Monday, March 31, 2008
Williams, 53, isn't the only Clinton insider who made money from an industry the candidate has demonized. A month ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton ally and former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros grossed more than $5 million in stock sales and board compensation from Countrywide Financial, one of the nation's largest subprime lenders.
The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.
They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”
But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.
Read the whole thing
Sunday, March 30, 2008
In a recent interview, General Norman Schwartzkopf was asked if he thought there was room for forgiveness toward the people who have harbored and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on America.
His answer was classic Schwartzkopf:
"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is to arrange the meeting."
Saturday, March 29, 2008
After 14 years in decline, the birthrate for American teens ages 15 to 19 jumped by 3% between 2005 and 2006. Out-of-wedlock births for all women rose 7% in 2006, and about 40% of all unmarried women giving birth are in cohabiting relationships. -- National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (WashingtonPost.com, December 6, 2007; Reuters, December 5, 2007, via Plugged In online)
Healthy, happy children are the result of good homes with caring Mothers and Fathers. Nothing good ever comes from promoting lifestyles that produce disease and dysfunction.
Having lived through the '60's, I can vouch that "free love" made women the losers and was a triumph for guys that wanted no responsibility for their own actions thus leaving a whole generation with the results of unwanted pregnancies and sexual diseases.
And as for protecting children once they are here, the most liberal states in America fight the hardest against laws protecting children from vicious child predators.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
"Useful idiot" [Wikipedia]: In political jargon, the term "useful idiot" was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in western countries and the alleged attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial, and was being cynically used by the Soviet Union, or another Communist state.
The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by political movement, terrorist group, or hostile government, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.
Last night came the news that Saddam Hussein's regime paid for a high-profile trip taken by three congressional Democrats to Baghdad in the fall of 2002. The visit, by Democratic Representatives David Bonior, Jim Thompson, and Jim McDermott, was brokered by Muthanna al Hanooti, a Michigan resident with close ties to the Iraqi regime. Hanooti is being prosecuted for spying on behalf of Saddam's regime.
Read the whole thing!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
How would he pull it off? I wondered.
How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?
How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God damn America!" Continued
My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.
Yes, Barack agreed, Wright's statements were "controversial," and "divisive," and "racially charged," reflecting a "distorted view of America."
But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.
Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.
The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."
And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?
The "white community" must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with "ladders of opportunity" that were "unavailable" to Barack's and the Rev. Wright's generations.
What is wrong with Barack's prognosis and Barack's cure?
Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."
Was "white racism" really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said -- that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "The Death of the West," "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."
When I tell people that the Rise Up America plan has a way to simultaneously (1) place $1.3 trillion in payroll taxes annually collected by the government into personal accounts owned by the tax payer and immediately invested in the stock market to ignite the creation of new businesses and jobs, (2) pay $1.1 trillion in Social Security and Medicare benefits to participants, and (3) magically increase the value of the US Dollar heretofore crippled by the overuse of the printing press, I get looks that can best be described as “Are You Nuts?”
So I best explain.
OK, let’s start with a fictitious country where we pretend it is worth $400. That is all its cash, bonds, stock, real estate, its ports, airports, roads, bridges, corporations, businesses – in fact all tangible and intangible assets owned by the private sector and the public (government) sector total $400.
Now let’s assume the people make $14 a year but after $3 in taxes they spend every dime leaving no money to invest in the economy. So the government decides because it is a capitalist economy to print $1 dollar every year for the next 40 years and give that dollar to the people and let them invest it in the stock market.
Because the way capitalism works the people would get a return investing in the stock market for 40 years. For the last 30 years the S&P 500 stock index had an average annual return of 12.8% so let’s assume the return the people of our fictitious country got was 10% annually. Under those circumstances the $1 invested for 40 years compounds into $443 at the end of 40 years.
Now let’s compare the results. Every year for forty the government printed $1 dollar for a total of $40 dollars. The investment by the people of those $40 dollars increased the assets of the country by $443. So we can conclude that there was a small devaluation of the dollar - $40 over 40 years – whereas there was an immense increase in the country’s net worth of $443, Quite a bargain wouldn’t you say?
Investing is the trick –The simple truth this example illustrates is that investing money increases value of a country even if you invest money you print. A country who’s net worth increases has a currency worth owning from an international a trader’s standpoint.
Consuming is at fault –The reason the value of our dollar has fallen regularly ever since we went off the gold standard in the 1930’s is that we insist on printing money to pay for our mistakes. The most recent example was our use of the printing press to enable the banks to lend money to home buyers at 1% which has resulted in a 40% fall in the value of the dollar. It has been a costly mistake the government supported. We needed help out of a recession but we didn’t need to leave the door to the vault wide open.
The magic transition – Now it is as simple as this. We take $1.3 trillion in payroll tax receipts, put them in the taxpayer’s personal accounts, invest them in the stock market and start the compounding miracle of $443 for a $40 investment.
Simultaneously we print $1.1 trillion in new money and pay retirement benefits. As the recipients will be dieing off during that 40 year period and others will be self-funding their needs from the income off their personal accounts we will never print the entire $40.
Increase in the value of the dollar – Establishing an economic policy wherein investment in the country is the tool used to create wealth can only convince international traders into bidding up the price of the US Dollar.
It is just as simple as that.
A Historical Clue –It has been the international socialist movement that has encouraged consumption and the confiscation of property from the productive elements of society. Unfortunately the free market capitalists have failed to fully support the investment principle and have too long tolerated the inflationary effects devaluations have fomented because socialists always spend more than they have.
It is time America wakes up to the fact that socialism is a failed economic philosophy and adopts Rise Up America’s plan to vault the USA into the 21st Century.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we've seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) the cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock & mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
The most significant accomplishment by the Democratic controlled Congress in 2007: THEY VOTED TO INCREASE THEIR PAY !!!! ...and damn little else.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Method Behind The Madness of Islamic Conquest
…As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2. 7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, “The Haj”…
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it.
Read the whole thing!
Friday, March 21, 2008
...Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?
Read the whole thing!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The first Easter was no holiday for those centrally involved in its events. Instead, the circumstances were a source of puzzlement and trial. The Romans were about their perfunctory business of cruelly oppressing the peoples they had conquered. Members of the priestly hierarchy of the Jews were ridding themselves of a threat that could disrupt their fragile truce with the Romans. High Priest Caiaphas was proclaiming, “It is expedient that one man should die for the people.”
Moreover, the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, fearing for their lives in the absence of their leader, were disbanding in the aftermath of a troubling Passover feast.
The conversations of the disciples on the road to Emmaus with a travel companion they did not recognize reflect the mood of those days, a time when the people served as their own chroniclers of the news. Cleophas described events surrounding the Crucifixion of Jesus, saying, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have you not known the things which happened there in these days?... The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.” (Luke 24:18-24)
Those days were not so different from ours. Today, as we prepare to elect a new leader for our nation, we often mistake political action for true spirituality.
Our national political conversations are now addressing claims of “audacity” and what might be expected of a transcendent, revitalized unity of shared purpose in our country. However, relying on government as the pre-eminent earthly power to fix all worldly ills reveals a profound misunderstanding of what audacity really is.
Audacity is defined as “intrepid daring,” “originality,” “verve,” “reckless boldness,” “contempt of law, religion or decorum,” “bold or arrogant disregard of normal restraints,” and treated as synonymous with “temerity” as opposed to circumspection. All of these definitions of the word convey a challenge to existing authorities, not a submission to them or a parroting of their prejudices. But placing so much faith in politics and government is to obey conventional wisdom and existing elite powers, not to overturn them.
In contrast, consider the real audacity of Jesus through the Crucifixion and Resurrection—the empty cross, followed by the empty tomb. Consider the boldness of the belief that this Jesus was Lord and Creator of the universe because He was master of its material rules, that this Jesus was also the long awaited Messiah spoken of by the prophets.
The misunderstandings Christ overturned were about recognizing the spiritual realm as supreme over the physical world. This was about subordinating human will to God’s will.
When Jesus confronted Pilate, however, He offered no challenge to the representative of Roman imperial government. This was, in fact, speaking truth to power. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus explained. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36)
Yet, a ragtag band of disciples, those who had fled when the Romans crucified Jesus, so extended their outreach that in a little less than 300 years, the “People of the Way” overcame history’s greatest empire, armed only with the power of the Resurrection story and the might of the Holy Spirit.
Christians hold that the only power that could have transformed those timid disciples into fearless martyrs capable of the peaceful conquest of the most powerful government in the world was Jesus, the foretold Messiah, who rose from the dead. The evidence demonstrating the Resurrection is as compelling as any historical record can be. Eyewitnesses saw the Risen Christ Jesus, touched Him and ate meals with Him. Five independent accounts from the Bible affirm the Resurrection. And then there were the empty grave clothes, the broken Roman seal, the large stone moved and the Roman guards who fled the empty tomb under penalty of death.
What can we say, then, of our not having even now learned the lessons of Easter and of our continuing confusion over the proper priorities in our spiritual and material lives?
For those of us who are Christians, the answer is to recognize the transcendence of the Resurrection, pointing us back toward the empty tomb. None of the powers of government could hold back the Risen Lord, or His work in the lives of individuals who freely embraced his eternal supremacy. That’s real audacity.
Veritas vos Liberabit—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot’s editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
“All you really need to know about Barack Hussein Obama is this: Louis Farrakhan really, really, really wants him to be president.” —Don Feder
“Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.” —Shelby Steele
“It’s equally obvious... that if Hillary was male—and not married to Bill Clinton—she wouldn’t be in her position. Hillary came to national prominence not through her own efforts but through the success of her husband. Virtually all her ‘experience’ prior to being elected Senator is in fact Bill Clinton’s experience. She wouldn’t even have been elected to the Senate without Bill.” —Dinesh D’Souza
“[T]here’s a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.” —Justice Anthony Kennedy during Tuesday’s hearings on the Second Amendment
“Barack Obama’s story that he never once heard his preacher trash whites and America in hundreds of sermons sounds like Bill Clinton claiming he never inhaled while smoking dope. The mushrooming church scandal has taken the shine off the golden boy of politics, a two-decade regular at ‘unashamedly black’ Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. With his phony defense, the Democrat front-runner has exposed himself as both a typical Beltway spinmeister and a hypocrite. From the start of his presidential campaign, Obama has positioned himself as a straight shooter and a uniter—the very antidote to the sinister Clintonian politics of the past... ‘You know what I’m saying is true,’ he reassured voters. Yet his denial over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s vitriol does not ring true. He’s suddenly shocked—shocked!—that his black nationalist church would spew anti-American venom. ‘I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally,’ he insisted, ‘either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew.’ Back in February 2007, however, Obama knew Wright might be a political liability. His chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, was so worried about his provocative statements that he urged Obama to withdraw a request that Wright deliver an invocation at his presidential campaign kickoff. Reluctantly, Obama ‘uninvited’ his long-time friend and mentor, according to Wright’s own account at the time, telling him ‘it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’... Here’s another whopper Obama tells concerning Wright: ‘He hasn’t been my political adviser, he’s been my pastor.’ Yet it turns out Wright quietly had a formal role in Obama’s campaign, and was only pushed out last week as a member of his spiritual advisory committee when the tapes hit the airwaves. Spinning harder, Obama claimed Wright’s remarks are not ‘reflective of the church.’ Yet the videos clearly show fellow members whooping and thumping in their applause of Wright’s hateful rants. These weren’t just a smattering of amens and hallelujahs. They were standing ovations. Point is, these are the folks with whom the Obamas worship and socialize. Yet we’re expected to believe Obama never heard the same incendiary remarks from them, either? His plea of ignorance doesn’t wash.” —Investor’s Business Daily
Sunday, March 16, 2008
1. As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over healthcare reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would "demonize" anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)
2. Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake."
3. Hillary recommended Lani Guanier to head the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, she had to withdraw her name.
4. Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned; Foster "committed suicide," and Kennedy was forced to resign.
5. Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by the White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over 30 years.)
6. In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends, the Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement" and their reputations ruined. After a 30-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.
7. Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the "bimbo eruption squad" and scandal defense; urging her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit; refusing to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor after $80 million of taxpayer money was spent. Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.
---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury.
---- And Bill was impeached by the House.
---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath).
8. Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for example, the First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each year) was decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists' depictions of the theme , "The Twelve Days of Christmas."
- Hillary co-wrote "It Takes a Village," demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint (and inability to even do that by herself).
- Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.
- Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china and artwork she had stolen.
- In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the "woman card" by prtraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.
- Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)
- As the junior Senator fromNew York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.
- Hillary's one notable vote, supporting the plan to invadeIraq, she has since disavowed.
Quite a resume, isn't it? Sounds more like an organized crime family.
AMERICA, PLEASE REMEMBER!!
Hillary hopes you have forgotten. Have you???
Start A Capitalist Revolution www.riseupamerica.us
Teach Your Teachers A Lesson
One way to destroy socialism is to take away the perception that socialism can deliver the “common good”. Academics may embrace it theoretically but in practice socialism has never has nor will it ever deliver the “common good.” Therefore why don’t practical people attack it at its weakest point – the entitlement fallacy. Entitlements have never made the poor rich. They have just put a band aid on socialism’s perpetuation of poverty. Man needs to replace entitlements with a plan that makes the poor rich – rich enough to make their own way in this world - and there is a way capitalism can do just that.
If so, America’s youth needs to start a capitalist revolution to reverse the creeping socialism that plagues the free world
The Rise Up America plan employs capitalism and lets that economic miracle eradicate poverty from the American experience. It does so by not asking Americans for tax dollars to redistribute to the poor - nor does it ask the poor to invest that which they don’t have. It merely diverts those monies presently taken by the government in the form of payroll taxes and places those monies in a personal investment account owned by each individual taxpayer who immediately invests those funds in America’s capital markets.
Leaving those funds in the personal investment account to compound into millions throughout his or her working life allows a retiree to afford an affluent retirement, the best medical care on the planet, a million-dollar nest egg to will to the kids and freedom from a dependence on government. The millions in their personal accounts deliver the American Dream of financial independence that socialism promises but capitalism delivers
We hope to arm the American youth with the Rise Up Theory of Economics with which to fight this battle and instruct their revolution.
The Rise Up Theory of Economics does for the poor and middle class what the "Trickle Down" Theory did for the rich - it makes them wealthy. It is a simple concept, It redirects the 15.3% presently paid by individuals (and in the case of employees, their employers too) in the form of payroll taxes into a personally-owned investment account that will grow into millions over the citizen's working life. The funds are invested in safe indexed stock funds that have historically been growing at an average rate of over 10% for the last 30 years. See the schedules, tables and graphs at www.riseupamerica.us to verify the millions an ordinary American can accumulate during their working life and the history of the rates of return on indexed stock funds.
This is not a Republican or a Democrat plan but an American plan. A plan that transcends politics and immediately creates an American economy annually infused with over $1.3 trillion of new capital with which to grow at a more rapid rate than at any time in its history.
Adopting Rise Up will not only make America and Americans wealthier it will reduce the size of government by half; generate the biggest tax cut in history; pay off all unfunded entitlement liabilities; economically emancipate women and minorities;; reduce crime, poverty and gangs; eliminate the need for government pensions and Medicare; eliminate the need for business to fund retirement needs and a myriad of other benefits – see the Mission Statement at www.riseupamerica.us.
Under the Rise Up plan, the government will guarantees to pay all benefits presently payable to retirees and welfare recipients under existing programs. The amounts so payable will be forever frozen at existing levels and the government will guarantee they won’t be altered.
The Rise Up plan also includes a unique method to finance the transition from existing programs like Social Security and Medicare to personal investment accounts. An exciting feature of that method will be the manner in which it will increase the value of the US dollar internationally.
All organizations and individuals interested in improving the American experience are invited to endorse and promote the Rise Up America plan. Please contact Dick McDonald, Managing Director of the Ownership Society Institute* at 818-998-6800 or e-mail him at firstname.lastname@example.org for further details.
It is important that the youth if America “rise up” and take charge of its future. The path to further stagnation through socialism must be reversed. Taxing the rich is a failed prescription – un taxing the poor and middle-class is the prescription to free Americans and enable all of them to reach the American Dream – painlessly. Take that to your teacher and see if he or she supports making the poor rich or if he or she is in favor of keeping the poor permanently poor?
* OWNERSHIP SOCIETY INSTITUTE
The Ownership Society Institute is a new think tank dedicated to increasing the wealth and property of all Americans and the reduction of taxes imposed on them. It sponsors ideas and plans that reduce the size of the Federal and state governments while at the same time increasing the efficiency of their constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It sponsors the enactment of the Rise Up Theory of Economics and the elevation of the power of the individual over the power of the state. It opposes the weaknesses that the state imposes by making its citizens rely too heavily on government to so lve their problems and fund their failures. See www.ownershipsocietyinstitute.com
Friday, March 14, 2008
Watch this video!!!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
February 8, 2007
From the inception of psychology over 100 years ago, conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, narcissism and Tourette’s syndrome were thought to be psychological in origin – and that with enough therapy, enough blaming inadequate parenting, enough talk, enough delving into “feelings,” the sufferer could be treated successfully or even cured.
We now know – thanks to tools like PET scans, MRIs, and pharmaceutical advances – that these condition are all biological in nature, more receptive to medications, augmented with behavioral techniques, than to any of the other “therapies” that were inflicted so ineffectually on millions of people over the past many decades.
The scans, in fact, have revealed the specific areas of the brain that give rise to anger, revenge, anxiety, addiction, eating disorders, stuttering, pathological lying, cheating, manipulation, obsessive-compulsive behavior, depressive disorders, even cravings for chocolate!
How do we know these conditions are biological? Because in addition to the fact that medications have treated these mental disorders successfully (for example, Haldol for psychoses, lithium for bipolar disorder, Wellbutrin for depression, and Xanax for anxiety), they have identical symptoms (albeit some more severe than others) in people who are raised in luxury high-rises in Buenos Aires, slums in Los Angeles, kibbutzim in Israel, huts in rain forests, and penthouses in Manhattan. And also in people raised in both happy and dysfunctional homes.
What we also understand is that most intractable mental conditions seem to be genetically driven, rooted in centers of the brain that are still not fully understood. Perhaps this is why political affiliation – with exceptions, of course – seems to run in families.
I suspect that at the core of liberal “thinking” is the same kind of pathology that characterizes other mental disorders, i.e., a glitch in the brain that produces “feelings” and behavior over which liberals have no control.
For instance, liberals are uniformly glum, not only in their grim demeanors and persistent anger, but also in their outlooks. Even in the flush of their midterm victory, they could hardly conceal their endemic rage, in spite of a brief moment of toothy, appliquéd smiles.
"Liberals, like children, live in a world of utopian dreaminess, clinging to a narrow, circumscribed reality and believing that if everyone would just be nice to each other – let’s talk, let’s chat – all the noisy death threats and pesky suicide bombings would go away, and all those grumpy grownups in the current administration would see the light. And so they do what children do when they’re mad at grownups. They call names."
This is because their worldview is uniformly negative. When things are good, they see only the bad and invoke the Misery Index cited routinely by Jimmy Carter and resurrected by the dour wannabe president John Kerry. When things could be better, they see only that things could be worse. When their theories are refuted by hard fact, they are unable to process the true from the untrue because their feelings tell them otherwise. For instance:
▪ In an unprecedented stellar economy – with the GDP, employment, housing sales, and consumer confidence up, and inflation, the trade deficit, and crude oil down – liberals see only the “threat” of recession.
▪ In measurable improvement in education, liberals see only “too much testing.”
▪ In the face of 3,000 lives being exterminated by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001, liberals see a non-existent threat.
▪ In the Iraq war, which has liberated 25 million people, liberals see, to quote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “not a war but a situation” and a “catastrophe.”
▪ Worse, the liberals among us see that all of our country’s problems are the fault of, yes, America!
Liberals are Like Children
Liberals, like children, live in a world of utopian dreaminess, clinging to a narrow, circumscribed reality and believing that if everyone would just be nice to each other – let’s talk, let’s chat – all the noisy death threats and pesky suicide bombings would go away, and all those grumpy grownups in the current administration would see the light.
And so they do what children do when they’re mad at grownups. They call names.
▪ Who but an out-of-control child – who didn’t know any better – would compare our heroic fighting troops to Nazis? Liberal Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) did.
▪ Who but a bully of a child would say that the head of his household (in this case his country) was a liar? Liberal Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) did.
▪ Who but a spoiled “princess” would call the leader of her country a failure, a fraud, and incompetent? Liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) did.
▪ Who but a snobby and vacuous little brat would badmouth the president on foreign soil while our troops were in harm’s way? Liberal Senator John Kerry (D-MA) did, as did liberal former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
▪ And who but a jealous tomboy would insist, again in a time of war, that the Commander in Chief is the worst president in our nation’s history? Liberal Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has done just that.
All of these children – er, politicians – have gone to great lengths to undermine President Bush, often in foreign countries and always in contradiction to the unspoken but historically honored rule to support a president in time of war – or at least to refrain from insult.
A Rage That Knows No Bounds
Children take things personally. “My father is bigger (stronger, smarter) than your father” is just about intolerable to the average child. “Is not!” “Is too!” is an exchange that inevitably results in either tears or fists. In 2000, when George W. Bush ascended to the presidency, the initial despair of liberals quickly morphed into childlike, irrational anger, which has obsessed them for the past six years.
Not only have they called names, spewed insults and stamped their feet, but they’ve also lined up like-minded friends in the liberal media and leftwing think tanks to do the same. Much worse, they’ve aligned themselves with America’s mortal enemies.
According to Vasko Kohlmayer in World Defense Review, “the affection in which [liberals] are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country’s war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.” Kohlmayer lists some highlights of liberal treachery:
▪ They have tried to prevent us from listening in on terrorists' phone calls
▪ They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
▪ They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
▪ They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
▪ They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
▪ They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
▪ They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
▪ They have impugned and demeaned our military
▪ They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
▪ They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
▪ They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
▪ They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.
If nothing else proves the rigidity – indeed the pathology – of the liberal brain, it is what Kohlmayer says of liberals today: “Almost all of the current democratic leadership was actively involved in [the Vietnam anti-war] effort. Bill and Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi were all in one way or another personally engaged in the anti-war movement. And when at last it bore its disastrous fruit, they gloated and danced in the streets. Exhilarated and jubilant, they deemed America's disgrace their finest hour. In their skewed world, America's defeat came to represent their personal triumph.”
Fathoming Liberal Rage
To understand the left’s treasonous rage, it is important to understand that the most cherished value in the life of children (read liberals) is to be “liked” by their peers, a theory that Judith Rich Harris has exhaustively documented in her best-selling and revolutionary book, The Nurture Assumption.
To be liked – according to the evangelical religion of liberalism – is not to engage in conflict, not to fight, not to judge, After all, if you fight with anyone, including Islamic terrorists, they won’t like you. And if you judge them as savages, murderers, enemies of democracy, they will fight you. So don’t judge them and they won’t fight you and everything will be hunky dory. Such are the fantastical fantasies of children (read liberals).
They are fantasies that flourish, says writer Evan Sayet, because liberals are “wedded to the childish philosophy of ‘multiculturalism’ … the fantasy that all cultures are equally good and equally right. It is why liberals “believe we should ‘celebrate diversity,’ as if all differences – say freedom of religion and massacring all infidels – are equally worthy of celebration.”
It is also why liberals, like children, are driven so compulsively by emotion that they simply don’t have the ability to apply rational thought when it comes to George W. Bush. To them, he is still the stronger father to whom they continue to insist: “Is not!”
Rage Trumps Rationality
The reason why liberals have remained so intractably unhinged about President Bush is not because of their ideological differences with his conservatism. It is because of their collective inadequate egos. This is no surprise because children have “developing” egos, not fully-fledged senses of themselves, their places in the world, and their worth. Children are wildly egocentric, seeing themselves as the center of the universe and having no appreciation of the vast world that lies outside their limited awareness. In fact, they echo a saying from the Talmud: “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.”
Liberals entertain the conceit that they are quite evolved and superior, both morally and intellectually. In their childlike minds, they are “good” and the people who set limits, demand accountability, expect empirical results, fight their enemies and also make judgments about what is good and bad and right and wrong are “bad.”
But Rabbi Aryeh Spero says that liberals are “morally inferior, given their lack of heartache over what grieves normal people – the actual torture of our soldiers, the real beheadings, the tearing of Israelis limb by limb, and the burning and dragging of American, British, and Israeli half-dead. Their silence shows their amorality; their selectivity proves their concern is not with human dignity but tarnishing their country’s image.” He calls this thinking “a psychological aberration.”
This, again, is no surprise, given that children cannot be expected to have fully actualized moral compasses. Or egos. Which is why it was a mortal wound to the egos of the monumentally egocentric and childlike liberals in our midst that a Southern-drawling, non-King’s-English-speaking Texan could possibly defeat – not once but twice – the collective forces of a hot-air-spewing Al Gore, the Vietnam war traitor John Kerry, and a liberal media of such great numbers that it would not even fit into the vast acreage of Guantanamo Bay!
But liberals are educated, you may say, credentialed, accomplished, smart in all areas of life – business, the arts, medicine, law, even politics. Which only goes to prove what most people know instinctively: Emotion always trumps rationality!
Symptoms of Liberal Pathology
As I’ve mentioned, liberals want to be liked. They believe that if America were not so strong, so powerful, so rich, so successful – so enviable to the rest of the world – things would be better. This is because liberals hate strength and power and wealth and success, except, that is, when they are the beneficiaries! It is interesting to note here that the richest politicians in Congress are liberal Democrats. Think Kennedy, Rockefeller, Reid, Byrd, the list goes on and on.
In our nation’s Mecca of Liberalism, Hollywood, those who announce the Oscars always refuse to say, “And the winner is …” Instead they say, “And the Oscar goes to …” This is because liberals don’t like the concept of winning or losing – someone might feel bad and get angry and pick a fight … and then they won’t like me! In the world of liberalism, it’s always all about me!
Among the many symptoms of liberal pathology is out-of-control anger. When things aren’t going their way, liberals behave much like any child who has not yet learned to debate and so resorts to his or her most primitive emotions. Here’s a very brief sample, provided by conservative columnist JB Williams:
▪ Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait: "I hate President George W. Bush. I hate the way he walks. I hate the way he talks. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him."
▪ Liberal DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."
▪ Liberal Michael Moore: "The Patriot Act is as un-American as 'Mein Kampf.'"
▪ Liberal Al Gore: The Bush administration “works closely with a network of 'rapid response' digital brownshirts…”
Simply, the liberals’ childlike rage completely eclipses any semblance of rationality. Their opposition to and obsession with President Bush has frozen the higher centers of their brains, effectively preventing them from ever presenting any intelligent alternative to the domestic and foreign policy strategies they object to, outside of socialist let’s-all-get-together ideas that eliminate capitalism, the competitive spirit, and American exceptionalism.
Raymond S. Kraft, who has written at length about American exceptionalism, cites those who “want an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq: Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Muqtada al Sadr, and Osama bin Laden … and America's Democrats.” [Read liberals].
That is why the only liberal “plan” for Iraq is cutting and running. Hillary Clinton spoke for all liberals when she said she “resented” the president’s saying that the next president would have to withdraw troops from Iraq. In essence, she was whining: How dare he inflict me with that adult responsibility?
And on the domestic front, liberals offer no better plan for education than more unions, no better plan for the economy than raising taxes, no better plan for Supreme Court justices than more rule-from-the-bench liberals, and no better plan for healthcare than socialized medicine.
In addition, liberals are intellectually lazy. Like the children they are, their feelings supersede their self-described much-vaunted intellects, rendering them biologically incapable of objective thought or reasoned debate. So controlled are they by the emotional centers of their brains that when President Bush says we must defend our country with every means possible – diplomatic, strategic, and military – liberals figuratively say, or rather screech, “I don’t like those rules, Dad!” and then they have pathological temper tantrums.
Another symptom of liberal pathology is a deep identification with “victims,” who to liberals are all women, all African-Americans, all Hispanics, all union members, and all denizens of Third World countries, as well as anyone else they perceive as being either “victimized” by big, bad corporate America or by those subscribing to conservative ideology.
This is because suffering, or perceived suffering, animates them, makes them feel useful, like saviors, and, of course, “good.” The most dramatic example of this symptom is the left’s unanimous embrace and support of Israel when that fledgling state was born in 1948, comprising largely the bedraggled, starving, half-dead Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. When Israel won her first war against seven Arab states, liberals cheered for little David against Goliath.
But then Israel began to flourish, to prosper, to develop superior military and intelligence systems, to thrive as a capitalist society – in fact, to resemble America in ways that offended leftists, who historically have loathed anything resembling strength, because strong people are not victims!
And so today, when Israel is once again under siege, assailed by a new wave of international anti-Semitism, surrounded by sworn enemies and threatened by Iran with annihilation, American liberals are thunderingly silent.
Yet another symptom of liberal pathology is childlike insecurity. Adults, to be sure, have insecurities and go about dealing with them in adult ways, for instance taking courses or acquiring skills to become more proficient in this or that area. But adults don’t routinely ask 100 people what they think before making a decision, then act on that collective decision, then change their minds if they get a different consensus based on another 100 opinions.
Liberals do! In fact, wasn’t it Bill Clinton who elevated polling to an art form? Wasn’t it John Kerry who placed the word “flip-flopping” into the lexicon? And isn’t it Hillary Clinton who in a recent two-day time span told different audiences that (1) she was, in essence, a dove who would "end the war" in Iraq if she were elected president, and (2) she was, in essence, a hawk, who thought that Iran "cannot be allowed" to acquire nuclear weapons and that we “shouldn’t take any option off the table”?
Diagnosing Liberal Pathology
In what he calls the psychopathology of the liberal mind, Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., a psychiatrist and the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness,” says:
“In his determination to control the world, [the liberal] constantly defends himself against what Karen Horney aptly described as the most basic of human fears: being alone and helpless in a dangerous, indifferent world, the nightmare of the abandoned, terrified child. Persons plagued with such fears easily conclude that it is in their greatest interest to dominate others, or to imagine that they can, and to set about achieving that goal through the manipulation of government power.”
And what does this domination and manipulation lead to? Rossiter says it is nothing less than the “liberal agenda’s principles of coercive collectivism [in which] the citizen’s choices will be influenced by ideals of entitlement, welfare dependency, state regulation [and] moral relativism.”
The liberal, Rossiter adds, is “not called to maturity but is instead invited to begin a second childhood. Like the child at play, he is given, or at least promised, ultimate economic, social and political security without having to assume responsibility for himself.”
Rossiter’s “diagnoses” complement those found in the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association.
In narcissistic personality disorder, people feel they are special and therefore entitled to the things they want at the exact moment they want them. When denied, narcissists become irrationally angry and lash out with personal attacks. But because they crave adulation, they can become irresistibly charming in the very next minute.
Sound familiar? For eight long years, President “I feel your pain” Clinton failed to pass a law to provide senior citizens with prescription drug relief, failed to muster up the morality to pass a law banning third-trimester abortions that kill fully formed babies on the very verge of birth, failed to free the black people in this country from the slavery of welfare until a Republican Congress accomplished this sea change in America’s landscape. But he did not fail cut and run from Somalia, bomb an aspirin factory or wage an air war against people who were no threat to the United States, or to ignore numerous Al Qaeda attacks on our country and throughout the world, effectively setting the stage for the devastation of September 11.
Narcissism, in fact, is at the root of liberals’ embrace of abortion. While “power to the powerless” is their anthem, no legislation has ever been more passionately embraced than the abortion-on-demand law of 1973 that allows all “caring” liberals to kill the most powerless among us. Of course, this does not conflict with their horror at the deaths of minks, because in their minds these rodents are already here while developing embryos – with heartbeats and nervous systems, eyes and ears – are simply “tissue.” Nor does it conflict with their horror at “civilian” deaths, even when they result inadvertently from American military forces.
Borderline personality disorder is characterized by a complete inability to tolerate the gray complexion of life – or politics. Liberals always cast those who disagree with them in stark shades of black and white and often resort to “scorched earth” retaliation. They also go out of their way to conceal the fact that, like other sociopaths, they have no consciences and no remorse – except for the likes of minks, of course.
Such is the nature of liberals, whose identification with and empathy for our enemies is a hopeless muddle of self-congratulatory “understanding” and hatred of authority. Instead of seeing the epic struggle we are now engaged in as an opportunity to stand with America for the spread of freedom and for defeating our enemies, liberals choose to stand against everything that is good and great and exceptional about our country.
To most people, this is self-defeating, irrational, even dangerous behavior. But remember, that’s how some children are! However, when fully grown adults act this way, in spite of the fact that they’re fixated between the ages of 6 and 12, such behavior is not only treasonous, it’s also pathological.
So the next time you’re watching or listening to a liberal, observe the symptoms I’ve mentioned. Note the anger, the pessimism, the negativity, the name-calling, the bursts of rage, the gratuitous insults, the desire to present an image of “goodness,” the transparent attempt to be liked, the willingness to change an opinion if the old one isn’t polling well, and the eagerness to placate our enemies, the better to avoid a fight so that those enemies will “like” us.
Ask yourself: Is this behavior different in any way from a child’s behavior? Then ask yourself: Do I want a child to be the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief in a time of war?
Joan Swirsky is a New York-based author and journalist who has been a longtime health-and-science and feature writer for The New York Times Long Island section. She is the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Men crept in darkness to plant a bomb. They moved in an area where last year I was helping to collect fallen American soldiers from the battlefield.
Terrorists. The ones who murder children in front of their parents. The ones who take drugs and rape women and boys. The ones who blow up schools. The ones who have been forcibly evicted from places like Anbar Province, Baghdad and Baqubah by American and Iraqi forces. Terrorists are here now in Mosul. They call themselves al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI cannot win without Baghdad, and cannot survive without Mosul. The Battle for Mosul is evolving into AQI’s last great stand.
Read the whole thing here
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.
The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.
Read the whole thing!
Friday, March 07, 2008
If there is even a scintilla of truth to the implications in the story from Investors Business Daily reproduced below there appears to be a compelling reason to believe Barack Obama's claims that he was against the war in Iraq were fictitious. He was either paid, coerced or otherwise motivated to do so or he is a Manchurian Candidate in service to Mohammed. Lord knows we don't want any of this to be true as we seldom get a candidate with so many characteristics we all admire (irrespective of his socialist policies). On top of that, four more years of the Clintons is more than a body can endure.
Anti-war activists in America have chosen Obama as their spiritual leader. What a come down it will be for them if we learn he was merely a pawn in that regard and that he has no real anti-war DNA. It is not hard to believe (or reason) that his Syrian sponsor has been calling the shots. It will be ironic if Obama's real estate dealings with these influence peddlers undo his race for the nomination as the Clintons got away will murder on their White Water real estate deal.
Obama And Rezko
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Election 2008: For an ambitious and savvy politician, Barack Obama has not picked his friends wisely. They include an assortment of influence-peddlers, terrorists and Iraqi billionaires. If you thought the Clinton White House was interesting, just wait.
The jury has been selected and opening arguments were heard Thursday in the corruption trial of Antonin "Tony" Rezko. If the name doesn't ring a bell, it's because the press hasn't shown much interest in what has been considered a local Chicago story. But it has international and disturbing implications.
Hillary Clinton may have been casting the first stone in a recent debate when she blasted Obama's cozy relationship with Syrian immigrant and "slumlord" Rezko, who rose to become a player in Chicago and Illinois politics. But she was right on target.
Rezko: Fixer for a front-runner?
Rezko was among Obama's earliest supporters. In 1995, when Obama ran for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Rezko, through two of his companies, gave Obama $2,000. Obama won election in 1996 in a district that coincidentally included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.
In 2003, when Obama said he'd run for the U.S. Senate, Rezko held a lavish fundraiser at his Wilmette, Ill., mansion. Rezko has raised a lot of money for Obama, who is returning $150,000 raised by Rezko and his associates and is giving $72,650 in Rezko contributions to charity.
Rezko is known by the Chicago press as a "fixer" who can make things happen for a price. Little is done out of the goodness of his heart. He's on trial for bilking up to $6 million from the people of Illinois through kickbacks while working for the administration of current Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Did Rezko find jobs for Obama supporters? That is one of the questions the Chicago press wanted to ask before Obama cut short a recent press conference.
Rezko and Obama would do business yet again. In 2005, when Rezko was under federal investigation for influence peddling in Blagojevich's administration, Obama and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a Chicago doctor.
The doctor sold one parcel to Obama for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price, while Rezko's wife paid full price, $625,000, for the adjacent vacant lot. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a 10-foot-wide strip of her land, allegedly so that he could have a bigger yard.
The deal rendered the Rezko parcel too small to build on, thereby increasing the value of Obama's property. What was Rezko expecting in return for this favor to Obama that made Rezko's parcel almost worthless?
An interesting sidebar to the deal was that just weeks before, an Iraqi billionaire by the name of Nadhmi Auchi, who has a French conviction for corruption to his credit, had loaned Rezko $3.5 million through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services FA.
A 2004 Pentagon report obtained by the Washington Times identified Auchi as a global arms dealer and Iraqi billionaire "who, behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein's principle international financial manipulator and bag man."
The report states that "significant and credible evidence has been developed that Nadhmi Auchi has engaged in unlawful activities" such as bribing "foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein." He also helped "arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq."
Yet Auchi, despite his French conviction and other activities, was somehow able to get permission to come to Chicago in 2004. John Batchelor of Human Events says that in April 2004 Auchi met with Rezko, Gov. Blagojevich, State Senate President Emil Jones Jr. and reportedly then-state Sen. Obama, who'd just won the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.
So this, er, businessman meets Obama and friends at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown Chicago. Obama acknowledges attending an event there where Rezko was present but doesn't recall meeting Auchi. "He shook a lot of hands and met a lot of people," an Obama aide told the London Times.
Did he shake Auchi's? The newspaper said the timing of the loan to Rezko and the Obama property purchase, along with the purchase of land next door by Rezko's wife from the same seller, raise questions about whether Auchi helped buy the house. It raises a lot of questions.
Why would an Iraqi billionaire, a "fixer" like Rezko and a Saddam protege, be interested in a rising U.S. politician who was also opposed to the ousting of Hussein by U.S. forces? Why would that billionaire lend that much money to Obama's fundraiser, Rezko, with the two buying adjacent properties from the same seller on the same day?
Rezko has told a court that Auchi is a "close friend." Obviously. Aside from the $3.5 million loan, Auchi and Rezko became partners in a Midwest pizzeria business. Through various dealings, Rezko wound up owing Auchi more than $27 million. What did Auchi want in return? Perhaps a friend in the White House? Both Rezko and Auchi were, and are, in the business of buying influence.
Among Obama's circle of friends is William C. Ayers, currently a professor of education at the University of Chicago and a former aide to Chicago's current mayor, Richard M. Daley. He served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.
Back in the 1970s he was known simply as Bill Ayers, a terrorist with the Weathermen who was quoted in the New York Times as finding "a certain eloquence in bombs." Married to fellow Weathermen terrorist Bernadine Dohrn, he writes openly about his role in the 1974 bombing of the U.S. Capitol Building.
His memoirs appeared in the New York Times, oddly enough, on Sept. 11, 2001. In them, he wrote: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Does Barack Obama agree? Or will he denounce these words of his friend as he did with Louis Farrakhan after Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama?
The trial of an Illinois influence-peddler may answer the many questions that surround the past and future of Barack Obama. Clearly, the friends he has chosen are not friends of honest, clean government or of the United States.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
A "barrel" of crude is 42 gallons. If 42 gallons costs $100., then refiners such as Exxon-Mobil have to refine it, transport it, advertise it, market it, deliver it, sell it to service stations (who must pay rent, help, insurance, etc.) and, everyone must make a profit out of the residual.
$100./42 gallons = $2.38 cost per gallon of crude. Now, a gallon of crude does not result in a gallon of gas. Refining consists largely of "cracking," which is the process of fractional distillation that separates the components of crude: gasoline, light fuel oil, heavier oils, grease, paraffin, asphalt, wastes etc. So, if you erroneously assume that a gallon of crude could result in a gallon of gasoline, there is less than one dollar spread, from crude cost to retail sale. And more than 50 cents of the retail gallon of gasoline is tax. The governments keep more of the money than does Exxon-Mobil, and the gas station combined! (And then, Exxon-Mobil has to pay the corporate income tax, on the residual otherwise known as profit.)
Therefore, using the optimistically unrealistic assumptions above, refining, transport, marketing, retailing, etc., is done with less than 50 cents per gallon. That includes refiner profits, gas station profits, and all retail expenses, that come out of that less than half a buck.
The real question is, "How do they do it so cheaply?" Well, in part, the expenses have been kept low by mergers, to enable economies of scale. Exxon-Mobil is the largest industrial corporation on earth, measured by revenue. Of course, when times are good, they make high profits; that is how they stay in business. If you have a few billion spare dollars, or lots of friends, why not chip in and buy the darn company, if it is so outrageously profitable. (2007 profit on sales was 10%.) Subtract federal (35%) and state corporate income tax, for net after taxes of 6.5%. The portion that is declared as dividends, and distributed to stockholders, will be reduced by the stockholder's federal tax.
Why not check their annual report, and see how high the profit, i.e., the return on investment is? Note the billions of dollars invested. Maybe sell one's own business, and buy Exxon stock?
As some of you have pointed out, the problem is OPEC, and congress. OPEC is a cartel. Tell your friends that a cartel in the US would be illegal, in violation of anti-trust law. It is a collusive organization, the sole purpose of which is to increase prices by restricting supply. Short of war, the only answer is to increase the supply, which will cause them to lower their prices to compete, or lose business. A good start would be to drill on the Pacific Coast, in ANWR, and in the Gulf of Mexico, near where Communist China is now pumping.
The price of fuel is high because the tree huggers, Pelosi and Reid, and the rest of the Dumocrat leadership will not allow increases in American crude production. If we could do so, it would increase high paying jobs, reduce our balance of payments deficit, strengthen the dollar, increase tax revenues, reduce the Cah-lee-FOR-nya state budget deficits, and lower the price of gasoline, and all products that depend on petroleum, which is most.
It would also reduce the incentive to make ethanol, which would enable lower food prices. Doritos and milk would be more affordable, and corn tortillas in Mexico would be more affordable as well.
Is that enough reason to drill offshore and in ANWR?
~~Robert Gismondi (Reseda, California)
P.S. Petroleum, especially Diesel fuel, is used heavily in the manufacture of ethanol. Think about it.
PPS: I do not defend ExxonMobil. But, I defend free enterprise. Too bad they do not have some in OPEC. And too bad the libs in Congress only believe in it for themselves. Remember the exemption from the federal minimum wage for American Samoa, because Pelosi has a constituent with business holdings there: Starkist Tuna. Pelosi does "not want tuna with good taste"--she wants tuna packed for less than the minimum wage. Click here for the details.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Liberals would prefer more people to experience poverty. Their actions demonstrate their massive desire to see more people unemployed, and under paid. One of their chief political goals is to cripple the chance for the impoverished from improving their lot in life and thus become even more dependent upon entitlements that only they (liberals) will dole out. Thus the greatest con in elective politics begins again.
It's called a "surcharge."
You and I would call it a tax increase. One more way and reason for the political class to take even more of the money that you and I slave for by slugging it 9 to 5 everyday.
In their funny little semantic sideshow this "surcharge" would be their answer to resolving the problem of the "alternative minimum tax." This year the "AMT" (another hostile attempt for elected leaders to pick-pocket us) will hit 23 million people. Some making as little as $50,000. The original idea of the AMT was to purposefully inflict pain upon 155 wealthy people a gazillion years ago. But it has never been adjusted for inflation - and you know liberals - they've never found a tax no matter how ill conceived that they've ever had a desire to do away with. So now the liberal congress is about to unload a ghastly holocaust of earnings redistribution on many working class families if the leadership in Congress doesn't take action to care for the AMT.
A 4.3% "surcharge" on "rich people." Particularly those who make $250,000 or more. And one important note - the plan, since it is a "surcharge," would be in addition to the tax rate you already paid last year.
Why they do it makes absolutely no sense - especially to the poor. The data speaks clearly to this matter. When you place uber-taxes on the rich you create higher unemployment, greater poverty, and most importantly for people like me who care about the poor - less money in the treasury to provide the important safety nets for those who truly need them.
When you do the opposite - you get an opposite result. Cutting the top marginal tax rates - particularly on the upper middle, and upper class tax brackets has a stimulus effect. Jobs are created, poverty turns into ownership, and the treasury takes in oodles of dollars.
The liberals' motivations, if impure, make perfect sense. If liberals are in charge of the public sector programs that people become dependent on for day to day living - then liberals can always campaign on the issues of "not taking food out of school children's tummies." Thinking people understand that while offering a hot lunch for a child at school is a wonderful thing for those children who need it. How much more wonderful would it be if that family grew their own economic ability to not be dependent upon the government issued lunches. A family that has the ability to send its own children to school with lunch boxes packed full of Mom's special goodies doesn't need liberals to force feed them the high-carb, mediocre nutrition that one can only get from government processed lasagna.
But Mom and Dad seeing Sally and Johnny off everyday fully independent of state aid - is bad political business for liberals. If liberals can't be the family's provider, then they won't be as likely to need such politicians in place and government might actually begin to address what is best for said family.
If you haven't noticed - this didn't used to be such a partisan issue. It was a Democrat who in fact first demonstrated the soundness of the fiscal propriety of reducing taxes and increasing revenues - John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush followed in his steps and the results have always been the same. Each of them lowered, and in Reagan's case - greatly reduced, the top marginal rates - and the following year revenues poured into Washington in record numbers.
I know... some of you educated in public schools are scratching your head wondering, "How’d they do that?"
Follow the simplicity. Top marginal rates are reduced on the people earning the most - many of whom own businesses. Many of them take the savings and reinvest it - in business, in the market, in expansion, in additional services, franchises, or product lines. Every time they do they are giving work/employment to advisors, consultants, contractors, assembly line workers, systems analysts, and the list goes on. Many of those people have employees, or have to hire additional employees to complete the work that they are hired for. And every employee that they hire, earns a little more than they would have - had that company, small business, etc - not been able to grow.
And one other thing... all those employees pay taxes. (At least those who are here legally.)
Liberals see the economic pie as something that is static, does not grow, and must always be redistributed. Of course they fancy the idea that they know best how to redistribute it all - and in doing so they buy into the Marxian idea: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." An utterly immoral viewpoint!
Conservatives see the economic pie as something that is somewhat unlimited and can be grown and that when it is grown - people will actually pay MORE in taxes - but will do so off of greater earnings.
And the lesson of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush confirm that it is true.
If liberals truly cared about helping people - especially the poor - they wouldn't try to thieve more tax dollars from the only sector of the tax base that can help grow the pie. Instead they would abolish the AMT all together, and give increased tax reduction incentives for those who would use their reductions to further expand their business ventures. They should also give the greatest incentives to those who could demonstrate that they had grown their employment base by more than 4% - since that is roughly the record low rate of unemployment we are now experiencing thanks to the "grow the pie" economy now in place.
But they won't.
As long as liberals will live they will attempt to take more of what does not belong to them, even if it means growing the rate of unemployment, seeing the number of Americans who live below the poverty line increase, and reduces the amount of dollars Washington can use to help those who truly do fall through the cracks.
Just remember - raising taxes lays people off, cause poverty to increase, and reduces the resources that are available for government to help those who are in desperate need. Reducing taxes increases jobs, moves people from poverty to ownership, and fills the federal coffers with help for those in need.
Can it be said any more plainly?
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.
Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.