The parents of two British students murdered in Florida have criticised President Barack Obama for his lack of compassion over their sons' deaths.
By Paul Thompson in Sarasota
3:00PM BST 29 Mar 2012
His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.
They spoke out as teenager Shawn Tyson began a life sentence after being found guilty of the murder of James Cooper and James Kouzaris last April.
The 17 year old, who shot the men as they begged for their lives, will die in prison.
His conviction of first degree murder carries an mandatory life sentence without the chance of parole.
The powerfully built teen even looked bored as emotional DVD presentations about the dead men prepared by their grieving parents were shown in court.
Tyson, who has the word 'Savage' tattooed across his chest didn't show a flicker of emotion, slumping in his seat as he was forced to watch a montage of photos showing the victims from early childhood to young men.
Two close friends of the dead men who had attended the eight day trial in Sarasota, Florida. had also delivered highly emotional impact statements to the court prior to the sentencing.
Paul Davies and Joe Hallett spoke of the "living hell" they and others who knew the men had suffered since the murders.
During the eight day trial they had been shown graphic crime scene and autopsy photos shown in court.
Later speaking after Tyson was jailed Davies and Hallett lashed out at Mr Obama saying the deaths of their friends was "not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
Davies said:"We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself.
"Mr Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply.
"It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time."
The rebuke follows Mr Obama's personal intervention into the shooting in Florida of a young black teenager by a white-Hispanic neighbourhood watch captain.
The death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin has sparked nationwide protests with his supporters claiming he was victim of a racist attack.
Mr Obama entered the controversy last week by saying if he had a son he would have looked like Martin.
The alleged assailant in Martin's death has not been charged with any crime having claimed he was attacked first and used Florida's 'stand your ground' law to shoot in self defence.
The criticism of the US President was made on behalf of the Cooper's parents Stanley and Sandy, from Warwicks, and Peter and Hazel Kouzaris, from Northampton by Davies in a statement read outside the courtroom.
The parents of the two victims did not attend the trial but they had access to the proceedings from a live video feed.
The filmed interview of the Kouzaris's was played to the court while a message from Sandy Cooper was read out by the prosecutor.
The victims close friends delivered an emotional impact statement with Hallett telling Tyson he hoped he would be haunted by his actions.
He told him: "Imagine them being killed. Now try to imagine that they died because someone creept up on them and shot them numerous times for no good reason. Welcome to our world. Every night you go to sleep, every morning you wake up, I want you to think of my friends who you murdered. Their images will be imprinted on your conscience up until your very last breath in life."
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Another $17 trillion surprise found in Obamacare
Published: 9:21 AM 03/30/2012
By Neil Munro - The Daily Caller
Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 health care reform law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.
“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republicans’ budget chief in the Senate.
“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.
The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court doesn’t strike down the law, it will force taxpayers to find another $17 trillion to pay for the increased spending.
The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leave taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion in health care obligations over the next 75 years.
The federal government has an additional $17 trillion unfunded gap in other obligations, including Social Security, bringing the total shortfall to $99 trillion.
That shortfall is different from existing debt. The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term in office so far.
That $99 trillion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.
The $99 trillion funding gap is equal to almost 30 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.
Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 75 years, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Also, Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.
The extra $17 trillion gap was discovered by applying standard federal estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.
For example, Session’s examination of the health care law’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.
The same review also showed the law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.
“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.
“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.”
By Neil Munro - The Daily Caller
Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 health care reform law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.
“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republicans’ budget chief in the Senate.
“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.
The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court doesn’t strike down the law, it will force taxpayers to find another $17 trillion to pay for the increased spending.
The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leave taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion in health care obligations over the next 75 years.
The federal government has an additional $17 trillion unfunded gap in other obligations, including Social Security, bringing the total shortfall to $99 trillion.
That shortfall is different from existing debt. The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term in office so far.
That $99 trillion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.
The $99 trillion funding gap is equal to almost 30 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.
Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 75 years, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Also, Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.
The extra $17 trillion gap was discovered by applying standard federal estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.
For example, Session’s examination of the health care law’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.
The same review also showed the law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.
“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.
“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.”
ABC News doctors Zimmerman video to peddle false story in Trayvon Martin case
Written By: Bob - Mar• 29•12
The Daily Caller has investigated the ABC News claim that police closed circuit television of George Zimmerman being brought to the Sanford, FL police station shows no sign of injury, in what appears to be an intentional effort by the network to cast doubt on Zimmerman’s accounting of events. Zimmerman claims he was forced to shoot high school football player Trayvon Martin after Martin knocked him down and began slamming his head into the ground.
ABC News blatantly lied about what the video showed.
“A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman,” ABC News reporter Matt Gutman wrote, noting that Zimmerman told police “he shot Martin after he was punched in the nose, knocked down and had his head slammed into the ground.”
ABC News reported that Zimmerman appears uninjured in the video. But a still image from the video indicates what appears to be a vertical laceration or scar several inches long.
In fact, not one but both camera views showed that Zimmerman has a laceration several inches long on the back of his head. Any blood had been cleaned up by the Fire Dept assets that had treated Zimmerman at the scene. Bruising would not have shown on the low-resolution video.
More disgusting is the obvious fact that ABC News used a strategically placed chyron (graphic) to cover up the back of Zimmerman’s head for their broadcast, covering up the video evidence that would have disproven their story. View the video at the Daily Caller, and you’ll note that they did not even need a chyron, as there was no need to transmit any additional visual data to explain the story. The only logical reason the chyron exists is to cover-up Zimmerman’s wounds.
ABC News doctored the video to sell a false narrative, in a dishonest attempt to brand a man a murderer. I’d be very interested to know if Zimmerman can pursue legal action against ABC for constructing this false narrative.
Update: Cleaned up the mangled prose. Don’t blog on less than two hours of sleep.
The Daily Caller has investigated the ABC News claim that police closed circuit television of George Zimmerman being brought to the Sanford, FL police station shows no sign of injury, in what appears to be an intentional effort by the network to cast doubt on Zimmerman’s accounting of events. Zimmerman claims he was forced to shoot high school football player Trayvon Martin after Martin knocked him down and began slamming his head into the ground.
ABC News blatantly lied about what the video showed.
“A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman,” ABC News reporter Matt Gutman wrote, noting that Zimmerman told police “he shot Martin after he was punched in the nose, knocked down and had his head slammed into the ground.”
ABC News reported that Zimmerman appears uninjured in the video. But a still image from the video indicates what appears to be a vertical laceration or scar several inches long.
In fact, not one but both camera views showed that Zimmerman has a laceration several inches long on the back of his head. Any blood had been cleaned up by the Fire Dept assets that had treated Zimmerman at the scene. Bruising would not have shown on the low-resolution video.
More disgusting is the obvious fact that ABC News used a strategically placed chyron (graphic) to cover up the back of Zimmerman’s head for their broadcast, covering up the video evidence that would have disproven their story. View the video at the Daily Caller, and you’ll note that they did not even need a chyron, as there was no need to transmit any additional visual data to explain the story. The only logical reason the chyron exists is to cover-up Zimmerman’s wounds.
ABC News doctored the video to sell a false narrative, in a dishonest attempt to brand a man a murderer. I’d be very interested to know if Zimmerman can pursue legal action against ABC for constructing this false narrative.
Update: Cleaned up the mangled prose. Don’t blog on less than two hours of sleep.
Obama expands his executive power
Friday, 30 Mar 2012 10:00 AM
By Martin Gould - NewsMax
Despite campaign promises to refrain from using executive powers to bypass Congress, President Barack Obama is increasingly doing just that, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
From helping rebels in the Libyan revolution to granting states waivers from the No Child Left Behind education act, Obama is finding it easier to push his agenda without asking for approval from elected senators and representatives, the paper said.
And that is not sitting well with either Republicans or Democrats who are keen to defend their own turf against what they see as an overreaching executive.
“When he ran for president, Barack Obama promised to roll back President George W. Bush's use of executive power, a defining point of the Bush presidency,” Laura Meckler wrote in the Journal piece. “The pledge was part of a broader pitch about Mr. Obama's governing style, which he said would focus on solving problems in a pragmatic, cooperative way.
“The allure of executive power, it turns out, is hard to resist,” Meckler added. “Most every chief executive has found ways to escape the shackles of the legislature and expand the power of the presidency. Three years into his first term, Mr. Obama has developed his own expansive view of going it alone, asserting new executive powers and challenging members of Congress in both parties.”
White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler told the Journal that Obama has developed a broadr view of executive power since his days as a U.S. senator. "Many issues that he deals with are just on him, where the Congress doesn't bear the burden in the same way," she said. "Until one experiences that first hand, it is difficult to appreciate fully how you need flexibility in a lot of circumstances."
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
By Martin Gould - NewsMax
Despite campaign promises to refrain from using executive powers to bypass Congress, President Barack Obama is increasingly doing just that, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
From helping rebels in the Libyan revolution to granting states waivers from the No Child Left Behind education act, Obama is finding it easier to push his agenda without asking for approval from elected senators and representatives, the paper said.
And that is not sitting well with either Republicans or Democrats who are keen to defend their own turf against what they see as an overreaching executive.
“When he ran for president, Barack Obama promised to roll back President George W. Bush's use of executive power, a defining point of the Bush presidency,” Laura Meckler wrote in the Journal piece. “The pledge was part of a broader pitch about Mr. Obama's governing style, which he said would focus on solving problems in a pragmatic, cooperative way.
“The allure of executive power, it turns out, is hard to resist,” Meckler added. “Most every chief executive has found ways to escape the shackles of the legislature and expand the power of the presidency. Three years into his first term, Mr. Obama has developed his own expansive view of going it alone, asserting new executive powers and challenging members of Congress in both parties.”
White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler told the Journal that Obama has developed a broadr view of executive power since his days as a U.S. senator. "Many issues that he deals with are just on him, where the Congress doesn't bear the burden in the same way," she said. "Until one experiences that first hand, it is difficult to appreciate fully how you need flexibility in a lot of circumstances."
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Oh, my: Obamacare caused health care premiums to necessarily skyrocket
It seems so, eh, inconceivable that a massive, 2,300-page bill -- which no one bothered to read before Democrats passed it into law -- could result in unintended consequences.
Leaving ObamaCare in place while striking its individual mandate isn't good enough. The full plan must be scrapped before it drives health premiums even higher.
ObamaCare is wildly unpopular with Americans. Even a new CBS-New York Times poll finds two-thirds want it shot down.
...The cost of an average family premium shot up 9.5% in 2011 — the highest rate in seven years and three times the rate of overall inflation, finds a major new survey of employer plans by Kaiser Family Foundation.
Just before Obama signed his health overhaul, he vowed it would "bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses and for the federal government." In December, he told CBS' "60 Minutes" he was "putting in place a system that's going to lower health care costs."
In fact, there's evidence ObamaCare is fanning medical inflation.
Kaiser attributes the premium spike to "changes from the new health reform law." The 200-page study explains: "Significant percentages of firms made changes in their preventive care benefits and enrolled adult children in their benefits plans in response to provisions in the new health reform law."
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., notes that Obama, as a candidate, promised he'd slash family premiums by $2,500 a year by the end of his first term... The concern is that as ObamaCare becomes a massive Medicaid program that limits reimbursements to providers, it will shift costs massively to those who remain in the private health-insurance market.
Already, Obama's so-called Affordable Care Act has not lived up to its name. It's been anything but affordable — and the worst inflation is yet to come.
Oh, and then there's this:
Despite the [Obamacare individual] mandate, there will still be 27 million uninsured a decade from now, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The promised uninsured rate — 10% in 2022 — isn't much better than in 1980, when it was 12%, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
The law also tries to cut the uninsured population by making it illegal for insurers to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions, called "guaranteed issue"....
...But fewer than 4% cited poor health as a reason for not getting coverage, according to the CBO. Meanwhile, 71% cited the high cost of premiums.
....A recent CBO report, for example, says that premiums over the next 10 years will rise at a faster rate than they have for the past five.
Gee, I'm shocked. You mean to say that massive, centrally-planned economies like those of North Korea and Zimbabwe don't work?
Democrats == Schmucks.
As an aside: if there's a better newspaper in America than Investors Business Daily, I have yet to discover it.
Doug Ross
ObamaCare is wildly unpopular with Americans. Even a new CBS-New York Times poll finds two-thirds want it shot down.
...The cost of an average family premium shot up 9.5% in 2011 — the highest rate in seven years and three times the rate of overall inflation, finds a major new survey of employer plans by Kaiser Family Foundation.
Just before Obama signed his health overhaul, he vowed it would "bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses and for the federal government." In December, he told CBS' "60 Minutes" he was "putting in place a system that's going to lower health care costs."
In fact, there's evidence ObamaCare is fanning medical inflation.
Kaiser attributes the premium spike to "changes from the new health reform law." The 200-page study explains: "Significant percentages of firms made changes in their preventive care benefits and enrolled adult children in their benefits plans in response to provisions in the new health reform law."
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., notes that Obama, as a candidate, promised he'd slash family premiums by $2,500 a year by the end of his first term... The concern is that as ObamaCare becomes a massive Medicaid program that limits reimbursements to providers, it will shift costs massively to those who remain in the private health-insurance market.
Already, Obama's so-called Affordable Care Act has not lived up to its name. It's been anything but affordable — and the worst inflation is yet to come.
Oh, and then there's this:
Despite the [Obamacare individual] mandate, there will still be 27 million uninsured a decade from now, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The promised uninsured rate — 10% in 2022 — isn't much better than in 1980, when it was 12%, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
The law also tries to cut the uninsured population by making it illegal for insurers to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions, called "guaranteed issue"....
...But fewer than 4% cited poor health as a reason for not getting coverage, according to the CBO. Meanwhile, 71% cited the high cost of premiums.
....A recent CBO report, for example, says that premiums over the next 10 years will rise at a faster rate than they have for the past five.
Gee, I'm shocked. You mean to say that massive, centrally-planned economies like those of North Korea and Zimbabwe don't work?
Democrats == Schmucks.
As an aside: if there's a better newspaper in America than Investors Business Daily, I have yet to discover it.
Doug Ross
‘We’re Not Drilling Everywhere!’
‘We’re Not Drilling Everywhere!’
Louisiana Democrat slams Obama’s oil policies
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 29, 2012 5:52 pm
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) on Thursday appeared displeased with the Obama administration’s energy policies.
“When people say we’re drilling everywhere—well, we’re not drilling everywhere!” Landrieu told Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) in a conversation outside the Senate chamber.
She made the remarks shortly after the Senate voted 51-47 to reject a bill that would have eliminated about $4 billion in federal tax subsidies for domestic oil producers.
Landrieu was one of four Democrats who voted against the legislation, which failed to get the 60 votes necessary to proceed.
The vote was a rebuke to President Obama, who earlier in the day had urged Congress to end the subsidies, despite his having supported them in the past.
“Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people,” Obama said during a speech in the White House Rose Garden. “Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits—profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station.”
Obama has made a concerted effort of late to convince the American people that his administration is doing everything in his power to encourage the domestic production of oil and gas. It is unclear how eliminating subsides would accomplish this goal.
“Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years,” he said in Miami last month. “That’s why we have a record number of oilrigs operating right now—more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined.”
That claim, however, is undermined by a recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which found that 96 percent of increased domestic oil production since 2007 took place on non-federal land outside the president’s control.
Asked by the Washington Free Beacon if she thought the president was really doing everything in his power to encourage domestic oil production, Landrieu responded: “No, I’m not convinced that’s true. I mean, we’ve seen evidence to the contrary in the Gulf [of Mexico].”
She went on to slam Republicans for opposing increased federal spending on green energy projects.
CDN
Louisiana Democrat slams Obama’s oil policies
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 29, 2012 5:52 pm
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) on Thursday appeared displeased with the Obama administration’s energy policies.
“When people say we’re drilling everywhere—well, we’re not drilling everywhere!” Landrieu told Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) in a conversation outside the Senate chamber.
She made the remarks shortly after the Senate voted 51-47 to reject a bill that would have eliminated about $4 billion in federal tax subsidies for domestic oil producers.
Landrieu was one of four Democrats who voted against the legislation, which failed to get the 60 votes necessary to proceed.
The vote was a rebuke to President Obama, who earlier in the day had urged Congress to end the subsidies, despite his having supported them in the past.
“Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people,” Obama said during a speech in the White House Rose Garden. “Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits—profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station.”
Obama has made a concerted effort of late to convince the American people that his administration is doing everything in his power to encourage the domestic production of oil and gas. It is unclear how eliminating subsides would accomplish this goal.
“Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years,” he said in Miami last month. “That’s why we have a record number of oilrigs operating right now—more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined.”
That claim, however, is undermined by a recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which found that 96 percent of increased domestic oil production since 2007 took place on non-federal land outside the president’s control.
Asked by the Washington Free Beacon if she thought the president was really doing everything in his power to encourage domestic oil production, Landrieu responded: “No, I’m not convinced that’s true. I mean, we’ve seen evidence to the contrary in the Gulf [of Mexico].”
She went on to slam Republicans for opposing increased federal spending on green energy projects.
CDN
Want To Hear What an ObamaCare “Death Panel” Might Sound Like?
By drillanwr, on March 29, 2012, at 7:30 pm
Tim Graham @ Newsbusters points out...
Brent Baker told me I only found half the story in Newsweek’s coverage of Dick Cheney’s heart transplant. Posted in the middle of the Kent Sepkowitz hit piece was Monday’s edition of their daily NewsBeast in-house video. In the first seconds, the “highlight” was Newsweek/Daily Beast assignment editor Allison Yarrow saying of Cheney: “But can you imagine being that organ donor?...I would never do it. I’d say ‘give me my heart back.’”
Welcome to the latest edition of Compassionate Liberals Show Their True Colors...
Yeah......
Tim Graham @ Newsbusters points out...
Brent Baker told me I only found half the story in Newsweek’s coverage of Dick Cheney’s heart transplant. Posted in the middle of the Kent Sepkowitz hit piece was Monday’s edition of their daily NewsBeast in-house video. In the first seconds, the “highlight” was Newsweek/Daily Beast assignment editor Allison Yarrow saying of Cheney: “But can you imagine being that organ donor?...I would never do it. I’d say ‘give me my heart back.’”
Welcome to the latest edition of Compassionate Liberals Show Their True Colors...
Yeah......
Trayvon Tribute Video, “All Black In My Hoodie”, A Black Panther Call For Violence
March 29, 2012 — NiceDeb
John Nolte of Big Hollywood introduces this repulsive, racist video to the right-wing blogosphere:
The “tribute” video below is nothing more than a call for violence, a riot with “AK’s” against law enforcement and “crackers.”
The video is also a bastardization of Malcolm X (the audio is from Spike Lee’s biopic), who was never associated with any kind of rioting or violence during or after his association with the Nation of Islam:
John Nolte of Big Hollywood introduces this repulsive, racist video to the right-wing blogosphere:
The “tribute” video below is nothing more than a call for violence, a riot with “AK’s” against law enforcement and “crackers.”
The video is also a bastardization of Malcolm X (the audio is from Spike Lee’s biopic), who was never associated with any kind of rioting or violence during or after his association with the Nation of Islam:
The Inconsistency Between the Constitutional Arguments for the Mandate and Medicaid in the ACA
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging • March 29, 2012 6:20 pm
Now that Eugene has given me the electronic keys to this Conspiracy, I could not resist getting involved in the now-legendary discussion of the ACA…
There is a serious inconsistency between the government’s arguments for the mandate and for the Medicaid expansion. In a nutshell, these arguments make opposite assumptions about the effect of financial duress on states’ ability to execute their policy preferences. Defending the mandate, the government says states are individually incompetent to regulate insurance, because the first state to adopt generous rules would be inundated with the sick, and forced to abandon its policy. This is a basic race to the bottom story and has been around in Commerce Clause cases since the New Deal.
Crucially, the argument takes financial realities as dispositive: states cannot realistically choose to experiment with medical insurance individually because it would be ruinous. The economic effects mean that states do not really have the power to choose individual regulatory regimes.
Yet turning to the Spending power, the government ask us to believe that states can realistically turn down federal medicaid funds, though it would be at least as ruinous if not more. Either the prospect of massive losses makes a states ability to pursue a certain course illusory or it does not.
Incidentally, these two cases are not equal in that in that in the former, the ruinous consequences are a result of the market, in the latter a result of calculated federal efforts to make the offer unrefusable.
Now that Eugene has given me the electronic keys to this Conspiracy, I could not resist getting involved in the now-legendary discussion of the ACA…
There is a serious inconsistency between the government’s arguments for the mandate and for the Medicaid expansion. In a nutshell, these arguments make opposite assumptions about the effect of financial duress on states’ ability to execute their policy preferences. Defending the mandate, the government says states are individually incompetent to regulate insurance, because the first state to adopt generous rules would be inundated with the sick, and forced to abandon its policy. This is a basic race to the bottom story and has been around in Commerce Clause cases since the New Deal.
Crucially, the argument takes financial realities as dispositive: states cannot realistically choose to experiment with medical insurance individually because it would be ruinous. The economic effects mean that states do not really have the power to choose individual regulatory regimes.
Yet turning to the Spending power, the government ask us to believe that states can realistically turn down federal medicaid funds, though it would be at least as ruinous if not more. Either the prospect of massive losses makes a states ability to pursue a certain course illusory or it does not.
Incidentally, these two cases are not equal in that in that in the former, the ruinous consequences are a result of the market, in the latter a result of calculated federal efforts to make the offer unrefusable.
Barack Obama, Race Hustler
President Obama has fanned the flames of hatred in the Trayvon Martin case, and has not said a single critical word about the outrageous actions of the New Black Panthers, who offered a $10,000 bounty on George Zimmerman–the same New Black Panthers on whose behalf Eric Holder quashed a federal criminal prosecution; or of Spike Lee, who tweeted a wrong address for Zimmerman, presumably to facilitate harassment or even murder; or of the many liberals who have posted on the @killzimmerman Twitter feed; or of the many other Democrats and liberals who have indulged in an orgy of hate with respect to Mr. Zimmerman. President Obama’s interest in the victims of violence is selective: he cares if they look like the hypothetical son he doesn’t have. Or, perhaps more to the point, he cares if an opportunity for political gain presents itself.
What about white victims of black murderers, in cases that have none of the ambiguity and complexity of the Trayvon Martin affair? Obama couldn’t care less about them, evidently because they present no opportunity to fire up his base in anticipation of November’s election. The families and friends of two English students who were wantonly murdered by a 17-year-old African American, also in Florida, have criticized Obama for his indifference:
Later speaking after Tyson was jailed Davies and Hallett lashed out at Mr Obama saying the deaths of their friends was “not worthy of ten minutes of his time.”
Davies said: “We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself.
“Mr Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply.
It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time.”
The rebuke follows Mr Obama’s personal intervention into the shooting in Florida of a young black teenager by a white-Hispanic neighbourhood watch captain. …
The criticism of the US President was made on behalf of the Cooper’s parents Stanley and Sandy, from Warwicks, and Peter and Hazel Kouzaris, from Northampton by Davies in a statement read outside the courtroom.
Given Obama’s decision to try to make political hay out of the Martin case, it is hard to find fault with their disgust.
What about white victims of black murderers, in cases that have none of the ambiguity and complexity of the Trayvon Martin affair? Obama couldn’t care less about them, evidently because they present no opportunity to fire up his base in anticipation of November’s election. The families and friends of two English students who were wantonly murdered by a 17-year-old African American, also in Florida, have criticized Obama for his indifference:
Later speaking after Tyson was jailed Davies and Hallett lashed out at Mr Obama saying the deaths of their friends was “not worthy of ten minutes of his time.”
Davies said: “We would like to publicly express our dissatisfaction at the lack of any public or private message of support or condolence from any American governing body or indeed, President Obama himself.
“Mr Kouzaris has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and is yet to even receive the courtesy of a reply.
It would perhaps appear that Mr Obama sees no political value in facilitating such a request or that the lives of two British tourists are not worthy of ten minutes of his time.”
The rebuke follows Mr Obama’s personal intervention into the shooting in Florida of a young black teenager by a white-Hispanic neighbourhood watch captain. …
The criticism of the US President was made on behalf of the Cooper’s parents Stanley and Sandy, from Warwicks, and Peter and Hazel Kouzaris, from Northampton by Davies in a statement read outside the courtroom.
Given Obama’s decision to try to make political hay out of the Martin case, it is hard to find fault with their disgust.
Finally, a real uniter in the White House!
March 29, 2012
by Lance Burri
Somebody who can bring two diametrically opposed sides together, who can put an end to the bickering and the partisanship, and unite our leaders against a common enemy!
President Obama’s budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late Wednesday, in a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him…
“Try?”
…and shelve his plan for the rest of the year.
The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
Surely President Obama wouldn’t begrudge the House this annual moment of unity, would he?
Meanwhile, in the Senate…
Senate Democrats have said they will not bring a budget to the floor this year, though Republicans in the chamber have talked about trying to at least force a vote on Mr. Obama’s plan there as well.
Last year, when they forced a vote on his 2012 budget, it was defeated 97-0.
Good for you, Mr. President. You bring us together!
by Lance Burri
Somebody who can bring two diametrically opposed sides together, who can put an end to the bickering and the partisanship, and unite our leaders against a common enemy!
President Obama’s budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late Wednesday, in a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him…
“Try?”
…and shelve his plan for the rest of the year.
The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
Surely President Obama wouldn’t begrudge the House this annual moment of unity, would he?
Meanwhile, in the Senate…
Senate Democrats have said they will not bring a budget to the floor this year, though Republicans in the chamber have talked about trying to at least force a vote on Mr. Obama’s plan there as well.
Last year, when they forced a vote on his 2012 budget, it was defeated 97-0.
Good for you, Mr. President. You bring us together!
Solyndra Scandal Pronounced Dead Again
3.29.12
With the release of the chief restructuring officer’s report, the scandal over the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra is being declared over. Kevin Drum says it’s a big “nothingburger,” pointing to Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-California) concession that there was “perhaps not” any criminal activity. Fortune’s Roger Parloff has a pretty thorough post-mortem. Grist’s perpetually irate David Roberts says the whole thing was a sideshow.
A few points:
First, you read it here four months ago. After Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s embarrassing-to-all-concerned House testimony – during which the Nobel laureate pled a combination of ignorance, incompetence and bi-partisan support for green pork – I noted that Solyndra’s half-billion-dollar scandal had run its course:
I don’t really disagree that Solyndra has exhausted a radioactive half-life. (There’s more radiation on the sun than there was at Three Mile Island, people!) The fact that there is bi-partisan – or is it transpartisan? – support for this kind of waste should make the story that much more maddening. But within the Republocrat consensus it’s considered a mitigating circumstance.
The Republicans’ Inspector Clouseau routine with Chu left little hope that we’re going to get an aggressive investigation in this era of collegiality. And that’s not counting the shameless behavior of Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) and Henry Waxman (D-California), who began the Solyndra scandal making public-spirited noises but ended up running interference for the president.
I’m still hoping for a Rhambo subpoena. Like Evel Knievel and the Blessed Virgin Mary, I reserve the right to announce my last appearance on earth and then continue making appearances. But Solyndra does seem to be passing into the afterlife with Hillary Clinton’s statistically improbable cattle futures gains and Halliburton’s no-bid Iraq contracts: mysteries that fade not because they’ve been solved but because corruption is the fuel of effective politics.
Second, none of this stuff is new. Grist’s Roberts, who for reasons of his own attributes the Solyndra scandal to a vast right-wing conspiracy centered in the GOP-controlled halls of Politico, has been trying to wish the scandal away for the better part of a year. He’s not the only one. The criminal claims around Solyndra did not originate with the Republicans but with the president’s own Departments of Justice, Treasury and Energy. I have said all along that the criminal angle was a dead end, and it had the practical effect of shutting down the most promising material in the congressional probe.
Third, despite those obstacles, the Solyndra probe ended up shedding quite a bit of light. President Obama’s cronyism and shaky grasp of even basic 99-cent-store economics are now clear to anybody who is not willfully in denial. Chu has been revealed as a fool. Energy subsidies have been discredited, even if that hasn’t quite filtered up to the Energy Department, which is still setting aside multi-billion-dollar subsidies for green energy boondoggles:
Most importantly, the folly of government industrial policy has been subjected to a long and continuing scrub. A company as bad as Solyndra can’t be created by mere stupidity. It takes a particular kind of misguided genius and a lot of money from unwilling investors. If the nothingburger sideshow has made that clearer to one or two people, it was worth something, though not half a billion dollars.
SOURCE: Reason
With the release of the chief restructuring officer’s report, the scandal over the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra is being declared over. Kevin Drum says it’s a big “nothingburger,” pointing to Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-California) concession that there was “perhaps not” any criminal activity. Fortune’s Roger Parloff has a pretty thorough post-mortem. Grist’s perpetually irate David Roberts says the whole thing was a sideshow.
A few points:
First, you read it here four months ago. After Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s embarrassing-to-all-concerned House testimony – during which the Nobel laureate pled a combination of ignorance, incompetence and bi-partisan support for green pork – I noted that Solyndra’s half-billion-dollar scandal had run its course:
I don’t really disagree that Solyndra has exhausted a radioactive half-life. (There’s more radiation on the sun than there was at Three Mile Island, people!) The fact that there is bi-partisan – or is it transpartisan? – support for this kind of waste should make the story that much more maddening. But within the Republocrat consensus it’s considered a mitigating circumstance.
The Republicans’ Inspector Clouseau routine with Chu left little hope that we’re going to get an aggressive investigation in this era of collegiality. And that’s not counting the shameless behavior of Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) and Henry Waxman (D-California), who began the Solyndra scandal making public-spirited noises but ended up running interference for the president.
I’m still hoping for a Rhambo subpoena. Like Evel Knievel and the Blessed Virgin Mary, I reserve the right to announce my last appearance on earth and then continue making appearances. But Solyndra does seem to be passing into the afterlife with Hillary Clinton’s statistically improbable cattle futures gains and Halliburton’s no-bid Iraq contracts: mysteries that fade not because they’ve been solved but because corruption is the fuel of effective politics.
Second, none of this stuff is new. Grist’s Roberts, who for reasons of his own attributes the Solyndra scandal to a vast right-wing conspiracy centered in the GOP-controlled halls of Politico, has been trying to wish the scandal away for the better part of a year. He’s not the only one. The criminal claims around Solyndra did not originate with the Republicans but with the president’s own Departments of Justice, Treasury and Energy. I have said all along that the criminal angle was a dead end, and it had the practical effect of shutting down the most promising material in the congressional probe.
Third, despite those obstacles, the Solyndra probe ended up shedding quite a bit of light. President Obama’s cronyism and shaky grasp of even basic 99-cent-store economics are now clear to anybody who is not willfully in denial. Chu has been revealed as a fool. Energy subsidies have been discredited, even if that hasn’t quite filtered up to the Energy Department, which is still setting aside multi-billion-dollar subsidies for green energy boondoggles:
Most importantly, the folly of government industrial policy has been subjected to a long and continuing scrub. A company as bad as Solyndra can’t be created by mere stupidity. It takes a particular kind of misguided genius and a lot of money from unwilling investors. If the nothingburger sideshow has made that clearer to one or two people, it was worth something, though not half a billion dollars.
SOURCE: Reason
Live Twitter stream: Marching to Jerusalem
By JPOST.COM STAFF
03/30/2012 10:35
From Australia to Kalandiya, thousands will take to the streets to demonstrate against Israel's "occupation"; 'The Jerusalem Post' reports live.
The Jerusalem Post will provide live coverage including tweets, pictures and video clips as worldwide demonstrations take place to mark the 36th anniversary of Land Day, when Israeli Arabs and Palestinians hold a general strike and protest Israeli government policies they say infringe on their land rights.
Land Day demonstrations have historically seen Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and elsewhere rallying in solidarity. This year's Land Day coincides with the Global March to Jerusalem, a planned multi-pronged rush on Israel's frontiers with Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan as well as marches in the Palestinian Authority, Gaza and east Jerusalem. Worldwide demonstrations are also planned in a range of countries from the US to Greece.
03/30/2012 10:35
From Australia to Kalandiya, thousands will take to the streets to demonstrate against Israel's "occupation"; 'The Jerusalem Post' reports live.
The Jerusalem Post will provide live coverage including tweets, pictures and video clips as worldwide demonstrations take place to mark the 36th anniversary of Land Day, when Israeli Arabs and Palestinians hold a general strike and protest Israeli government policies they say infringe on their land rights.
Land Day demonstrations have historically seen Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and elsewhere rallying in solidarity. This year's Land Day coincides with the Global March to Jerusalem, a planned multi-pronged rush on Israel's frontiers with Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan as well as marches in the Palestinian Authority, Gaza and east Jerusalem. Worldwide demonstrations are also planned in a range of countries from the US to Greece.
Video: Iranian female ninjas sue Reuters
Friday, March 30, 2012
Video: Iranian female ninjas sue Reuters
Iranian female ninjas are suing Reuters for saying that they could be assassins. Here's what Iran's Press TV has to say about it.
Last month, Reuters showed a number of Iranian girls training martial arts in a city near Tehran, claiming Iran was training more than 3,000 female ninjas to kill any possible foreign invaders. The distorted Reuters report was picked up by other British media outlets. Following the strong reaction of Iranian media to the report, Reuters made changes to parts of the report but refused to apologize for slander.
Slander? But they seem proud of it and they're saying, wouldn't anyone else in the same position do the same thing!
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News).
Video: Iranian female ninjas sue Reuters
Iranian female ninjas are suing Reuters for saying that they could be assassins. Here's what Iran's Press TV has to say about it.
Last month, Reuters showed a number of Iranian girls training martial arts in a city near Tehran, claiming Iran was training more than 3,000 female ninjas to kill any possible foreign invaders. The distorted Reuters report was picked up by other British media outlets. Following the strong reaction of Iranian media to the report, Reuters made changes to parts of the report but refused to apologize for slander.
Slander? But they seem proud of it and they're saying, wouldn't anyone else in the same position do the same thing!
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News).
Exclusive: Iran helps Syria ship oil to China: sources
LONDON | Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:31am EDT
(Reuters) - Iran is helping its ally Syria defy Western sanctions by providing a vessel to ship Syrian oil to a state-run company in China, potentially giving the government of President Bashar al-Assad a financial boost worth an estimated $80 million.
Iran, itself a target of Western sanctions, is among Syria's closest allies and has promised to do all it can to support Assad, recently praising his handling of the year-long uprising against Assad in which thousands have been killed.
China has also shielded Assad from foreign intervention, vetoing two Western-backed resolutions at the United Nations over the bloodshed, and is not bound by Western sanctions against Syria, its oil sector and state oil firm Sytrol.
"The Syrians planned to sell the oil directly to the Chinese but they could not find a vessel," said an industry source who added that he had been asked to help Sytrol execute the deal but did not take part.
The source named the Chinese buyer as Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, a state-run company hit by U.S. sanctions in January.
A Zhuhai Zhenrong spokeswoman said: "I've never heard about this." She declined further comment.
The U.S. State Department said in January that Zhuhai Zhenrong was the largest supplier of refined petroleum products to Iran, on which the West has imposed sanctions because it suspects Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons.
China's willingness to start importing Syrian oil offers a rare break in the country's growing isolation.
Syria, a relatively modest oil exporter, has been unable to sell its crude into Europe, its traditional destination until September last year when European Union and U.S. sanctions halted exports.
The crude oil cargo, worth around $84 million assuming a discounted price of about $100 a barrel, could provide Assad with much-needed funds after another round of sanctions designed to further isolate the country's ailing economy were imposed by the European Union last week.
Syria's Sytrol, which has been on the EU and U.S. sanctions list since last year, referred calls to the country's oil ministry. No one answered repeated calls by Reuters at the oil ministry. Iranian authorities were not available to comment.
The source added Sytrol had enlisted contacts in Venezuela to help find a vessel that could pick up the cargo. The problem was ultimately resolved by the Iranian authorities, who sent the tanker M.T. Tour to take on the cargo.
The Maltese-flagged tanker is owned by shipping firm ISIM Tour Limited, which has been identified by the U.S. Department of Treasury as a front company set up by Iran to evade sanctions.
The M.T. Tour reached the Syrian port of Tartus at the weekend, where it loaded the 120,000 metric tonne (132,277 tons) cargo of light crude oil, according to the industry source and shiptracking data.
Satellite tracking showed the vessel was last spotted near Port Said in Egypt, where is was due to arrive on Wednesday. Its final destination was not available but the industry source said the vessel was likely to head to China or Singapore.
"I was asked to provide an option to ship to southern China or Singapore," the source said.
(Reporting by Jessica Donati; Additional reporting by Chen Aizhu; Editing by Anthony Barker and Giles Elgood)
Obama Admin Leaking Info to the Media to Thwart Israeli Strike on Iran?
March 29, 2012
By Lonely Conservative
It looks like President Obama is throwing Israel under the bus – Iran’s bus. Via Atlas Shrugs, ABC News reported that the Israelis believe the Obama administration has been leaking information to the press in an effort to thwart an Israeli strike against Iran.
Two reports today about Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks.
The first report in Foreign Policy quotes anonymous American officials saying that Israel has been given access to airbases by Iran’s northern neighbor Azerbaijan from which Israel could launch air strikes or at least drones and search and rescue aircraft.
The second report from Bloomberg, based on a leaked congressional report, said that Iran’s nuclear facilities are so dispersed that it is “unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be…” A strike could delay Iran as little as six months, a former official told the researchers.
“It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from attacking,” analyst Yoel Guzansky at the Institute for National Security Studies told ABC News. “I think the [Obama] administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack and attack soon. They’re trying hard to prevent it in so many ways.” (Read More)
Ron Ben-Yishai, writing for YNET News, provided a more in-depth analysis. Here’s his conclusion.
Betraying an ally
To sum up, the American publications caused the following damage:
Iran now has a decent picture of what Israel’s and America’s intelligence communities know about Tehran’s nuclear program and defense establishment, including its aerial defenses.
The Iranians now know about the indications that would be perceived by Washington and Jerusalem as a “nuclear breakthrough”. Hence, Iran can do a better job of concealment.
The reports make it more difficult to utilize certain operational options. These options, even if not considered thus far, could have been used by the US in the future, should Iran not thwart them via diplomatic and military means.
Needless to say, this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.
Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them.
Read the whole thing. If this is what Obama’s doing now, imagine what he’ll do if he wins the next election and has more “flexibility.”
Be sure to watch John Bolton’s reaction, also at Atlas Shrugs.
By Lonely Conservative
It looks like President Obama is throwing Israel under the bus – Iran’s bus. Via Atlas Shrugs, ABC News reported that the Israelis believe the Obama administration has been leaking information to the press in an effort to thwart an Israeli strike against Iran.
Two reports today about Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks.
The first report in Foreign Policy quotes anonymous American officials saying that Israel has been given access to airbases by Iran’s northern neighbor Azerbaijan from which Israel could launch air strikes or at least drones and search and rescue aircraft.
The second report from Bloomberg, based on a leaked congressional report, said that Iran’s nuclear facilities are so dispersed that it is “unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be…” A strike could delay Iran as little as six months, a former official told the researchers.
“It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from attacking,” analyst Yoel Guzansky at the Institute for National Security Studies told ABC News. “I think the [Obama] administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack and attack soon. They’re trying hard to prevent it in so many ways.” (Read More)
Ron Ben-Yishai, writing for YNET News, provided a more in-depth analysis. Here’s his conclusion.
Betraying an ally
To sum up, the American publications caused the following damage:
Iran now has a decent picture of what Israel’s and America’s intelligence communities know about Tehran’s nuclear program and defense establishment, including its aerial defenses.
The Iranians now know about the indications that would be perceived by Washington and Jerusalem as a “nuclear breakthrough”. Hence, Iran can do a better job of concealment.
The reports make it more difficult to utilize certain operational options. These options, even if not considered thus far, could have been used by the US in the future, should Iran not thwart them via diplomatic and military means.
Needless to say, this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.
Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them.
Read the whole thing. If this is what Obama’s doing now, imagine what he’ll do if he wins the next election and has more “flexibility.”
Be sure to watch John Bolton’s reaction, also at Atlas Shrugs.
Audio: It’s time for Democrats to moderate on abortion, says … Jimmy Carter?
posted March 29, 2012
by Allahpundit - HotAir:
Skip to 13:20 of the clip for the key bit. Dude, second look at–
No. I can’t bring myself to say it.
“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president, having to uphold Roe v. Wade. And I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children, for instance, that were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children, or WIC program, that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions…
“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”
Listen as Ingraham engages with him on how much bluer the south might be if blue-collar evangelicals didn’t have a moral objection to voting Democratic. Impossible to know offhand, though, whether they’d net more electoral votes that way than they’d lose. What’s the point in losing Mississippi by 10 points instead of 20 if, say, Colorado liberals stay home in outrage and you lose that state altogether? (On the other hand, if moving right on abortion helped them win Virginia outright while shrinking their margin of victory in California to “only” six or seven points, that might be worth doing.) And if they crossed the aisle, how confident would blue-collar evangelicals feel that the Democrats’ pro-choice wing wouldn’t end up controlling the party’s agenda anyway once it’s in office? I’d love to see a poll on the subject.
Even if you had hard evidence that moderation on “choice” would net them some votes, I wonder if the party would do it. Abortion is one of the modern left’s animating concerns, which is why I had fun with O’s conspicuous silence about it last night in his Planned Parenthood pander. Protecting it shouldn’t matter as much morally to them as ending it matters to pro-lifers since only one side considers it a matter of life and death, but it seems to. If the party betrayed them over it, even for electoral advantage, the backlash would be roughly as ferocious as it would be on the right if the GOP suddenly lurched towards the pro-choice position in hopes of winning a few swing states. (If you don’t like that example, imagine conservative reaction to the RNC embracing gun control because it might help in California.) If they did it, they’d be betting that the 15 percent of rabid abortion-supporting liberals who end up defecting to the Green Party could be replaced with a chunk of evangelicals such that the Dems end up topping the GOP narrowly in three-way elections (a la 1992 and 1996) each cycle. Again, I’d have to see a poll to know if that’s feasible — and it’s certainly true that some disaffected leftists would grudgingly vote Dem anyway if the race looked very close — but replacing people who’ll definitely vote for you with people who might vote for you seems awfully risky when the stakes are this high.
by Allahpundit - HotAir:
Skip to 13:20 of the clip for the key bit. Dude, second look at–
No. I can’t bring myself to say it.
“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president, having to uphold Roe v. Wade. And I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children, for instance, that were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children, or WIC program, that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions…
“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”
Listen as Ingraham engages with him on how much bluer the south might be if blue-collar evangelicals didn’t have a moral objection to voting Democratic. Impossible to know offhand, though, whether they’d net more electoral votes that way than they’d lose. What’s the point in losing Mississippi by 10 points instead of 20 if, say, Colorado liberals stay home in outrage and you lose that state altogether? (On the other hand, if moving right on abortion helped them win Virginia outright while shrinking their margin of victory in California to “only” six or seven points, that might be worth doing.) And if they crossed the aisle, how confident would blue-collar evangelicals feel that the Democrats’ pro-choice wing wouldn’t end up controlling the party’s agenda anyway once it’s in office? I’d love to see a poll on the subject.
Even if you had hard evidence that moderation on “choice” would net them some votes, I wonder if the party would do it. Abortion is one of the modern left’s animating concerns, which is why I had fun with O’s conspicuous silence about it last night in his Planned Parenthood pander. Protecting it shouldn’t matter as much morally to them as ending it matters to pro-lifers since only one side considers it a matter of life and death, but it seems to. If the party betrayed them over it, even for electoral advantage, the backlash would be roughly as ferocious as it would be on the right if the GOP suddenly lurched towards the pro-choice position in hopes of winning a few swing states. (If you don’t like that example, imagine conservative reaction to the RNC embracing gun control because it might help in California.) If they did it, they’d be betting that the 15 percent of rabid abortion-supporting liberals who end up defecting to the Green Party could be replaced with a chunk of evangelicals such that the Dems end up topping the GOP narrowly in three-way elections (a la 1992 and 1996) each cycle. Again, I’d have to see a poll to know if that’s feasible — and it’s certainly true that some disaffected leftists would grudgingly vote Dem anyway if the race looked very close — but replacing people who’ll definitely vote for you with people who might vote for you seems awfully risky when the stakes are this high.
Bengals cheerleader indicted for allegedly having sex with student
Published March 30, 2012
NewsCore
COVINGTON, Ohio – A Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader faces prison time after being indicted by a grand jury Thursday for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a teenage student while teaching at an Ohio high school, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.
The Kenton County grand jury in Covington, just south of Cincinnati, indicted Sarah Jones on first-degree sexual abuse and unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual or other prohibited acts. Each charge carries up to five years in prison, if Jones is found guilty.
Cheryl Jones, the cheerleader's mother, was indicted on a charge of tampering with physical evidence related to her daughter's case.
The lawyer representing the mother and daughter, Charles T. Lester Jr., said both women will plead not guilty.
"Sarah has maintained her innocence. The indictment of her mother is completely baseless," Lester said in a statement to the Enquirer.
Sarah Jones resigned from her post at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood, Ohio, last November, after five years teaching English. She was 26 at the time.
The cheerleader appeared on a number of national TV shows in 2009 after launching a legal campaign against website The Dirty.com, which had posted pictures of her with comments saying she had had sex with Bengals players and had two sexually transmitted infections.
In January, U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman found that TheDirty.com was not shielded from liability, a decision that the website has appealed to the sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, the Enquirer reported.
NewsCore
COVINGTON, Ohio – A Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader faces prison time after being indicted by a grand jury Thursday for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a teenage student while teaching at an Ohio high school, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.
The Kenton County grand jury in Covington, just south of Cincinnati, indicted Sarah Jones on first-degree sexual abuse and unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual or other prohibited acts. Each charge carries up to five years in prison, if Jones is found guilty.
Cheryl Jones, the cheerleader's mother, was indicted on a charge of tampering with physical evidence related to her daughter's case.
The lawyer representing the mother and daughter, Charles T. Lester Jr., said both women will plead not guilty.
"Sarah has maintained her innocence. The indictment of her mother is completely baseless," Lester said in a statement to the Enquirer.
Sarah Jones resigned from her post at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood, Ohio, last November, after five years teaching English. She was 26 at the time.
The cheerleader appeared on a number of national TV shows in 2009 after launching a legal campaign against website The Dirty.com, which had posted pictures of her with comments saying she had had sex with Bengals players and had two sexually transmitted infections.
In January, U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman found that TheDirty.com was not shielded from liability, a decision that the website has appealed to the sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, the Enquirer reported.
Fact check: Biden's manufactured jobs claims
By Eugene Kiely, FactCheck.org
3.29.12
Declaring "manufacturing is back," Vice President Biden gave a rosy — but not entirely accurate or complete — picture of U.S. manufacturing at a March 28 campaign stop in Iowa.
•Biden overstated — by 1.1 million — the number of manufacturing jobs lost before President Obama took office. He said the U.S. lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs "during the 2000s, before we came in." But that figure includes 2009 — Obama's first year in office. The U.S. lost 4.7 million such jobs "before we came in."
•Biden also cherry-picked his job figures when he declared the U.S. has added "430,000 new manufacturing jobs just since 2010." That's true. But since the start of the Obama administration in January 2009, the U.S. has 661,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — despite the recent job gains.
•In fact, manufacturing jobs represent a disproportionate share of job losses since Obama took office. In all, the U.S. has lost a net 864,000 non-farm jobs since January 2009 — a decline of one half of 1%. But manufacturing jobs are down 5% since then. One recent study found that at the current pace, it will take until 2020 for the U.S. to recover the manufacturing jobs lost since 2007.
Biden spoke about U.S. manufacturing to hundreds of people at PCT Engineered Systems in Davenport, Iowa. He brought this message: "Ladies and gentlemen, I come here today with a very, very simple message: Manufacturing is back. Manufacturing is back."
But, in describing the economic situation the Obama administration inherited, Biden overstated the number of manufacturing jobs that had been lost before he took office.
Biden, March 28: During the 2000s, before we came in, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the United States of America.
Biden would have been correct if he had left out the phrase "before we came in." It's true that the U.S. lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs during the 2000s — from January 2000 (17.3 million jobs) through December 2009 (11.5 million), Bureau of Labor Statistics show. But that includes one year of the Obama-Biden administration, which started in January 2009.
To determine the number of jobs lost "during the 2000s, before we came in" you would have to look at the difference in jobs from January 2000 (17.3 million) to January 2009 (12.6 million). That's 4.7 million jobs lost, so Biden was off by about 1.1 million jobs.
Now, Biden was correct when he said the U.S. has added "430,000 new manufacturing jobs just since 2010." But this ignores the job losses in 2009, which, as we just noted, were pretty severe. In all, since Obama took office, the U.S. has lost 661,000 manufacturing jobs.
In fact, the manufacturing sector has taken a bigger hit under Obama — undercutting Biden's claim that "manufacturing is back."
There were 11,891,000 manufacturing jobs in February 2012, down 661,000 since January 2009. That's 5% fewer manufacturing jobs. By contrast, there were 132,697,000 total non-farm jobs in the U.S. in February 2012 — down 864,000 since January 2009. That's a decline of a little more than one half of 1%.
In fact, a recent study on U.S. manufacturing by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation dismissed the pace of recent job gains as too slow and talk of a "manufacturing renaissance" as premature. The bipartisan think tank — whose honorary co-chairs are two Republican and two Democratic members of Congress — says in its report that at the current pace "it would take until 2020 to return to where the economy was in terms of manufacturing jobs at the end of 2007."
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, March 19: Others now argue that because a few manufacturing jobs have returned that the United States is poised for a manufacturing renaissance. But the rebound looks as good as it does only because the prior loss was so steep. The United States lost two million manufacturing jobs during the Great Recession, and since then a little over 166,000, or 8.2%, have returned. At the rate of growth in manufacturing jobs in 2011, it would take until 2020 to return to where the economy was in terms of manufacturing jobs at the end of 2007.
This is an issue you can expect to hear a lot about. The Obama campaign just released a Web video that says "under Obama the manufacturing sector has experienced 31 consecutive months of growth and added hundreds of thousands of jobs." That's true — as far as it goes — just as Biden is correct that the U.S. has gained manufacturing jobs in the last two years. But that's not the whole story.
3.29.12
Declaring "manufacturing is back," Vice President Biden gave a rosy — but not entirely accurate or complete — picture of U.S. manufacturing at a March 28 campaign stop in Iowa.
•Biden overstated — by 1.1 million — the number of manufacturing jobs lost before President Obama took office. He said the U.S. lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs "during the 2000s, before we came in." But that figure includes 2009 — Obama's first year in office. The U.S. lost 4.7 million such jobs "before we came in."
•Biden also cherry-picked his job figures when he declared the U.S. has added "430,000 new manufacturing jobs just since 2010." That's true. But since the start of the Obama administration in January 2009, the U.S. has 661,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — despite the recent job gains.
•In fact, manufacturing jobs represent a disproportionate share of job losses since Obama took office. In all, the U.S. has lost a net 864,000 non-farm jobs since January 2009 — a decline of one half of 1%. But manufacturing jobs are down 5% since then. One recent study found that at the current pace, it will take until 2020 for the U.S. to recover the manufacturing jobs lost since 2007.
Biden spoke about U.S. manufacturing to hundreds of people at PCT Engineered Systems in Davenport, Iowa. He brought this message: "Ladies and gentlemen, I come here today with a very, very simple message: Manufacturing is back. Manufacturing is back."
But, in describing the economic situation the Obama administration inherited, Biden overstated the number of manufacturing jobs that had been lost before he took office.
Biden, March 28: During the 2000s, before we came in, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the United States of America.
Biden would have been correct if he had left out the phrase "before we came in." It's true that the U.S. lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs during the 2000s — from January 2000 (17.3 million jobs) through December 2009 (11.5 million), Bureau of Labor Statistics show. But that includes one year of the Obama-Biden administration, which started in January 2009.
To determine the number of jobs lost "during the 2000s, before we came in" you would have to look at the difference in jobs from January 2000 (17.3 million) to January 2009 (12.6 million). That's 4.7 million jobs lost, so Biden was off by about 1.1 million jobs.
Now, Biden was correct when he said the U.S. has added "430,000 new manufacturing jobs just since 2010." But this ignores the job losses in 2009, which, as we just noted, were pretty severe. In all, since Obama took office, the U.S. has lost 661,000 manufacturing jobs.
In fact, the manufacturing sector has taken a bigger hit under Obama — undercutting Biden's claim that "manufacturing is back."
There were 11,891,000 manufacturing jobs in February 2012, down 661,000 since January 2009. That's 5% fewer manufacturing jobs. By contrast, there were 132,697,000 total non-farm jobs in the U.S. in February 2012 — down 864,000 since January 2009. That's a decline of a little more than one half of 1%.
In fact, a recent study on U.S. manufacturing by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation dismissed the pace of recent job gains as too slow and talk of a "manufacturing renaissance" as premature. The bipartisan think tank — whose honorary co-chairs are two Republican and two Democratic members of Congress — says in its report that at the current pace "it would take until 2020 to return to where the economy was in terms of manufacturing jobs at the end of 2007."
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, March 19: Others now argue that because a few manufacturing jobs have returned that the United States is poised for a manufacturing renaissance. But the rebound looks as good as it does only because the prior loss was so steep. The United States lost two million manufacturing jobs during the Great Recession, and since then a little over 166,000, or 8.2%, have returned. At the rate of growth in manufacturing jobs in 2011, it would take until 2020 to return to where the economy was in terms of manufacturing jobs at the end of 2007.
This is an issue you can expect to hear a lot about. The Obama campaign just released a Web video that says "under Obama the manufacturing sector has experienced 31 consecutive months of growth and added hundreds of thousands of jobs." That's true — as far as it goes — just as Biden is correct that the U.S. has gained manufacturing jobs in the last two years. But that's not the whole story.
I patiently wait for this day to come.
3.29.12
I do; I do.
Source: tumblr.com via Emily on Pinterest
…How did I get there? Well, I refuse to answer that question without first consulting with my attorney.
UPDATE: Does this look weird on anybody else’s computer?
I do; I do.
Source: tumblr.com via Emily on Pinterest
…How did I get there? Well, I refuse to answer that question without first consulting with my attorney.
UPDATE: Does this look weird on anybody else’s computer?
Mark Levin: If I had another son, I think he’d look like Brian Terry
Posted by The Right Scoop on March 29th, 2012
Mark Levin wants to know what the standard is going forward for the president in commenting on crimes involving death. He wonders because he doesn’t believe that the parents of Brian Terry, the border patrol agent who was shot in the back by weapons this administration sold to the enemy, have received a phone call from the president. He wonders these things in light of the planted question Obama got the other day about Trayvon Martin. He tells journalists that the next time Obama’s staffers are whispering planted questions in their ear, perhaps they should ask what the standard is going forward on Obama commenting on these matters:
Audio
UPDATE: Also, here’s the story from the Telegraph that Levin was referring to.
Mark Levin wants to know what the standard is going forward for the president in commenting on crimes involving death. He wonders because he doesn’t believe that the parents of Brian Terry, the border patrol agent who was shot in the back by weapons this administration sold to the enemy, have received a phone call from the president. He wonders these things in light of the planted question Obama got the other day about Trayvon Martin. He tells journalists that the next time Obama’s staffers are whispering planted questions in their ear, perhaps they should ask what the standard is going forward on Obama commenting on these matters:
Audio
UPDATE: Also, here’s the story from the Telegraph that Levin was referring to.
Is Obama Signaling a Second Administration Even MORE Anti-Israel?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Is Obama Signaling a Second Administration Even MORE Anti-Israel?
Note if you cannot see three videos below, Please click here.
Four separate stories mostly unrelated, only one made big news, three were barely covered by the mainstream media.... but when you put them together they tell a frightening story.
This narrative should be titled, What Israel Would Face in a Second Obama Administration.
The first story was widely reported...President Obama's open mike gaffe. On Monday at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, President Obama whispered to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense after the 2012 elections, and that incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
Tuesday saw Ari Fleischer former George Bush press secretary debate Obama's deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter about the gaffe. Fleischer asked Cutter if can she assure us that the president has made no other statements like that to, say, Arab leaders or Palestinian leaders, ‘Give me space and after the election I’ll have more flexibility to deal with Israel?’ Can you assure us he’s not done that?”
Cutter gave a long-winded answer that had nothing to do with the question.
Wednesday a state department official refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is part of Israel, not East Jerusalem, she refused to acknowledge that ANY part of Jerusalem was in Israel. Here is the transcript originally published in the Washington Beacon and virtually ignored elsewhere:
Q: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the department about the travel of your boss.
Is it the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first media note was issued in error, without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that undersecretary, acting undersecretary for—our—Kathy Stephens will be travelling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.
Q: Is it the view of the—of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy—the location of the U.S. embassy?
MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.
Q: Does that—does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through negotiations.
Q: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?
MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue –
Q: (Inaudible.)
MS. NULAND: — and I have nothing further to say on it.
Q: You’ve spoken to the issue –
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
Q: — but (haven’t answered ?) the question. And I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying—and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.
MS. NULAND: That is our –
Q: What is the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.
Q: What is the capital of Israel according –
MS. NULAND: Our embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.
Q: So does that mean you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.
….
Q: I just want to go back to—I want to clarify something, perhaps give you an “out” on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your—is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final-status issue, or do you think—or is it just East Jerusalem?
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further to what I’ve said 17 times on that subject. OK?
Q: All right. So hold on. So I just want to make sure. You’re saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final-status issue.
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further on Jerusalem to what I’ve already said.
The fourth story comes from Israeli paper YNET:
The United States is leaking information to the media in order to avert an Israeli strike in Iran: The US Administration recently shifted into high gear in its efforts to avert an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the end of the year. The flood of reports in the American media in recent weeks attests not only to the genuine US fear that Israel intends to realize its threats; moreover, it indicates that the Obama Administration has decided to take its gloves off.
Indeed, in recent weeks the Administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-Ã -vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. This “surgical strike” is undertaken via reports in the American and British media, but the campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.
This report was written by Ron Ben-Yishai an award-winning Israeli journalist and war correspondent. John Bolton agrees with Ben-Yishai
Now put the four stories together.
President Obama tells the Russian president to give him some space because once he doesn't have to run again he will have have more flexibility. Obama's deputy campaign director avoids answering whether or not the President has made similar assurances to Israel's enemies. It would have been very easy for her to say, of course not.
The state department refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is no change...but they also refuse to say that any part of Jerusalem even the part inside the "green line,"was part of Israel.
And finally, we learn that President Obama is "sneaking around" behind Israel's "back," to sabotage the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iran (which Israel has not yet decided to do).
Is this Obama's pre-election foreshadowing of what he will do once he has the flexibility of not having to run again? Is Obama sabotaging Israel under the radar today and waiting to do even worse more blatantly later? Is the subtle shift in the US position on Jerusalem a signal of the pressure Obama wil deliver in a second Obama administration?
The only way we will know for sure is if he is re-elected...but if (God-Forbid) that happens, for Israel (and for the United States) it will be too late.
Is Obama Signaling a Second Administration Even MORE Anti-Israel?
Note if you cannot see three videos below, Please click here.
Four separate stories mostly unrelated, only one made big news, three were barely covered by the mainstream media.... but when you put them together they tell a frightening story.
This narrative should be titled, What Israel Would Face in a Second Obama Administration.
The first story was widely reported...President Obama's open mike gaffe. On Monday at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, President Obama whispered to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense after the 2012 elections, and that incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
Tuesday saw Ari Fleischer former George Bush press secretary debate Obama's deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter about the gaffe. Fleischer asked Cutter if can she assure us that the president has made no other statements like that to, say, Arab leaders or Palestinian leaders, ‘Give me space and after the election I’ll have more flexibility to deal with Israel?’ Can you assure us he’s not done that?”
Cutter gave a long-winded answer that had nothing to do with the question.
Wednesday a state department official refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is part of Israel, not East Jerusalem, she refused to acknowledge that ANY part of Jerusalem was in Israel. Here is the transcript originally published in the Washington Beacon and virtually ignored elsewhere:
Q: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the department about the travel of your boss.
Is it the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first media note was issued in error, without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that undersecretary, acting undersecretary for—our—Kathy Stephens will be travelling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.
Q: Is it the view of the—of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy—the location of the U.S. embassy?
MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.
Q: Does that—does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through negotiations.
Q: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?
MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue –
Q: (Inaudible.)
MS. NULAND: — and I have nothing further to say on it.
Q: You’ve spoken to the issue –
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
Q: — but (haven’t answered ?) the question. And I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying—and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.
MS. NULAND: That is our –
Q: What is the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.
Q: What is the capital of Israel according –
MS. NULAND: Our embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.
Q: So does that mean you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.
….
Q: I just want to go back to—I want to clarify something, perhaps give you an “out” on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your—is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final-status issue, or do you think—or is it just East Jerusalem?
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further to what I’ve said 17 times on that subject. OK?
Q: All right. So hold on. So I just want to make sure. You’re saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final-status issue.
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further on Jerusalem to what I’ve already said.
The fourth story comes from Israeli paper YNET:
The United States is leaking information to the media in order to avert an Israeli strike in Iran: The US Administration recently shifted into high gear in its efforts to avert an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the end of the year. The flood of reports in the American media in recent weeks attests not only to the genuine US fear that Israel intends to realize its threats; moreover, it indicates that the Obama Administration has decided to take its gloves off.
Indeed, in recent weeks the Administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-Ã -vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. This “surgical strike” is undertaken via reports in the American and British media, but the campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.
This report was written by Ron Ben-Yishai an award-winning Israeli journalist and war correspondent. John Bolton agrees with Ben-Yishai
Now put the four stories together.
President Obama tells the Russian president to give him some space because once he doesn't have to run again he will have have more flexibility. Obama's deputy campaign director avoids answering whether or not the President has made similar assurances to Israel's enemies. It would have been very easy for her to say, of course not.
The state department refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is no change...but they also refuse to say that any part of Jerusalem even the part inside the "green line,"was part of Israel.
And finally, we learn that President Obama is "sneaking around" behind Israel's "back," to sabotage the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iran (which Israel has not yet decided to do).
Is this Obama's pre-election foreshadowing of what he will do once he has the flexibility of not having to run again? Is Obama sabotaging Israel under the radar today and waiting to do even worse more blatantly later? Is the subtle shift in the US position on Jerusalem a signal of the pressure Obama wil deliver in a second Obama administration?
The only way we will know for sure is if he is re-elected...but if (God-Forbid) that happens, for Israel (and for the United States) it will be too late.
UN, Planned Parenthood Push Sex Rights for Ten-Year Old Kids
by Timothy Herrmann
3/29/12 7:35 PM
LifeNews.com:
New York, NY (CFAM/LifeNews) — The UN Commission on Population and Development is considering “sexual and reproductive health and rights” for children as young as ten.
Even the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon agrees. In a statement recently released he said, “Young people, as much as all people, share the human right to health, including sexual and reproductive health.”
Currently international law does not recognize a “right” to sexual and reproductive health and certainly does not recognize this right in the case of minors. But just last year, the UN Special Rapporteur for Health, Anand Grover, stirred up significant controversy when he not only claimed that a “right” of sexual and reproductive health existed but attempted to define that right as including access to abortion, contraception, and sexual education.
The association of this right with youth by the Secretary General and the Commission on Population and Development (CPD), especially children, is more controversial since the right could be defined as including access to abortion and contraception.
Organizations like International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and IPAS, staunch advocates for the sexual and reproductive rights of minors internationally and at the United Nations, have already issued official reports to the conference bureau supportive of rights language including contraception and abortion. They are also using the conference as an opportunity to attack parental involvement in the sexual health of their children.
For organizations like IPPF, parents are the biggest obstacle to minors accessing services like abortion and contraception, and they hope to secure language at the conference that will marginalize their role.
In its official statement, IPPF asserts, “laws that restrict young people’s access to sexual and reproductive health services, including parental or spousal consent laws” must either be removed or be refrained from being implemented. IPAS goes even further and argues that youth should be considered independent actors free of any obstacles that ignore their own “capacity to make informed decisions.” Their main goal at this conference will be to marginalize parental involvement and encourage countries supportive of their position to increase pressure for the kind of language that the Secretary General has already been proposing.
Given that the document that will be negotiated at the conference calls upon “governments…to give full attention to meeting the reproductive health, service, and education needs of young people with full respect for their privacy and confidentiality,” it seems their efforts may already have a head start.
The Commission members have started negotiating the document now and the final negotiating session will happen in April. It is sure to be among the most controversial in years.
LifeNews.com Note: Timothy Herrmann writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group’s Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.
3/29/12 7:35 PM
LifeNews.com:
New York, NY (CFAM/LifeNews) — The UN Commission on Population and Development is considering “sexual and reproductive health and rights” for children as young as ten.
Even the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon agrees. In a statement recently released he said, “Young people, as much as all people, share the human right to health, including sexual and reproductive health.”
Currently international law does not recognize a “right” to sexual and reproductive health and certainly does not recognize this right in the case of minors. But just last year, the UN Special Rapporteur for Health, Anand Grover, stirred up significant controversy when he not only claimed that a “right” of sexual and reproductive health existed but attempted to define that right as including access to abortion, contraception, and sexual education.
The association of this right with youth by the Secretary General and the Commission on Population and Development (CPD), especially children, is more controversial since the right could be defined as including access to abortion and contraception.
Organizations like International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and IPAS, staunch advocates for the sexual and reproductive rights of minors internationally and at the United Nations, have already issued official reports to the conference bureau supportive of rights language including contraception and abortion. They are also using the conference as an opportunity to attack parental involvement in the sexual health of their children.
For organizations like IPPF, parents are the biggest obstacle to minors accessing services like abortion and contraception, and they hope to secure language at the conference that will marginalize their role.
In its official statement, IPPF asserts, “laws that restrict young people’s access to sexual and reproductive health services, including parental or spousal consent laws” must either be removed or be refrained from being implemented. IPAS goes even further and argues that youth should be considered independent actors free of any obstacles that ignore their own “capacity to make informed decisions.” Their main goal at this conference will be to marginalize parental involvement and encourage countries supportive of their position to increase pressure for the kind of language that the Secretary General has already been proposing.
Given that the document that will be negotiated at the conference calls upon “governments…to give full attention to meeting the reproductive health, service, and education needs of young people with full respect for their privacy and confidentiality,” it seems their efforts may already have a head start.
The Commission members have started negotiating the document now and the final negotiating session will happen in April. It is sure to be among the most controversial in years.
LifeNews.com Note: Timothy Herrmann writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group’s Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.
On Liquidity And The False Recovery
Submitted by Tyler Durden
03/29/2012 19:57 -0400
Zero Hedge:
David McWilliams (of Punk Economics) is back (previous discussions here and here) and this time he takes on the the flood of liquidity and the false recovery that has been created. Starting with a discussion of gas prices and the central banks' recklessness behind it, he swiftly shifts to the 'shambles in Greece' where more debt is supposed to solve the problem of too much debt yet again. From extreme highs in Greek rates to extreme lows in rates among the major developed economies he juggles with the conundrum of injecting liquidity to reflate a bubble in order to avoid the consequences of the bursting of a bubble - brilliant (as those Guinness chaps would say) - as this merely pushes the next crash out a few more years but making it bigger and more devastating. Global Central banks have pumped $8.7tn into the banking system to 'save the world'. Saving the banks has cost more money than it cost to fight WWII, the first Gulf War, put a man on the moon, clean up after last year's Japanese Tsunami, and the entire African aid budget for the last 20 years all put together. Context is key - is it any wonder asset prices have risen since there has been so much cash looking for a new home - why hold something that is printed everyday (cash) when you can hold something that is actually running out like oil or gold. The punchline is what goes in must come out - and that means inflation - as the 'trip' of excess liquidity comes home to roost. Must watch.
03/29/2012 19:57 -0400
Zero Hedge:
David McWilliams (of Punk Economics) is back (previous discussions here and here) and this time he takes on the the flood of liquidity and the false recovery that has been created. Starting with a discussion of gas prices and the central banks' recklessness behind it, he swiftly shifts to the 'shambles in Greece' where more debt is supposed to solve the problem of too much debt yet again. From extreme highs in Greek rates to extreme lows in rates among the major developed economies he juggles with the conundrum of injecting liquidity to reflate a bubble in order to avoid the consequences of the bursting of a bubble - brilliant (as those Guinness chaps would say) - as this merely pushes the next crash out a few more years but making it bigger and more devastating. Global Central banks have pumped $8.7tn into the banking system to 'save the world'. Saving the banks has cost more money than it cost to fight WWII, the first Gulf War, put a man on the moon, clean up after last year's Japanese Tsunami, and the entire African aid budget for the last 20 years all put together. Context is key - is it any wonder asset prices have risen since there has been so much cash looking for a new home - why hold something that is printed everyday (cash) when you can hold something that is actually running out like oil or gold. The punchline is what goes in must come out - and that means inflation - as the 'trip' of excess liquidity comes home to roost. Must watch.
Hypocrite Obama voted for big oil tax breaks in 2005 as Senator
The wrap on Mitt Romney is what a flip flopper he is. Does anyone pay attention to Obama’s flip flops? During his 2008 he promised to close Gitmo (it’s still open), he promised to get the bet by 500 billion a year (he’s set records for over a trillion in debt every year), etc. Now Obama is trying to bitch and moan about big oil tax subsidies. Yes, this is the same Obama that voted to uphold big tax breaks/subsidies while being a senator in 2005. Fox News’ Ed Henry asked White House propaganda minister Jay Carney why he supported the tax breaks in 2005. Carney as usual had no answer.
The Road We’ve Traveled Part 2: The Carpet Crisis
By R. Mitchell on Mar 30, 2012
CDN:
Rich Mitchell is the Sr, Managing Editor of ConservativeDailyNews.com and a Conservative political commentator.
CDN:
Rich Mitchell is the Sr, Managing Editor of ConservativeDailyNews.com and a Conservative political commentator.
CBS Enables NYC Mayor Bloomberg to Push For Gun Control
By Matthew Balan
March 29, 2012
NewsBusters:
CBS This Morning on Thursday gave New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg a platform to boost his pro-gun control agenda. Anchors Erica Hill and Charlie Rose tossed softball questions at the billionaire politician, enabling him spout his liberal talking points in favor of stricter gun regulations. Rose and Hill even let Bloomberg lecture the press about their supposed responsibility to push for gun control.
The mayor forwarded a beyond irrational argument against armed self defense: "Somebody's banging on your door and says, I'm going to come in and kill you...And this guy's got the gun out...You're better off not having a gun." Bloomberg also bizarrely claimed that "America is the only place where there is a murder rate with guns. Other places have criminal problems; other places have murders. But here, it's a unique thing." [audio available here; video below]
Hill raised the Trayvon Martin controversy towards the end of the segment and singled out the issue over a specific gun law in Florida: "You've been a outspoken proponent, obviously, of gun control for some time. As you watch what's happening in Florida with Trayvon Martin...what do you think of this 'stand your ground' law in Florida?"
The New York City mayor replied by denouncing the law, and included his "you're better off not having a gun" point:
BLOOMBERG: Well, it doesn't make any sense because you don't want people being vigilantes. They don't have the training; they don't have the expertise; there is no oversight. That's the police department's job. And all the statistics show if you, for example, have a gun at home, you're something like 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun. You picture this: somebody's banging on your door and says, I'm going to come in and kill you, and you say, wait a second: let me find the gun. Where did I put the ammunition? Where did I put the key? And this guy's got the gun out and you're (unintelligible) You're better off not having a gun.
The CBS anchor followed up with undemanding question: "Do you think this will lead to a national conversation?" Bloomberg answered, in part, with a oft-used liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, that the component of the Bill of Right protects hunting, but otherwise, gun ownership should be severely restricted. After making his outlandish claim about America being singular in having to deal with gun violence, the mayor even hinted that some gun manufacturers should be imprisoned:
BLOOMBERG: ...[T]he right to own arms- that's protected by the Second Amendment- but not have carry on campus, not have minors carrying guns, not have people with psychiatric problems or criminal records carrying guns. But we saw a disaster in Arizona where a congressperson was shot in the head and...All they [Congess] said is, let's make it worse; let's give more people guns....America is the only country in the world, I think, that has more guns than people. America is the only place where there is a murder rate with guns. Other places have criminal problems; other places have murders. But here, it's a unique thing, and what Congress did is they protected the gun industry as a separate industry and said, if the manufacturers know that guns are going to kill people, you still can't sue them....
If an automobile company makes a car that they know is going to run off the road every once in a while and kill people, we would stop them from selling the car and we'd probably put the management in jail. And yet, Congress protected the gun manufacturers who know the only reason people are buying armor-piercing bullets is to kill somebody- probably cops- because I've never seen a deer or an elk....wearing a bulletproof vest. So, we've got to do something about this, and so far, Congress has not had any courage to do it whatsoever.
The politician has obviously heard of all the gun violence south of the border in Mexico. His own "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" group claimed that the U.S. is mostly to blame for the gun trafficking to the drug cartels in the country. Yet, the Mexican government has a strict gun control policy that disarms law-abiding citizens, and helps the vicious drug criminals run rampant and victimize countless individuals.
Rose closed out the interview by setting up Bloomberg to give a call to action for gun control, including his call for the media to get more involved in pushing for this left-wing cause:
ROSE: And are politicians prepared to go to the public and make the argument you're making?
BLOOMBERG: If you work them over enough, they probably will. I mean, it's really the Fourth Estate's job to explain to the public what's going on here and how the public gets Congress to do the right thing- and the President, the same thing.
In the end, Charlie, I've always believed elected officials generally- not all, but most- care about only three things: one, getting re-elected, because that's the way they make a living; two, keeping their party in power, because that makes it easier to get re-elected; and number three, see number one. That's- so, you know, they just- you have to explain to them, as the NRA does, that if they vote one way, they're going to pay a penalty at the ballot box. The NRA says vote for guns in the hands of everybody, or we'll take- we will keep you from getting re-elected. The public has to say, you vote for guns, and they're going to kill my kids; we're going to keep you from getting re-elected.
Earlier the segment, Bloomberg furthered another liberal pet project in calling for an end to the Bush tax cuts: "If you want to raise $4 trillion over the next ten years, which gets you...only halfway to a balanced budget, everybody's taxes have to go up. And the nice thing is, the President has the ability to do this, Charlie. He...can't say, Congress won't go along. All the President has to do is say, I am going to veto any bill that tries to stop the automatic ending of the Bush-era tax cuts for everybody. He's got enough votes to sustain a veto."
The relatively new morning show has a record of going tougher on conservatives than liberals. Just over a month earlier, on the February 28, 2012 edition of CBS This Morning, Rose lobbed a series of questions from the left at Rep. Paul Ryan. The journalist wondered if the trend at the time towards social issues in the Republican presidential race was "troubling." By contrast, the anchor tossed softballs at Obama campaign senior advisor Robert Gibbs on February 23.
March 29, 2012
NewsBusters:
CBS This Morning on Thursday gave New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg a platform to boost his pro-gun control agenda. Anchors Erica Hill and Charlie Rose tossed softball questions at the billionaire politician, enabling him spout his liberal talking points in favor of stricter gun regulations. Rose and Hill even let Bloomberg lecture the press about their supposed responsibility to push for gun control.
The mayor forwarded a beyond irrational argument against armed self defense: "Somebody's banging on your door and says, I'm going to come in and kill you...And this guy's got the gun out...You're better off not having a gun." Bloomberg also bizarrely claimed that "America is the only place where there is a murder rate with guns. Other places have criminal problems; other places have murders. But here, it's a unique thing." [audio available here; video below]
Hill raised the Trayvon Martin controversy towards the end of the segment and singled out the issue over a specific gun law in Florida: "You've been a outspoken proponent, obviously, of gun control for some time. As you watch what's happening in Florida with Trayvon Martin...what do you think of this 'stand your ground' law in Florida?"
The New York City mayor replied by denouncing the law, and included his "you're better off not having a gun" point:
BLOOMBERG: Well, it doesn't make any sense because you don't want people being vigilantes. They don't have the training; they don't have the expertise; there is no oversight. That's the police department's job. And all the statistics show if you, for example, have a gun at home, you're something like 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun. You picture this: somebody's banging on your door and says, I'm going to come in and kill you, and you say, wait a second: let me find the gun. Where did I put the ammunition? Where did I put the key? And this guy's got the gun out and you're (unintelligible) You're better off not having a gun.
The CBS anchor followed up with undemanding question: "Do you think this will lead to a national conversation?" Bloomberg answered, in part, with a oft-used liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, that the component of the Bill of Right protects hunting, but otherwise, gun ownership should be severely restricted. After making his outlandish claim about America being singular in having to deal with gun violence, the mayor even hinted that some gun manufacturers should be imprisoned:
BLOOMBERG: ...[T]he right to own arms- that's protected by the Second Amendment- but not have carry on campus, not have minors carrying guns, not have people with psychiatric problems or criminal records carrying guns. But we saw a disaster in Arizona where a congressperson was shot in the head and...All they [Congess] said is, let's make it worse; let's give more people guns....America is the only country in the world, I think, that has more guns than people. America is the only place where there is a murder rate with guns. Other places have criminal problems; other places have murders. But here, it's a unique thing, and what Congress did is they protected the gun industry as a separate industry and said, if the manufacturers know that guns are going to kill people, you still can't sue them....
If an automobile company makes a car that they know is going to run off the road every once in a while and kill people, we would stop them from selling the car and we'd probably put the management in jail. And yet, Congress protected the gun manufacturers who know the only reason people are buying armor-piercing bullets is to kill somebody- probably cops- because I've never seen a deer or an elk....wearing a bulletproof vest. So, we've got to do something about this, and so far, Congress has not had any courage to do it whatsoever.
The politician has obviously heard of all the gun violence south of the border in Mexico. His own "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" group claimed that the U.S. is mostly to blame for the gun trafficking to the drug cartels in the country. Yet, the Mexican government has a strict gun control policy that disarms law-abiding citizens, and helps the vicious drug criminals run rampant and victimize countless individuals.
Rose closed out the interview by setting up Bloomberg to give a call to action for gun control, including his call for the media to get more involved in pushing for this left-wing cause:
ROSE: And are politicians prepared to go to the public and make the argument you're making?
BLOOMBERG: If you work them over enough, they probably will. I mean, it's really the Fourth Estate's job to explain to the public what's going on here and how the public gets Congress to do the right thing- and the President, the same thing.
In the end, Charlie, I've always believed elected officials generally- not all, but most- care about only three things: one, getting re-elected, because that's the way they make a living; two, keeping their party in power, because that makes it easier to get re-elected; and number three, see number one. That's- so, you know, they just- you have to explain to them, as the NRA does, that if they vote one way, they're going to pay a penalty at the ballot box. The NRA says vote for guns in the hands of everybody, or we'll take- we will keep you from getting re-elected. The public has to say, you vote for guns, and they're going to kill my kids; we're going to keep you from getting re-elected.
Earlier the segment, Bloomberg furthered another liberal pet project in calling for an end to the Bush tax cuts: "If you want to raise $4 trillion over the next ten years, which gets you...only halfway to a balanced budget, everybody's taxes have to go up. And the nice thing is, the President has the ability to do this, Charlie. He...can't say, Congress won't go along. All the President has to do is say, I am going to veto any bill that tries to stop the automatic ending of the Bush-era tax cuts for everybody. He's got enough votes to sustain a veto."
The relatively new morning show has a record of going tougher on conservatives than liberals. Just over a month earlier, on the February 28, 2012 edition of CBS This Morning, Rose lobbed a series of questions from the left at Rep. Paul Ryan. The journalist wondered if the trend at the time towards social issues in the Republican presidential race was "troubling." By contrast, the anchor tossed softballs at Obama campaign senior advisor Robert Gibbs on February 23.
Sodexo Sues SEIU
By Dan Collins – March 29, 2012
Posted in: Editors' Picks
LaborUnionReport’s piece at Red State makes a comparison that is very prejudicial to cockroaches, so I’m leaving that out:
Imagine being at a dinner event and having your plate served with (plastic) cockroaches scattered over the food. Envision going to a hospital with a loved one only to be confronted with the hint that the hospital food is infested with bugs, flies, mold, and rat droppings. Pretty disgusting, right? Well, imagine how disgusting it is that these tacticss are due to a union’s efforts to unionize the “offending” company’s employees. At least, that’s the allegations being made by the French-owned company Sodexo.
For more than a year, Sodexo has endured being targeted by the SEIU. Being on the SEIU hit list for the company’s refusal to turn its workforce over to the purple behemoth, the SEIU has (allegedly) engaged in rallies, unlawful retaliation against Sodexo employees, as well as other, equally ugly, tactics such as:
- Throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
- Scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
- Lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
- Violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
- Harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.
Now, Sodexo appears to have had enough.
On Thursday, Sodexo filed a civil lawsuit against the SEIU under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (more commonly known as RICO).
More unions ought to be slapped with RICO suits. Hope Sodexo prevails, if the allegations are well founded.
Posted in: Editors' Picks
LaborUnionReport’s piece at Red State makes a comparison that is very prejudicial to cockroaches, so I’m leaving that out:
Imagine being at a dinner event and having your plate served with (plastic) cockroaches scattered over the food. Envision going to a hospital with a loved one only to be confronted with the hint that the hospital food is infested with bugs, flies, mold, and rat droppings. Pretty disgusting, right? Well, imagine how disgusting it is that these tacticss are due to a union’s efforts to unionize the “offending” company’s employees. At least, that’s the allegations being made by the French-owned company Sodexo.
For more than a year, Sodexo has endured being targeted by the SEIU. Being on the SEIU hit list for the company’s refusal to turn its workforce over to the purple behemoth, the SEIU has (allegedly) engaged in rallies, unlawful retaliation against Sodexo employees, as well as other, equally ugly, tactics such as:
- Throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
- Scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
- Lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
- Violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
- Harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.
Now, Sodexo appears to have had enough.
On Thursday, Sodexo filed a civil lawsuit against the SEIU under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (more commonly known as RICO).
More unions ought to be slapped with RICO suits. Hope Sodexo prevails, if the allegations are well founded.
A View on Inflation & Keynesian Talking Points
Submitted by CrownThomas on 03/29/2012 23:38 -0400
Zero Hedge:
As the world spins helplessly into insolvency, central banks are becoming more and more active in helping to "solve" the crisis (although some would argue it's odd to have those who helped create it be counted on to help solve it). As this is taking place, the Keynesians (MMT'ers) and Austrians are renewing their rivalry, and are once again going after each other for their thoughts on the situation (note: it really doesn't matter what the Austrians believe, as the Keynesians are currently in charge of the decision making).
Volumes can and have been written on these two schools of economic thought - what I'd like to focus on is inflation.
Austrians are always sounding the alarm on inflation, and the Keynesians always laugh and point to the monthly CPI figures the BLS publishes. They say that it's in the 2%-3% range, everything is fine. And besides, the velocity of money is down significantly, so the Austrians need to be quiet and take their "crazy" somewhere else.
That's one way to look at it. I would argue that inflation is all around us, we just choose not to look.
Some context: Say you were buying apples at your local store. What if you thought that there were only a dozen apples in the store you were in, with no chance of more apples being delivered. You'd place a higher value on each apple right? Now what if you knew there was a truck load of apples being delivered shortly - you'd place a little less value on each apple, knowing that the supply of apples will be increasing shortly.
This is the same way Austrians view the value of money. They believe that individuals value money based on both quantity, and QUALITY. If the Federal Reserve can just print money and increase the money supply, creating more dollars to chase a similar amount of goods, why would you value each dollar the same as you would before the money supply was increased? And in regards to velocity of money, the velocity of money does not create inflation, it is a symptom of inflation. Think about it, if you knew there were more and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods around, you'd begin to draw on your account & borrow to purchase goods now instead of in the future, thus increasing the velocity of money. But the inflation was already there when the money supply increased arbitrarily.
Inflation is all around us. I don't need to get into things like WTI or Brent, you feel the effects of those each time you get gas. What I'd like to point out are things like healthcare, energy as a whole, housing prices, and student loans. Do you not see the inflation in those areas? -- As an aside, I recommend reading this piece ZH published on student loans.
Here's the case I lay out for those reading to make up their own minds. The Federal Reserve prints money, "buying" treasuries & increasing the money supply, thus devaluing the dollar. The Government then subsidizes all of the aforementioned areas, which means more dollars are available to purchase those goods & services. And this is how the game is played (also, banks net income swells as a result).
A. M2 (Money Supply) skyrockets (Fed printing)
B. An Example of Government Subsidies in Student Loans
C. Here's Your Inflation (that nobody can seem to find)
D. All with a declining velocity of money
E. The USD is losing value at a rapid pace (but who wants the paper tied to something of value, that's crazy) -- Also, you can look at DXY, but you'd only be looking at how the U.S. is doing devaluing their currency vs. the rest of the currencies in the race to the bottom.
And may I present to you the only reason money is printed - so everyone can consume all those iPads and sweet big screen tv's:
Eventually the game will be up folks, and I strongly recommend you learn to live below your means before you're forced to. The ponzi will fail, and the economy will reset - the only question is when.
In the spirit of the Zero Hedge Mob
Zero Hedge:
As the world spins helplessly into insolvency, central banks are becoming more and more active in helping to "solve" the crisis (although some would argue it's odd to have those who helped create it be counted on to help solve it). As this is taking place, the Keynesians (MMT'ers) and Austrians are renewing their rivalry, and are once again going after each other for their thoughts on the situation (note: it really doesn't matter what the Austrians believe, as the Keynesians are currently in charge of the decision making).
Volumes can and have been written on these two schools of economic thought - what I'd like to focus on is inflation.
Austrians are always sounding the alarm on inflation, and the Keynesians always laugh and point to the monthly CPI figures the BLS publishes. They say that it's in the 2%-3% range, everything is fine. And besides, the velocity of money is down significantly, so the Austrians need to be quiet and take their "crazy" somewhere else.
That's one way to look at it. I would argue that inflation is all around us, we just choose not to look.
Some context: Say you were buying apples at your local store. What if you thought that there were only a dozen apples in the store you were in, with no chance of more apples being delivered. You'd place a higher value on each apple right? Now what if you knew there was a truck load of apples being delivered shortly - you'd place a little less value on each apple, knowing that the supply of apples will be increasing shortly.
This is the same way Austrians view the value of money. They believe that individuals value money based on both quantity, and QUALITY. If the Federal Reserve can just print money and increase the money supply, creating more dollars to chase a similar amount of goods, why would you value each dollar the same as you would before the money supply was increased? And in regards to velocity of money, the velocity of money does not create inflation, it is a symptom of inflation. Think about it, if you knew there were more and more dollars chasing the same amount of goods around, you'd begin to draw on your account & borrow to purchase goods now instead of in the future, thus increasing the velocity of money. But the inflation was already there when the money supply increased arbitrarily.
Inflation is all around us. I don't need to get into things like WTI or Brent, you feel the effects of those each time you get gas. What I'd like to point out are things like healthcare, energy as a whole, housing prices, and student loans. Do you not see the inflation in those areas? -- As an aside, I recommend reading this piece ZH published on student loans.
Here's the case I lay out for those reading to make up their own minds. The Federal Reserve prints money, "buying" treasuries & increasing the money supply, thus devaluing the dollar. The Government then subsidizes all of the aforementioned areas, which means more dollars are available to purchase those goods & services. And this is how the game is played (also, banks net income swells as a result).
A. M2 (Money Supply) skyrockets (Fed printing)
B. An Example of Government Subsidies in Student Loans
C. Here's Your Inflation (that nobody can seem to find)
D. All with a declining velocity of money
E. The USD is losing value at a rapid pace (but who wants the paper tied to something of value, that's crazy) -- Also, you can look at DXY, but you'd only be looking at how the U.S. is doing devaluing their currency vs. the rest of the currencies in the race to the bottom.
And may I present to you the only reason money is printed - so everyone can consume all those iPads and sweet big screen tv's:
Eventually the game will be up folks, and I strongly recommend you learn to live below your means before you're forced to. The ponzi will fail, and the economy will reset - the only question is when.
In the spirit of the Zero Hedge Mob
Tinseltown Zillionaires Demand Government Give Them Your Money
3.29.12
Even as the nation careens toward bankruptcy, and a jaw-dropping 40% of the our rogue government’s massive spending is financed by borrowing (i.e., stealing) from future generations, Obama and his Hollyweird friends call for still more of our money to be stuffed down frivolous rat holes like the National Endowment for the Arts:
Robert Lynch, president and CEO of Americans for the Arts, the premiere lobbying org for arts groups, [is] encouraged by President Obama’s request to increase funding for the NEA to $155 million, restoring it to the level before last year’s budget standoffs, when it was slashed to $146 million. …
Last week, Lynch and Stanley Tucci, on the cusp of the opening of “The Hunger Games,” appeared before a House subcommittee on Capitol Hill to press for the budget increase. On April 16 and 17, a number of industry figures will trek to Washington to participate in a series of lobbying events, including the Americans for the Arts’ annual Nancy Hanks Lecture at the Kennedy Center, to be given this year by Alec Baldwin and featuring a performance by Ben Folds.
Bizarrely, moonbats claim that flushing money down the NEA magically creates wealth (“For every dollar that the NEA invests, four come back,” gibbers Charles Segars, cochair of the lobbying event Arts Advocacy Day), even while admitting that the point is to fund projects that make no economic sense because so few people have any use for them.
The idea that zillionaire leftists like Alec Baldwin put up some of their own cash instead of demanding the government expropriate ours has apparently not been considered.
A truly greedy One Percenter, via Breitbart.
On a tip from Nobody. Hat tip: Free Republic.
By Dave Blount - Moonbattery
Even as the nation careens toward bankruptcy, and a jaw-dropping 40% of the our rogue government’s massive spending is financed by borrowing (i.e., stealing) from future generations, Obama and his Hollyweird friends call for still more of our money to be stuffed down frivolous rat holes like the National Endowment for the Arts:
Robert Lynch, president and CEO of Americans for the Arts, the premiere lobbying org for arts groups, [is] encouraged by President Obama’s request to increase funding for the NEA to $155 million, restoring it to the level before last year’s budget standoffs, when it was slashed to $146 million. …
Last week, Lynch and Stanley Tucci, on the cusp of the opening of “The Hunger Games,” appeared before a House subcommittee on Capitol Hill to press for the budget increase. On April 16 and 17, a number of industry figures will trek to Washington to participate in a series of lobbying events, including the Americans for the Arts’ annual Nancy Hanks Lecture at the Kennedy Center, to be given this year by Alec Baldwin and featuring a performance by Ben Folds.
Bizarrely, moonbats claim that flushing money down the NEA magically creates wealth (“For every dollar that the NEA invests, four come back,” gibbers Charles Segars, cochair of the lobbying event Arts Advocacy Day), even while admitting that the point is to fund projects that make no economic sense because so few people have any use for them.
The idea that zillionaire leftists like Alec Baldwin put up some of their own cash instead of demanding the government expropriate ours has apparently not been considered.
On a tip from Nobody. Hat tip: Free Republic.
By Dave Blount - Moonbattery
House Votes 414-0 to Reject Obama's Budget Plan
Posted on March 29, 2012 at 10:39am by Billy Hallowell
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Republicans are ready to push through the House an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget that showcases their deficit-cutting plan for revamping Medicare and slicing everything from food stamps to transportation while rejecting President Barack Obama’s call to raise taxes on the rich.
The blueprint by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was headed for all but certain House passage Thursday, mostly along party lines. It faces a demise that is just as sure in the Democratic-run Senate, which plans to ignore it, but the battle remains significant because of the clarity with which it contrasts the two parties’ budgetary visions for voters.
Republicans were focused on sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats wanted and were proposing to lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks. Obama and Democrats were ready to boost taxes on families making above $250,000 and on oil and gas companies, add spending for roads and schools and cull more modest savings from domestic programs.
“They’re choosing the next election over the next generation,” Ryan said, deriding Democrats’ plans as far too timid. He added, “If we don’t tackle these fiscal problems soon, they’re going to tackle us as a country.”
Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually. But they said it needed to be done in a more balanced way, with rich and poor alike sharing the load.
“It’s a path to greater prosperity – if you’re already wealthy,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, top Democrat on the Budget panel, mocking the “Path to Prosperity” title Ryan has given his document. “Because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else.”
In a pair of preliminary votes expected Thursday, conservatives were offering their own proposal with deeper spending cuts and far faster deficit-reduction than the GOP plan, claiming to balance the budget in just five years. Democrats were pushing a measure featuring pumped-up spending for education and new tax credits for companies creating jobs and raising wages, while claiming savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, government waste and reductions in farm payments.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., looks on at left, as Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., ranking Democrat on the the House Budget Committee, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill
Both were destined to be defeated.
Underscoring the prickly partisan gulf over how to tackle the budget’s drastic imbalances, the House late Wednesday on a 382-38 vote easily shot down a compromise, bipartisan deficit-cutting plan by moderates of both parties that mingled tax increases with spending cuts.
The measure was modeled roughly on a package produced by Obama’s deficit-reduction commission. The commission’s plan drew praise from prominent deficit foes but was treated coolly by Obama and congressional leaders of both parties.
The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama’s budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama’s plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs.
The Washington Times has more about the vote:
Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”
But no Democrats accepted the challenge.
Watch Mulvaney, below:
Congress’ budget is a nonbinding road map that suggests tax and spending changes that lawmakers should make in separate, later legislation.
Particularly with voters deciding control of the White House and the Capitol in November, the two parties are sure to stalemate each other’s budgetary priorities until after the election.
The House GOP budget would cut spending by $5.3 trillion more over the next decade than Obama’s would – out of more than $40 trillion that would still be spent during that period. It envisions repeal of the president’s health care overhaul and sets a course for deep reductions for highway and rail projects, research and aid to college students and farmers while easing planned defense cuts.
It also would cut taxes by $2 trillion more than the president over that time, leaving Republicans seeking about $3.3 trillion in deeper deficit reduction than Obama.
Drawing the most political heat was Ryan’s plan for Medicare, the $500 billion-a-year health insurance program for older Americans that all agree is growing so fast that its future financing is shaky. Both parties know that seniors vote in high numbers and care passionately about the program.
Republicans would leave the plan alone for retirees and those near retirement, letting the government continue paying much of their doctors’ and hospital bills.
For younger people, Medicare would be reshaped into a voucher-like system in which the government would subsidize people’s health care costs, which Republicans say would drive down federal costs by giving seniors a menu of options that would compete with each other. Democrats say government payments won’t keep up with the rapid inflation of medical costs, leaving many beneficiaries struggling to afford the care they need.
“It ends the Medicare guarantee,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of Ryan’s budget.
“This plan doesn’t end the Medicare guarantee,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. “Arithmetic does. Unless we change something, unless we put it on a solvent footing, the Medicare guarantee is gone.”
Republicans would turn Medicaid, the nearly $300 billion-a-year federal-state health insurance program for the poor, into a grant that states could use as they wish. They also would trim its growth by $800 billion over the next decade.
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Republicans are ready to push through the House an election-year, $3.5 trillion budget that showcases their deficit-cutting plan for revamping Medicare and slicing everything from food stamps to transportation while rejecting President Barack Obama’s call to raise taxes on the rich.
The blueprint by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was headed for all but certain House passage Thursday, mostly along party lines. It faces a demise that is just as sure in the Democratic-run Senate, which plans to ignore it, but the battle remains significant because of the clarity with which it contrasts the two parties’ budgetary visions for voters.
Republicans were focused on sharper deficit reduction and starkly less government than Democrats wanted and were proposing to lower income tax rates while erasing many unspecified tax breaks. Obama and Democrats were ready to boost taxes on families making above $250,000 and on oil and gas companies, add spending for roads and schools and cull more modest savings from domestic programs.
“They’re choosing the next election over the next generation,” Ryan said, deriding Democrats’ plans as far too timid. He added, “If we don’t tackle these fiscal problems soon, they’re going to tackle us as a country.”
Democrats said they, too, were eager to stanch deficits that now exceed $1 trillion annually. But they said it needed to be done in a more balanced way, with rich and poor alike sharing the load.
“It’s a path to greater prosperity – if you’re already wealthy,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, top Democrat on the Budget panel, mocking the “Path to Prosperity” title Ryan has given his document. “Because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else.”
In a pair of preliminary votes expected Thursday, conservatives were offering their own proposal with deeper spending cuts and far faster deficit-reduction than the GOP plan, claiming to balance the budget in just five years. Democrats were pushing a measure featuring pumped-up spending for education and new tax credits for companies creating jobs and raising wages, while claiming savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, government waste and reductions in farm payments.
Both were destined to be defeated.
Underscoring the prickly partisan gulf over how to tackle the budget’s drastic imbalances, the House late Wednesday on a 382-38 vote easily shot down a compromise, bipartisan deficit-cutting plan by moderates of both parties that mingled tax increases with spending cuts.
The measure was modeled roughly on a package produced by Obama’s deficit-reduction commission. The commission’s plan drew praise from prominent deficit foes but was treated coolly by Obama and congressional leaders of both parties.
The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama’s budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama’s plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs.
The Washington Times has more about the vote:
Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama’s budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”
But no Democrats accepted the challenge.
Watch Mulvaney, below:
Congress’ budget is a nonbinding road map that suggests tax and spending changes that lawmakers should make in separate, later legislation.
Particularly with voters deciding control of the White House and the Capitol in November, the two parties are sure to stalemate each other’s budgetary priorities until after the election.
The House GOP budget would cut spending by $5.3 trillion more over the next decade than Obama’s would – out of more than $40 trillion that would still be spent during that period. It envisions repeal of the president’s health care overhaul and sets a course for deep reductions for highway and rail projects, research and aid to college students and farmers while easing planned defense cuts.
It also would cut taxes by $2 trillion more than the president over that time, leaving Republicans seeking about $3.3 trillion in deeper deficit reduction than Obama.
Drawing the most political heat was Ryan’s plan for Medicare, the $500 billion-a-year health insurance program for older Americans that all agree is growing so fast that its future financing is shaky. Both parties know that seniors vote in high numbers and care passionately about the program.
Republicans would leave the plan alone for retirees and those near retirement, letting the government continue paying much of their doctors’ and hospital bills.
For younger people, Medicare would be reshaped into a voucher-like system in which the government would subsidize people’s health care costs, which Republicans say would drive down federal costs by giving seniors a menu of options that would compete with each other. Democrats say government payments won’t keep up with the rapid inflation of medical costs, leaving many beneficiaries struggling to afford the care they need.
“It ends the Medicare guarantee,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of Ryan’s budget.
“This plan doesn’t end the Medicare guarantee,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. “Arithmetic does. Unless we change something, unless we put it on a solvent footing, the Medicare guarantee is gone.”
Republicans would turn Medicaid, the nearly $300 billion-a-year federal-state health insurance program for the poor, into a grant that states could use as they wish. They also would trim its growth by $800 billion over the next decade.
Judicial Modesty and Severability
Posted by Roger Pilon - Cato @ Liberty
As we digest the Obamacare oral arguments of the past three days, here’s a brief note on yesterday’s severability issue. The academics and pundits who assured us that the Court would easily dispose of this case—8-1 or, at worse, 6-3—were not only set back on their heels by Tuesday’s sharp attacks on the government’s Commerce Clause arguments, but even more, perhaps, by the openness of the Court’s conservatives to throwing the whole thing out. Thus, their spin now, championed prophylactically yesterday by The New York Times, is that the Court must “recognize limits on its own authority to overturn well-founded acts of Congress.” Heaven forfend us from judicial activism.
Heartening as it may be to find the Times and its followers discovering at last the virtues of judicial modesty and limited power, were the Court to rule that compelling individuals to engage in commerce is beyond Congress’s power to regulate already existing commerce, and to rule further that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandate is inextricably bound up with its guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, as even the government admits, all of which constitutes the “heart of the Act,” the whole thing must go, that would not be an exercise of judicial activism.
Indeed, were the Court to ignore Justice Scalia’s plea and take upon itself the task of sifting through the Act’s 2,700 pages to try to determine what should stay and what should go—Justice Ginsburg’s “salvage job”—it would then be engaging in the kind of policy judgments that are reserved to the political branches—the very essence of judicial activism. Of course, the Court could also notice that Congress originally had a severability clause in the Act, but it took it out in the final version. That’s pretty good evidence that Congress wanted Obamacare to stand or fall in one piece.
As we digest the Obamacare oral arguments of the past three days, here’s a brief note on yesterday’s severability issue. The academics and pundits who assured us that the Court would easily dispose of this case—8-1 or, at worse, 6-3—were not only set back on their heels by Tuesday’s sharp attacks on the government’s Commerce Clause arguments, but even more, perhaps, by the openness of the Court’s conservatives to throwing the whole thing out. Thus, their spin now, championed prophylactically yesterday by The New York Times, is that the Court must “recognize limits on its own authority to overturn well-founded acts of Congress.” Heaven forfend us from judicial activism.
Heartening as it may be to find the Times and its followers discovering at last the virtues of judicial modesty and limited power, were the Court to rule that compelling individuals to engage in commerce is beyond Congress’s power to regulate already existing commerce, and to rule further that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandate is inextricably bound up with its guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, as even the government admits, all of which constitutes the “heart of the Act,” the whole thing must go, that would not be an exercise of judicial activism.
Indeed, were the Court to ignore Justice Scalia’s plea and take upon itself the task of sifting through the Act’s 2,700 pages to try to determine what should stay and what should go—Justice Ginsburg’s “salvage job”—it would then be engaging in the kind of policy judgments that are reserved to the political branches—the very essence of judicial activism. Of course, the Court could also notice that Congress originally had a severability clause in the Act, but it took it out in the final version. That’s pretty good evidence that Congress wanted Obamacare to stand or fall in one piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)