second news item: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave an interview to Egyptian television. Ginsburg will likely be the next justice to step down. Once Obama replaces her with a much younger pro-Roe judge, this nation will have Roe v. Wade for another 39 years. In the interview, Ginsburg advised Middle East democrats on drafting a constitution. She did not, however, recommend the U.S. Constitution. Ginsburg stated:
I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation; and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world…. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, and had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
Actually, why not take advantage of what’s in the U.S. Constitution? The paradox in Ginsburg’s statement is her dismissal of the U.S. Constitution because it’s “rather old;” in fact, “the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.”
Well, why is it so old and still in force? Because it was done right. It is based on timeless values and virtues and universal rights that work; that are true. It has been amended less than 30 times in 220-some years. It is the most stable, successful, remarkable constitution in history, bringing together a vast array of peoples and assimilating them into history’s most prosperous, awe-inspiring nation—a nation that spent the 20th century winning freedom for other nations, so those nations could produce democracies and constitutions.
The U.S. Constitution is the perfect model, at once both beautifully broad and specific.
And among the things it got right are separation of powers and checks in balances. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama may be learning that again very soon—compliments of Obama-care and its constitutional assault on the consciences of religious believers.
Sarah Palin Smashes Romney on Facebook, Twitter
February 12, 2012
Sarah Palin Smashes Mitt Romney on Facebook, Twitter
Sarah Palin isn't seeking the GOP nomination for president. But if these "social media" numbers are any indication, more than twice the voters prefer Sarah Palin to Mitt Romney.
At present, 3,283,462 followers "like" Sarah Palin on her Facebook page.
That is more than twice the number of those who, so far, have "liked" Mitt Romney on his Facebook,-1,469,434.
Palin likewise smashes Romney on Twitter with 734,104 "followers" , while Romney has a mere 333,569 "followers".
Perhaps this "follower" on Palin's Facebook echos the sentiment of many with this recent comment"
["Happy Birthday Sarah !,-
God bless you ! RUN SARAH RUN, for president you are the last hope."]
Presently, Newt Gingrich has 279,510 "likes" on Facebook.
At present, Rick Santorum has only 126,701 "likes" on his Facebook.
Currently Gingrich has 1,437,932 "followers" on Twitter. That's only slightly less than Romney.
Santorum is far behind on Twitter with only 121,639 "followers" at present.
Mike Huckabee is also not seeking the GOP nomination this time around. These are his "social media" numbers:
Huckabee has more Facebook "likes" than Santorum or Gingrich. But Gingrich is ahead of Huckabee on Twitter.
Bottom line,-
according to these "social media" numbers, Sarah Palin is far and above the most popular of this GOP field.
The bad news,-
Obama's supporters are far more active with the "social media".
Currently, Obama has 25,147,651 "likes" on Facebook and 12,464,028 "followers" on Twitter.
However, it needs to be pointed out again that Sarah Palin isn't seeking the GOP nomination or running for president, and yet she still has such high "social media" numbers.
More "likes" and "followers" than any of the GOP candidates themselves.
If Palin had opted to run , no doubt her "social media" numbers would be far and above what they are now.
Sarah Palin Smashes Mitt Romney on Facebook, Twitter
Sarah Palin isn't seeking the GOP nomination for president. But if these "social media" numbers are any indication, more than twice the voters prefer Sarah Palin to Mitt Romney.
At present, 3,283,462 followers "like" Sarah Palin on her Facebook page.
That is more than twice the number of those who, so far, have "liked" Mitt Romney on his Facebook,-1,469,434.
Palin likewise smashes Romney on Twitter with 734,104 "followers" , while Romney has a mere 333,569 "followers".
Perhaps this "follower" on Palin's Facebook echos the sentiment of many with this recent comment"
["Happy Birthday Sarah !,-
God bless you ! RUN SARAH RUN, for president you are the last hope."]
Presently, Newt Gingrich has 279,510 "likes" on Facebook.
At present, Rick Santorum has only 126,701 "likes" on his Facebook.
Currently Gingrich has 1,437,932 "followers" on Twitter. That's only slightly less than Romney.
Santorum is far behind on Twitter with only 121,639 "followers" at present.
Mike Huckabee is also not seeking the GOP nomination this time around. These are his "social media" numbers:
Huckabee has more Facebook "likes" than Santorum or Gingrich. But Gingrich is ahead of Huckabee on Twitter.
Bottom line,-
according to these "social media" numbers, Sarah Palin is far and above the most popular of this GOP field.
The bad news,-
Obama's supporters are far more active with the "social media".
Currently, Obama has 25,147,651 "likes" on Facebook and 12,464,028 "followers" on Twitter.
However, it needs to be pointed out again that Sarah Palin isn't seeking the GOP nomination or running for president, and yet she still has such high "social media" numbers.
More "likes" and "followers" than any of the GOP candidates themselves.
If Palin had opted to run , no doubt her "social media" numbers would be far and above what they are now.
Obama to Persons of Faith: "To Hell With You"
Obama Drives a Bishop to Mention Hell
by Paul Kengor
America’s Catholic bishops are princes of diplomacy, highly educated, erudite, men of tact, propriety. They’re asked to shepherd the flock with a long historical timeframe—like, say, eternity. They tend not to have knee-jerk reactions to issues of the moment.
And so, it’s not often when a paragon of decorum, namely, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, publishes a letter in his diocesan newspaper with a title like, “To hell with you.”
Gee, what could have provoked that? The answer is the Obama administration via its horrendous mandate to Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients—that is, birth-control drugs that induce abortion. The Catholic Church defines these things as “evil.” The Church and its members are now being told they must provide them. By fiat, the Obama administration has issued that decree.
It sort of flies in the face of that old freedom of religion thing we’ve always had in America. And it’s certainly of concern not merely to Catholics but all Americans.
Here’s what happened:
Last August, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidelines for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as, “Obama-care.” The guidelines mandated that by summer 2012 all health-insurance plans—yes, all of them—must cover any and all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization procedures, and pharmaceuticals, even those that produce or result in abortion. Every employer and employee must pay for these things, even if they violate the dictates of their conscience. The employers include all Catholic institutions, from colleges to hospitals to nursing homes to social-service agencies to charities … to whatever else. “All” means “all.”
How’s that for “social justice”?
When ex-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a lifetime Roman Catholic, said that we’ll learn the details of Obama-care after Congress passes the legislation, this is a perfect illustration. The Devil is truly in the details.
In response to this screaming train-wreck, Catholics sent letters to Kathleen Sebelius, HHS secretary, who happens to be Roman Catholic. When she was governor of Kansas, Sebelius was so terrible on abortion, and so defiant of Church teaching, that her bishop ordered that she be denied Communion. Catholics protested directly to Sebelius.
On January 20, Sebelius and Barack Obama answered Catholics. As Bishop Zubik put it, “On Jan. 20, the Obama administration answered you and me. The response was very simple: ‘To hell with you.’”
Zubik writes: “This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone …. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom…. It undermines the whole concept and hope for healthcare reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity…. It is really hard to believe that it happened.”
All of the bishops are frustrated. Bishop Timothy Dolan of New York said that the Obama administration has basically told American Catholics that they have one year “to figure out how to violate our consciences.”
In Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted appeared to urge civil disobedience. In a letter read to every church in his diocese, Olmsted wrote: “Unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
Also vowing non-compliance is Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay and Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati. LifeNews.com reports that 86 bishops (thus far) have spoken against the mandate.
The Obama administration has forced the bishops’ hand. President Obama and Secretary Sebelius are not backing down. They are true believers.
Where are liberals on this issue? We know they support the so-called “right to choose,” politically sanctified by Roe v. Wade in January 1973. But the Constitution predates Roe by a good 200 years. The First Amendment that begins the Bill of Rights starts with religious freedom. Are liberals so devoted to “abortion rights” that they will trump the conscience of their fellow Americans?
Apparently so. They’ve already ensured that my tax dollars fund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. It was only a matter of time before they forced me to fund abortifacients. The direct funding of actual abortion procedures is no doubt next. It’s amazing, when it comes to abortion, pro-choice liberals have everything they want, but it isn’t enough. Now they want to force pro-lifers—and our churches—to pay for their choices.
Sadly, all of this was so painfully predictable back in November 2008, when a majority of professing Roman Catholics voted Barack Obama president.
Well, you reap what you sow.
by Paul Kengor
America’s Catholic bishops are princes of diplomacy, highly educated, erudite, men of tact, propriety. They’re asked to shepherd the flock with a long historical timeframe—like, say, eternity. They tend not to have knee-jerk reactions to issues of the moment.
And so, it’s not often when a paragon of decorum, namely, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, publishes a letter in his diocesan newspaper with a title like, “To hell with you.”
Gee, what could have provoked that? The answer is the Obama administration via its horrendous mandate to Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients—that is, birth-control drugs that induce abortion. The Catholic Church defines these things as “evil.” The Church and its members are now being told they must provide them. By fiat, the Obama administration has issued that decree.
It sort of flies in the face of that old freedom of religion thing we’ve always had in America. And it’s certainly of concern not merely to Catholics but all Americans.
Here’s what happened:
Last August, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidelines for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as, “Obama-care.” The guidelines mandated that by summer 2012 all health-insurance plans—yes, all of them—must cover any and all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization procedures, and pharmaceuticals, even those that produce or result in abortion. Every employer and employee must pay for these things, even if they violate the dictates of their conscience. The employers include all Catholic institutions, from colleges to hospitals to nursing homes to social-service agencies to charities … to whatever else. “All” means “all.”
How’s that for “social justice”?
When ex-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a lifetime Roman Catholic, said that we’ll learn the details of Obama-care after Congress passes the legislation, this is a perfect illustration. The Devil is truly in the details.
In response to this screaming train-wreck, Catholics sent letters to Kathleen Sebelius, HHS secretary, who happens to be Roman Catholic. When she was governor of Kansas, Sebelius was so terrible on abortion, and so defiant of Church teaching, that her bishop ordered that she be denied Communion. Catholics protested directly to Sebelius.
On January 20, Sebelius and Barack Obama answered Catholics. As Bishop Zubik put it, “On Jan. 20, the Obama administration answered you and me. The response was very simple: ‘To hell with you.’”
Zubik writes: “This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone …. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom…. It undermines the whole concept and hope for healthcare reform by inextricably linking it to the zealotry of pro-abortion bureaucrats. The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity…. It is really hard to believe that it happened.”
All of the bishops are frustrated. Bishop Timothy Dolan of New York said that the Obama administration has basically told American Catholics that they have one year “to figure out how to violate our consciences.”
In Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted appeared to urge civil disobedience. In a letter read to every church in his diocese, Olmsted wrote: “Unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
Also vowing non-compliance is Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay and Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati. LifeNews.com reports that 86 bishops (thus far) have spoken against the mandate.
The Obama administration has forced the bishops’ hand. President Obama and Secretary Sebelius are not backing down. They are true believers.
Where are liberals on this issue? We know they support the so-called “right to choose,” politically sanctified by Roe v. Wade in January 1973. But the Constitution predates Roe by a good 200 years. The First Amendment that begins the Bill of Rights starts with religious freedom. Are liberals so devoted to “abortion rights” that they will trump the conscience of their fellow Americans?
Apparently so. They’ve already ensured that my tax dollars fund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. It was only a matter of time before they forced me to fund abortifacients. The direct funding of actual abortion procedures is no doubt next. It’s amazing, when it comes to abortion, pro-choice liberals have everything they want, but it isn’t enough. Now they want to force pro-lifers—and our churches—to pay for their choices.
Sadly, all of this was so painfully predictable back in November 2008, when a majority of professing Roman Catholics voted Barack Obama president.
Well, you reap what you sow.
Ever Think You'd Live to See THIS?
13 February 2012
Ever Think You'd Live to See THIS?
NO GOD BUT ALLAH dollar bill
One surfaced recently in Colorado, as they are beginning to around the US. Clearly, some characters (that we never should have let into the country) have gone to the trouble of getting stamps made -not some random scribble- just so they can put this rubbish in your face.
About all one can do is reject the bills as defaced to keep the propagandized currency from circulating, much as resolutely repainting a public wall neutralizes graffiti artists' platform:
please beware and DO NOT accept such bills from anyone.
Anybody out there who still doesn't think we are at war...?
As the well-worn Trotsky quote goes- 'You may not be interested in war... but war is interested in you'.
In other words, if you think these people are ever going to learn to mind their own business and leave you alone... you're nuts: they'd be climbing in your window with a sword right now, given the chance.
Ever Think You'd Live to See THIS?
NO GOD BUT ALLAH dollar bill
One surfaced recently in Colorado, as they are beginning to around the US. Clearly, some characters (that we never should have let into the country) have gone to the trouble of getting stamps made -not some random scribble- just so they can put this rubbish in your face.
About all one can do is reject the bills as defaced to keep the propagandized currency from circulating, much as resolutely repainting a public wall neutralizes graffiti artists' platform:
please beware and DO NOT accept such bills from anyone.
Anybody out there who still doesn't think we are at war...?
As the well-worn Trotsky quote goes- 'You may not be interested in war... but war is interested in you'.
In other words, if you think these people are ever going to learn to mind their own business and leave you alone... you're nuts: they'd be climbing in your window with a sword right now, given the chance.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
DISCREDIT!!!
Will Obama prosecute FOXNEWS owner?
News Corp faces renewed threat of prosecution in US following Sun arrests
Investigation of alleged bribery under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is greatest danger to Rupert Murdoch's media empire
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk,
Saturday 11 February 2012 17.32 EST
The latest Operation Elveden arrests sharply increase the danger to News Corporation of potential multimillion dollar fines by US authorities as part of the continuing investigation into alleged bribery of public officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
The eight arrests escalate the FCPA crisis for the company by extending the allegations of bribery from the News of the World to the Sun newspaper, and by broadening its scope from police officers to other public officials. An official from the Ministry of Defence and a member of the armed forces were also arrested for alleged corruption and "misconduct in a public office".
The threat of prosecution under the FCPA constitutes the greatest danger of the phone-hacking scandal for Rupert Murdoch's media empire. It could expose the company to tens of millions of dollars in fines and the risk of imprisonment of its executive officers.
It would also bring the scandal to America, which is the financial heart of the global company. News Corporation's headquarters are on Manhattan's Sixth Avenue, which is why the company is susceptible to the FCPA, a law introduced in the 1970s to hold US-based companies accountable for acts of bribery and corruption abroad.
Mike Koehler, an expert in FCPA law at Butler university, said Saturday's arrests marked an escalation in the risk of an FCPA prosecution. "This spreads the alleged bribery to a completely different newspaper, to a different segment of the company and to other public officials," he said.
Eric Holder, the US attorney general, launched a preliminary investigation into News Corporation's activities last July. The FBI is known to be involved in the investigation on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is also understood that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting its own inquiries. The SEC takes an interest in cases where false financial information has been provided – in the case of News International, the use of false names in company records and accounts to disguise the recipients of bribes from journalists could fall into that category.
In September, the US justice department reportedly approached News Corporation directly and asked for information on alleged bribes of police officers.
Koehler said that the FCPA inquiry is likely to consider whether any News Corp executives were culpable. "The DoJ and SEC wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't ask what the executive officers of the company knew about the corruption and whether they authorized it, or did anything to stop it."
James Murdoch, Rupert's younger son who serves as chairman of News Corp's European arm, has faced questioning in the British parliament over how much he knew about phone hacking at the News of the World.
The scale of any penalties that flow from the FCPA investigation would be based on a calculation of how much benefit the company derived from any corruption. Against that, mitigating factors would be taken into account such as the extent of co-operation given to the investigating authorities by the company.
That helps explain why News Corp has bent over backwards in recent months to assist the police by handing over evidence of possible wrongdoing, to the dismay of some of its own journalists.
The costs of an FCPA prosecution can be severe. The largest fine in FCPA history was imposed in 2008 against Siemens for $800m (£507.8m), while the heaviest prison term was handed out last October to Joel Esquenazi, who is now serving 15 years in jail for bribery of telecoms officials in Haiti.
To protect itself, News Corp has hired a battery of world-class FCPA lawyers led by Mark Mendelsohn, former chief of the DoJ's FCPA section. The team also includes Brendan Sullivan, a famously tough trial lawyer who represented Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings.
News Corp faces renewed threat of prosecution in US following Sun arrests
Investigation of alleged bribery under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is greatest danger to Rupert Murdoch's media empire
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk,
Saturday 11 February 2012 17.32 EST
The latest Operation Elveden arrests sharply increase the danger to News Corporation of potential multimillion dollar fines by US authorities as part of the continuing investigation into alleged bribery of public officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
The eight arrests escalate the FCPA crisis for the company by extending the allegations of bribery from the News of the World to the Sun newspaper, and by broadening its scope from police officers to other public officials. An official from the Ministry of Defence and a member of the armed forces were also arrested for alleged corruption and "misconduct in a public office".
The threat of prosecution under the FCPA constitutes the greatest danger of the phone-hacking scandal for Rupert Murdoch's media empire. It could expose the company to tens of millions of dollars in fines and the risk of imprisonment of its executive officers.
It would also bring the scandal to America, which is the financial heart of the global company. News Corporation's headquarters are on Manhattan's Sixth Avenue, which is why the company is susceptible to the FCPA, a law introduced in the 1970s to hold US-based companies accountable for acts of bribery and corruption abroad.
Mike Koehler, an expert in FCPA law at Butler university, said Saturday's arrests marked an escalation in the risk of an FCPA prosecution. "This spreads the alleged bribery to a completely different newspaper, to a different segment of the company and to other public officials," he said.
Eric Holder, the US attorney general, launched a preliminary investigation into News Corporation's activities last July. The FBI is known to be involved in the investigation on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is also understood that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting its own inquiries. The SEC takes an interest in cases where false financial information has been provided – in the case of News International, the use of false names in company records and accounts to disguise the recipients of bribes from journalists could fall into that category.
In September, the US justice department reportedly approached News Corporation directly and asked for information on alleged bribes of police officers.
Koehler said that the FCPA inquiry is likely to consider whether any News Corp executives were culpable. "The DoJ and SEC wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't ask what the executive officers of the company knew about the corruption and whether they authorized it, or did anything to stop it."
James Murdoch, Rupert's younger son who serves as chairman of News Corp's European arm, has faced questioning in the British parliament over how much he knew about phone hacking at the News of the World.
The scale of any penalties that flow from the FCPA investigation would be based on a calculation of how much benefit the company derived from any corruption. Against that, mitigating factors would be taken into account such as the extent of co-operation given to the investigating authorities by the company.
That helps explain why News Corp has bent over backwards in recent months to assist the police by handing over evidence of possible wrongdoing, to the dismay of some of its own journalists.
The costs of an FCPA prosecution can be severe. The largest fine in FCPA history was imposed in 2008 against Siemens for $800m (£507.8m), while the heaviest prison term was handed out last October to Joel Esquenazi, who is now serving 15 years in jail for bribery of telecoms officials in Haiti.
To protect itself, News Corp has hired a battery of world-class FCPA lawyers led by Mark Mendelsohn, former chief of the DoJ's FCPA section. The team also includes Brendan Sullivan, a famously tough trial lawyer who represented Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings.
San Fran libs force hospital to jump illegal alien on list for kidney
SFGate:
Victoria Colliver
Friday, February 10, 2012
UCSF Medical Center officials on Thursday said they would perform a kidney transplant operation on an Oakland man who had accused the medical center of denying him a kidney transplant because of his immigration status.
But the hospital said Jesus Navarro must prove he can pay for his medications and follow-up care after surgery.
Navarro, a 35-year-old father and illegal immigrant suffering from kidney disease, has received national attention. His case prompted 140,000 people to sign an online petition urging UCSF to approve his surgery and sparked widespread debate over whether patients' immigration status should influence whether they get the operation.
On Thursday, both UCSF officials and Navarro said much of the controversy has been a misunderstanding. They said Navarro's financial and health insurance uncertainties - not his immigration status - are the reason for the potential delays.
"UCSF does not and will not discriminate on the basis of immigration status," the hospital said Thursday in its first public statement about Navarro's case.
However, hospital administrators acknowledged his immigration status complicates the issue because it may make Navarro ineligible for government programs to help pay for ongoing medical care and lifesaving drugs needed to prevent organ rejection.
After a transplant, the cost of medications can range from $10,000 to $60,000 a year.
"Whether people are documented or not, this issue of assuring coverage for very, very expensive care is critical, and our current health care financing system is so fragmented it puts people in a real bind," said Dr. Joshua Adler, UCSF's chief medical officer. "That bind is even more limiting for people who are undocumented."
Navarro, originally from Mexico, has been waiting for a kidney for six years and undergoes nightly dialysis. His wife, Karen, hopes to be able to donate a kidney.
Last May, he met with UCSF officials as part of a review routinely conducted of potential transplant patients when they have about a year left on the waiting list. After the meeting, in which he revealed he was not here legally, UCSF changed Navarro's status on the kidney transplant waiting list to "inactive."
Navarro has insurance, but recently lost his job of 14 years. He is paying $1,100 a month to continue for his former employer's coverage. Assuming he can keep up with the payments, that option lasts only 18 months.
While UCSF officials would not go into detail, they did assure Navarro and his supporters this week that he had not lost his position on the waiting list and that they would work with him to develop a plan that would allow him to move forward with surgery.
That's good enough for Navarro, his family and his primary supporter, Donald Kagan, a local man who underwent a kidney transplant at UCSF 18 months ago.
"Before we assumed he was denied a kidney because of his immigration status," Kagan said. "UCSF has now recognized they need to improve their processes of communication. It's now very clear they do not discriminate based on immigration status."
Kagan said they are looking into all possibilities for how to pay for his ongoing care, including Medi-Cal and other options. "We are 100 percent sure we will be able to cover it, one way or another," he said.
UCSF has about 5,000 patients on the waiting list, and the hospital is able to transplant fewer than 350 a year.
The real problem, according to transplant organizations, is that there are too many people waiting for too few organs.
Victoria Colliver
Friday, February 10, 2012
UCSF Medical Center officials on Thursday said they would perform a kidney transplant operation on an Oakland man who had accused the medical center of denying him a kidney transplant because of his immigration status.
But the hospital said Jesus Navarro must prove he can pay for his medications and follow-up care after surgery.
Navarro, a 35-year-old father and illegal immigrant suffering from kidney disease, has received national attention. His case prompted 140,000 people to sign an online petition urging UCSF to approve his surgery and sparked widespread debate over whether patients' immigration status should influence whether they get the operation.
On Thursday, both UCSF officials and Navarro said much of the controversy has been a misunderstanding. They said Navarro's financial and health insurance uncertainties - not his immigration status - are the reason for the potential delays.
"UCSF does not and will not discriminate on the basis of immigration status," the hospital said Thursday in its first public statement about Navarro's case.
However, hospital administrators acknowledged his immigration status complicates the issue because it may make Navarro ineligible for government programs to help pay for ongoing medical care and lifesaving drugs needed to prevent organ rejection.
After a transplant, the cost of medications can range from $10,000 to $60,000 a year.
"Whether people are documented or not, this issue of assuring coverage for very, very expensive care is critical, and our current health care financing system is so fragmented it puts people in a real bind," said Dr. Joshua Adler, UCSF's chief medical officer. "That bind is even more limiting for people who are undocumented."
Navarro, originally from Mexico, has been waiting for a kidney for six years and undergoes nightly dialysis. His wife, Karen, hopes to be able to donate a kidney.
Last May, he met with UCSF officials as part of a review routinely conducted of potential transplant patients when they have about a year left on the waiting list. After the meeting, in which he revealed he was not here legally, UCSF changed Navarro's status on the kidney transplant waiting list to "inactive."
Navarro has insurance, but recently lost his job of 14 years. He is paying $1,100 a month to continue for his former employer's coverage. Assuming he can keep up with the payments, that option lasts only 18 months.
While UCSF officials would not go into detail, they did assure Navarro and his supporters this week that he had not lost his position on the waiting list and that they would work with him to develop a plan that would allow him to move forward with surgery.
That's good enough for Navarro, his family and his primary supporter, Donald Kagan, a local man who underwent a kidney transplant at UCSF 18 months ago.
"Before we assumed he was denied a kidney because of his immigration status," Kagan said. "UCSF has now recognized they need to improve their processes of communication. It's now very clear they do not discriminate based on immigration status."
Kagan said they are looking into all possibilities for how to pay for his ongoing care, including Medi-Cal and other options. "We are 100 percent sure we will be able to cover it, one way or another," he said.
UCSF has about 5,000 patients on the waiting list, and the hospital is able to transplant fewer than 350 a year.
The real problem, according to transplant organizations, is that there are too many people waiting for too few organs.
Pew study points to Obama’s growing youth problem
IBD:
Posted 02/09/2012 07:13 PM ET
Economy: President Obama surfed into office on a wave of support from the nation's youth. And what did those young voters get in return? Sky-high unemployment, lower wages, fewer prospects and a student debt crisis.
It's fair to say that just about everyone has suffered the ill effects of Obamanomics, which has produced growth rates during the 31-month "recovery" that are far below any in modern times.
But a new report out of the Pew Research Center shows that when it comes to economic pain, young workers trying to get a start in life have suffered the most. Among the grim statistics:
The unemployment rate among 18-to-24 year olds was 16.3% at the end of last year, compared with 8.8% for the rest of the working-age population. That gap in unemployment rates, the Pew study notes, is "the widest in recorded history."
Meanwhile, the share of this population that's managed to find work has fallen to 54.3% — the lowest level since 1948, the first year the government started collecting such data.
Young workers are also doing far worse than everyone else when it comes to income. Between 2007 and 2011, their real median weekly earnings fell 6%. By comparison, those between the ages of 35 and 64 saw earnings climb 1%, while everyone else saw earnings dip slightly by 0.1%.
The effects of this Great Youth Depression are rippling across the country.
The Pew study finds, for example, that more than a third of those between 18 and 34 have gone back to school because they can't find a job. A quarter have taken unpaid work, and an equal share say they've moved back with their parents.
And, while the Pew study doesn't mention this, the terrible job market has pushed more college graduates than ever to default on student loans. The Department of Education says default rates in 2010 had climbed 25% over the previous year.
As the Pew study gently puts it: "Today's young adults are clearly having a harder time than their parents did in reaching some of the most basic financial milestones."
More bluntly stated, Obama's lackluster recovery is severely punishing an entire generation of workers. They'll have a much harder time making ends meet today, and will find it much more difficult to save and invest for things they'll need down the road.
With Social Security careening toward bankruptcy, that's the last thing this generation needs.
These trends aren't lost on this age group.
In fact, just 12% of young adults say things are "headed in the right direction," with 52% saying they are "off on the wrong track," according to a separate Harvard University Institute of Politics survey taken late last year.
And they know who's to blame: Obama's job approval rate among this age group has fallen to 46%, down from 55% just 10 months earlier. Among college students, approval collapsed from 60% down to 48%.
Keep in mind that these are the kids who voted 2-1 in favor of Obama over John McCain in 2008.
Obama's massive ego and his own sense of entitlement may blind him to his crumbling support among this group.
But then again, he's managed to alienate lots of other previously reliable Democratic supporters.
Unions, for example, are peeved about his Keystone pipeline decision that cost them thousands of good jobs, Catholics are in open revolt over his contraception mandate, and Jews are increasingly upset with his treatment of Israel.
We can't say we mind any of this too much. Just so long as the nation's young people, along with these other traditionally Democratic groups, remember that they don't have a friend in Obama when they cast their votes in November.
Posted 02/09/2012 07:13 PM ET
Economy: President Obama surfed into office on a wave of support from the nation's youth. And what did those young voters get in return? Sky-high unemployment, lower wages, fewer prospects and a student debt crisis.
It's fair to say that just about everyone has suffered the ill effects of Obamanomics, which has produced growth rates during the 31-month "recovery" that are far below any in modern times.
But a new report out of the Pew Research Center shows that when it comes to economic pain, young workers trying to get a start in life have suffered the most. Among the grim statistics:
The unemployment rate among 18-to-24 year olds was 16.3% at the end of last year, compared with 8.8% for the rest of the working-age population. That gap in unemployment rates, the Pew study notes, is "the widest in recorded history."
Meanwhile, the share of this population that's managed to find work has fallen to 54.3% — the lowest level since 1948, the first year the government started collecting such data.
Young workers are also doing far worse than everyone else when it comes to income. Between 2007 and 2011, their real median weekly earnings fell 6%. By comparison, those between the ages of 35 and 64 saw earnings climb 1%, while everyone else saw earnings dip slightly by 0.1%.
The effects of this Great Youth Depression are rippling across the country.
The Pew study finds, for example, that more than a third of those between 18 and 34 have gone back to school because they can't find a job. A quarter have taken unpaid work, and an equal share say they've moved back with their parents.
And, while the Pew study doesn't mention this, the terrible job market has pushed more college graduates than ever to default on student loans. The Department of Education says default rates in 2010 had climbed 25% over the previous year.
As the Pew study gently puts it: "Today's young adults are clearly having a harder time than their parents did in reaching some of the most basic financial milestones."
More bluntly stated, Obama's lackluster recovery is severely punishing an entire generation of workers. They'll have a much harder time making ends meet today, and will find it much more difficult to save and invest for things they'll need down the road.
With Social Security careening toward bankruptcy, that's the last thing this generation needs.
These trends aren't lost on this age group.
In fact, just 12% of young adults say things are "headed in the right direction," with 52% saying they are "off on the wrong track," according to a separate Harvard University Institute of Politics survey taken late last year.
And they know who's to blame: Obama's job approval rate among this age group has fallen to 46%, down from 55% just 10 months earlier. Among college students, approval collapsed from 60% down to 48%.
Keep in mind that these are the kids who voted 2-1 in favor of Obama over John McCain in 2008.
Obama's massive ego and his own sense of entitlement may blind him to his crumbling support among this group.
But then again, he's managed to alienate lots of other previously reliable Democratic supporters.
Unions, for example, are peeved about his Keystone pipeline decision that cost them thousands of good jobs, Catholics are in open revolt over his contraception mandate, and Jews are increasingly upset with his treatment of Israel.
We can't say we mind any of this too much. Just so long as the nation's young people, along with these other traditionally Democratic groups, remember that they don't have a friend in Obama when they cast their votes in November.
On Contraception, Reid Says Talk of First Amendment, Constitution, ‘So Senseless’
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - February 10, 2012 11:33 am
Senator Harry Reid: “The Republicans never lose an opportunity to mess up a good piece of legislation. Listen to this: They’re talking about first amendment rights, the Constitution. And I appreciate that. But, Mr. President, that is so senseless. This debate that’s going on dealing with this issue, dealing with contraception, is a rule that hasn’t been made final yet. There’s no final rule. Let’s wait until there’s at least a rule that we can talk about. There is not a final rule. That’s what all you read about in the newspapers, why there’s discussions going on as we speak.”
Obama deal makes Warren Buffet $154 million richer
Buffett’s Bank of America
Warren Buffett’s Net Worth Jumps $154M Thanks to Mortgage Settlement
BY: Patrick Howley - February 10, 2012 12:50 pm
Warren Buffett’s stake in Bank of America Corp. increased in value by $154 million after President Obama and the U.S. Justice Department announced a $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement with the five largest U.S. banks Thursday, records show.
Buffett invested $5 billion in Bank of America (BofA) on Aug. 25, 2011. As part of his investment deal, Buffett gained warrants that allow him to buy 700 million shares of Bank of America stock at a strike price of $7.14 a share. However, on Dec. 19, 2011, it was reported that Buffett was $1.5 billion underwater on his stock warrants, with shares of BofA stock trading at $4.94. But on Thursday, after President Obama personally announced the details of the settlement, BofA stock closed at $8.13 a share. The stock opened Friday morning at $8.31 and reached as high as $8.35 a share.
If Buffett had exercised his warrants Friday morning, he would have made $847 million. $154 million of that profit would have been related to the foreclosure deal.
This is not the first time Buffett has profited from Obama administration policies. In November 2011, it was reported that President Obama’s two-year postponement of the deadline to determine the future of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would force North Dakota oil producers to rely more heavily on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. holding company purchased the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Corp. in a total package worth $44 billion in 2009.
Buffett has personally contributed $5,000 to Obama this election cycle, while Berkshire Hathaway has contributed $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee.
This summer, Obama will accept the Democratic Party’s 2012 presidential nomination with a speech at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, N.C.
Warren Buffett’s Net Worth Jumps $154M Thanks to Mortgage Settlement
BY: Patrick Howley - February 10, 2012 12:50 pm
Warren Buffett’s stake in Bank of America Corp. increased in value by $154 million after President Obama and the U.S. Justice Department announced a $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement with the five largest U.S. banks Thursday, records show.
Buffett invested $5 billion in Bank of America (BofA) on Aug. 25, 2011. As part of his investment deal, Buffett gained warrants that allow him to buy 700 million shares of Bank of America stock at a strike price of $7.14 a share. However, on Dec. 19, 2011, it was reported that Buffett was $1.5 billion underwater on his stock warrants, with shares of BofA stock trading at $4.94. But on Thursday, after President Obama personally announced the details of the settlement, BofA stock closed at $8.13 a share. The stock opened Friday morning at $8.31 and reached as high as $8.35 a share.
If Buffett had exercised his warrants Friday morning, he would have made $847 million. $154 million of that profit would have been related to the foreclosure deal.
This is not the first time Buffett has profited from Obama administration policies. In November 2011, it was reported that President Obama’s two-year postponement of the deadline to determine the future of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would force North Dakota oil producers to rely more heavily on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. holding company purchased the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Corp. in a total package worth $44 billion in 2009.
Buffett has personally contributed $5,000 to Obama this election cycle, while Berkshire Hathaway has contributed $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee.
This summer, Obama will accept the Democratic Party’s 2012 presidential nomination with a speech at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, N.C.
Under Siege? Spain Resists Islamic 'Invasion'
Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter
Saturday, February 11, 2012
BARCELONA, Spain -- Bullfighting is now illegal in the Spanish province of Catalonia. Some arenas have been converted into business spaces.
But Muslims want to turn the most famous arena, the Coliseum, into a giant mosque.
In fact, some cities in Spain now look more like the Middle East. Muslims, who once ruled most of nation, are returning in large numbers.
In the city of Salt, parents have come to pick up their children from school. Muslims already make up 40 percent of city residents and will soon be the majority.
But the city government has pushed back, placing a one-year hold on a large mosque project funded by radical Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.
For good measure, someone cursed the ground at the building site with a pig head that was still there when CBN News arrived. Islamic law forbids the building of a mosque on ground soiled by pigs.
But the number of Muslims in Salt is increasing so rapidly, it is now only a matter of time before Muslims will be running the city.
"When the first Muslim political party presents itself, all the Muslims will vote for it, and we'll all end up wearing headscarves. We're in a really big problem," Salt city councilwoman Maria Osuna told CBN News.
Immigration or Invasion?
In the 7th century, Muslim armies conquered most of Spain, calling it Al-Andulus. They would not be completely expelled for 700 years, the year Columbus discovered the new world.
Now Muslims are returning, and polls suggest they are not returning to be Spaniards. A Pew survey found that 7 out of 10 Muslims in Spain think of themselves as Muslim rather than Spaniards.
"Plataforma x Catalunya," or Platform for Catalonia, was the first political party to take the Muslim surge seriously. But in politically correct Spain, which celebrated the 1,300-year anniversary of the Muslim invasion as a good thing, Platform for Catalonia is denounced as racist and xenophobic.
Platform leader Joseph Anglada said his party is not against immigrants. They're against uncontrolled immigration and what they say are immigrants who do not want to be a part of Spain.
"Muslim immigrants are not here to adapt," Anglada said. "They're here to conquer."
"First the husband comes as the head of the family," he explained. "Then the wife and children, and later he comes with his parents, in-laws,and grandparents, and it has turned into an invasion."
'Mysterious' Dog Poisonings
In the city of Lleida, someone is poisoning dogs. Police don't know who has been doing it, but the suspicion is that Muslims were the culprits.
Before the poisonings, Muslims were trying to get city government to ban dogs from public transport and public areas because they consider dogs unclean.
"What happened was, all of a sudden, one day, 12 to 14 animals showed up dead. They had eaten something or been given something. We don't know," Josep Ortiz I Llleida told CBN News.
Lleida, which is about one-quarter Muslim, was the first Spanish city to ban the burqa. Then the mayor shut down the city's mosque because it was overflowing with Friday worshippers.
CBN News went to see where the Muslim men are praying now, and it is a large open air pavilion. Filming with a hidden camera, we saw more than 500 men listening to a sermon in Arabic.
"We don't know what the Muslim leaders are telling their people," Moises Font with Platform for Catalonia said. "Are they encouraging Muslims to assimilate or to stay separate?"
Spaniards Disappearing
There are reportedly more than 100 radical Wahhabi mosques in Spain. And two radical Muslim TV channels from the Middle East are now broadcasting into Spain.
And just as Muslim immigration is surging, the native Spanish are slowly disappearing. Their birth rate is below the replacement number.
Also, large numbers of college age Spaniards are fleeing the country to escape a 50 percent unemployment rate for young people.
Meanwhile, the Muslim birthrate is at least twice the native birthrate, and the number of Muslims has increased tenfold in the last 20 years.
A secret report by Spanish intelligence leaked to the media found that radical groups from the Middle East are pouring large sums of money into Spain to control the nation's Muslims.
"The greatest threat for Spain, Catalonia, and Europe is Muslim immigration," Anglada told CBN News.
"We know they are coming here to conquer what, according to Muslims, used to belong to them," he said. "We have a moral duty so that in the future they can say that at least there was someone, one party, that was not willing to surrender the West to Islamization."
*Published Feb. 6, 2012.
CBN News Sr. Reporter
Saturday, February 11, 2012
BARCELONA, Spain -- Bullfighting is now illegal in the Spanish province of Catalonia. Some arenas have been converted into business spaces.
But Muslims want to turn the most famous arena, the Coliseum, into a giant mosque.
In fact, some cities in Spain now look more like the Middle East. Muslims, who once ruled most of nation, are returning in large numbers.
In the city of Salt, parents have come to pick up their children from school. Muslims already make up 40 percent of city residents and will soon be the majority.
But the city government has pushed back, placing a one-year hold on a large mosque project funded by radical Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.
For good measure, someone cursed the ground at the building site with a pig head that was still there when CBN News arrived. Islamic law forbids the building of a mosque on ground soiled by pigs.
But the number of Muslims in Salt is increasing so rapidly, it is now only a matter of time before Muslims will be running the city.
"When the first Muslim political party presents itself, all the Muslims will vote for it, and we'll all end up wearing headscarves. We're in a really big problem," Salt city councilwoman Maria Osuna told CBN News.
Immigration or Invasion?
In the 7th century, Muslim armies conquered most of Spain, calling it Al-Andulus. They would not be completely expelled for 700 years, the year Columbus discovered the new world.
Now Muslims are returning, and polls suggest they are not returning to be Spaniards. A Pew survey found that 7 out of 10 Muslims in Spain think of themselves as Muslim rather than Spaniards.
"Plataforma x Catalunya," or Platform for Catalonia, was the first political party to take the Muslim surge seriously. But in politically correct Spain, which celebrated the 1,300-year anniversary of the Muslim invasion as a good thing, Platform for Catalonia is denounced as racist and xenophobic.
Platform leader Joseph Anglada said his party is not against immigrants. They're against uncontrolled immigration and what they say are immigrants who do not want to be a part of Spain.
"Muslim immigrants are not here to adapt," Anglada said. "They're here to conquer."
"First the husband comes as the head of the family," he explained. "Then the wife and children, and later he comes with his parents, in-laws,and grandparents, and it has turned into an invasion."
'Mysterious' Dog Poisonings
In the city of Lleida, someone is poisoning dogs. Police don't know who has been doing it, but the suspicion is that Muslims were the culprits.
Before the poisonings, Muslims were trying to get city government to ban dogs from public transport and public areas because they consider dogs unclean.
"What happened was, all of a sudden, one day, 12 to 14 animals showed up dead. They had eaten something or been given something. We don't know," Josep Ortiz I Llleida told CBN News.
Lleida, which is about one-quarter Muslim, was the first Spanish city to ban the burqa. Then the mayor shut down the city's mosque because it was overflowing with Friday worshippers.
CBN News went to see where the Muslim men are praying now, and it is a large open air pavilion. Filming with a hidden camera, we saw more than 500 men listening to a sermon in Arabic.
"We don't know what the Muslim leaders are telling their people," Moises Font with Platform for Catalonia said. "Are they encouraging Muslims to assimilate or to stay separate?"
Spaniards Disappearing
There are reportedly more than 100 radical Wahhabi mosques in Spain. And two radical Muslim TV channels from the Middle East are now broadcasting into Spain.
And just as Muslim immigration is surging, the native Spanish are slowly disappearing. Their birth rate is below the replacement number.
Also, large numbers of college age Spaniards are fleeing the country to escape a 50 percent unemployment rate for young people.
Meanwhile, the Muslim birthrate is at least twice the native birthrate, and the number of Muslims has increased tenfold in the last 20 years.
A secret report by Spanish intelligence leaked to the media found that radical groups from the Middle East are pouring large sums of money into Spain to control the nation's Muslims.
"The greatest threat for Spain, Catalonia, and Europe is Muslim immigration," Anglada told CBN News.
"We know they are coming here to conquer what, according to Muslims, used to belong to them," he said. "We have a moral duty so that in the future they can say that at least there was someone, one party, that was not willing to surrender the West to Islamization."
*Published Feb. 6, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)