Remove this ad

3/11 FRIDAY Should We Be Alarmed That The Biggest Bond Fund In The World Has Dumped All Of Their U.S. Treasury B

Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    


0 Points

Lead

Mar 11 11 2:00 PM

Tags : :

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34274

The truth is that the Ponzi Scheme of the U.S. Treasury issuing bonds and the Federal Reserve buying them up cannot last forever

Should We Be Alarmed That The Biggest Bond Fund In The World Has Dumped All Of Their U.S. Treasury B

 

Bill Gross, the manager of the biggest bond fund in the world, has forgotten more about bonds than most of us will ever learn. That is why the big move that PIMCO has just made is so unsettling.  At one time PIMCO held more U.S. government debt than any other bond fund on the globe, but now news has come out that they have gotten rid of all their U.S. government-related securities.  So should we be alarmed?  For months Gross has been warning that the bull market in bonds is coming to an end, and now it looks like he is putting his words into action. 

Gross has often publicly decried the rampant government spending that has been going on over the last several years, and apparently he has seen enough.  He is taking his ball and he is going home.  This really is a stunning move by PIMCO.  Gross must really believe that something fundamental has shifted.  Gross didn’t get to where he is today by being stupid.  But so far world financial markets are taking this news in stride.  Nobody seems all that alarmed that the largest bond fund in the world has dumped all of their U.S. Treasuries.  But with world financial markets in such a state of chaos right now, shouldn’t we all take note when one of the biggest players in the game makes such a bold move?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:01 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34310

Russia second, DNI chief says

China deemed biggest threat to U.S.

 

nuclear arsenal poses the most serious “mortal threat” to the United States among nation states, Director of National IntelligenceJames Clapper told the Senate on Thursday.

 

In candid testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Clapper said he considered China the most significant threat among nation states, with Russia posing the second-greatest threat. He later clarified the comments by saying he did not assess that China or Russia had the intention to launch an attack on the United .

The testimony contrasts with statements by Obama administration officials who have sought to highlight the dangers of Iran and North Korea while paying less attention to China and Russia.


Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:04 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34276

That’s right — Mr. Gross has gone to cash rather than trust the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. He knows that rates will be higher after June.

Fish or Cut Bait It All Ends on June 30, 2011

 

Back in November 2011, the Federal Reserve declared it would instigate a program to bankrupt the United States through creating money out of thin air.

But because you can’t call something “The Bankrupt the U.S. Program”, they called it “Quantitative Easing”.

And because this was the second such program created by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, it was proclaimed Quantitative Easing Two, or QE2 for short.


Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:10 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34295

Bullying Democrat style is all about democracy

Bullied Barry’s “funny” name


Poor, poor President Barack Obama, whose standout big ears and “funny” name once made him the target of school yard harassment.
That’s what President Barack Obama told a White House conference to address school yard bullying only yesterday.
That average kids are unfairly tormented in the school yard for being fat, skinny, bespectacled or too bookish, it’s a stretch for Barack Obama to say in all seriousness that his large ears and “funny” name made him a bully target.

Perhaps Obama’s ears are his Pinocchio nose in this case because when Obama was in school it was before the name switcheroo that took him from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.
Soetoro is a “funnier” name than, say, Boehner, Bush or Palin?
According to his own legend, Obama graduated high school as Soetoro and may have been known at Occidental College (1979-1981) as plain old Barry.  Anne Dunham divorced Lolo Soetoro way back in 1980.
Would Obama have the estimated 14 million victims of schoolyard bullying believe that he fled back to the dorm for a boo-hoo fest or a little toke when harassed by those bullies on campus?
Meanwhile, there must be some who believe that Obama and his overbearing wife had some nerve addressing a White House conference on bullying yesterday, of all days.
When it comes to power grabs and lording it over lesser others, this deadly duo of south-side Chicago community activists are the quintessential bullies.  Sealing off all records of their past lives, they bullied their way to the top rung of the power ladder, where they immediately began fundamentally changing the same country that gave them the privilege of leading charmed lives.
Barack Obama spent 20 plus years in front of the bully pulpit of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, only throwing the ranting reverend under the bus when he thought his longterm relationship with the hate spewing pastor might cost him votes for the presidency.
Bullying comes naturally to a community activist who was a street fighter on the public purse before going into politics.  Many of Obama’s close personal friends and business associates could easily fill the front row ranks of the Rogues Gallery of All Time Bullies, not the least of whom is unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
Bullies, who have already stockpiled all the tools of power for one-way fights, always get their way.
While Barack and Michelle were waxing noble on the topic of bullying yesterday, their supporters were creating havoc and threatening the lives of GOP members for doing their jobs in Wisconsin.
But in an Obama world some bullies are more equal than others.  Bullying Democrat style is all about democracy.
Schoolyard bullying sometimes comes complete with tragic ends for the truly bullied and is one topic that should never be politicized for mere publicity or political gain.
According to White House stats, some 13 million students, or about a third of all those in school, are bullied every year.
“Experts say that puts them at greater risk of falling behind in their studies abusing drugs or alcohol, or suffering mental or other health problems. (Associated Press, March 10, 2011).  “Kids who are seen as different because of their race, clothes, disability or sexual orientation are more likely to be bullied.”
Any loving parent of a school age “Fatty”, “Bookworm”, “Geek” or “Dweeb” can state sincerely that bullying has nothing to do with politics.
The victims of bullying are real and are in a category where politically correct shouldn’t count.
Now that texting, Facebook, Twitter and other technologies are being used to carry out cyberbullying and because of the media spotlight on the tragic teens who have killed themselves to escape the harassment of bullying, it is even more tragic to politicize this societal wrong.
Meanwhile, Barry Soetoro is proving daily to be the biggest bully of them all.


Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:12 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34286

Chronic, relentless, agitating, Obama's putative boss, George Soros

The Itch That’s Destroying America


It’s a funny thing about itches…the more you scratch, the more you itch. This is because scratching floods your system with histamine, which causes—itching! Oh, you can get rid of the itching with an over-the-counter medication or go to the doctor for something stronger. But people with chronic itching conditions inevitably start to believe in Hell and that itching is among the worst punishments on earth.

My title alluded to an itch—one itch—but this is really about the chronic, relentless, agitating, but also motivating itches that affect the entire left and also Obama’s putative boss, George Soros.
Barack Obama’s itch started—if any part of his biography is to be believed—with the Marxists who raised and mentored him, inculcating in him bedrock leftist doctrines that include a deep loathing of America and its natural and glorious outgrowth, individual freedom.
Obama’s anti-Western itch continued during his schooling among Muslims in Indonesia, and was further inflamed by the far-left classmates he befriended in the American colleges he attended, with the religious leader whose anti-American and anti-Semitic “theology” he imbibed for over 20 years, and in the street-agitating career he chose as a community organizer.
In all cases, these influences provided Mr. Obama with ideas and philosophies that irritated his psyche, and to this day provoke and agitate him. They also spur him on to scratch those infuriating itches!

THE USUAL SUSPECTS

Those irritants, those itches, include:
MOST AMERICANS—by any measure, the overwhelming majority - who Obama has labeled “bitter” folks who cling to their guns and religion. Scratch, scratch, scratch.
AMERICA’S FOUNDING FATHERS—men like Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, et al - whose monumental accomplishments are diminished, in the Marxist mind, to the size of a pea, but whose few (albeit serious) flaws are magnified to the size of a mountain. Scratch, scratch, scratch.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS, which laid the foundation for the freest, most successful, most generous nation in all of recorded history, but to the Progressive’s mentality, stop short of being perfectly “fair” to every entity from the delta smelt to the illegal alien. Scratch, scratch, scratch.
CAPITALISM—that surging engine of free markets, bountiful philanthropy, redeemer of poverty and misery, and the route to worldwide comfort and security—if only the world were capable of and smart enough to embrace it—is, to Leftist thinking, the root of all evil. Not that they, themselves, don’t lust for as much money as possible, the better to engage in conspicuous consumption and all matter of nouveau-riche indulgences. But hey, this is the condescending noblesse-oblige that always redounds to tasteless, classless, finger-wagging liberals. NOTE: Go to any search engine and type in Obama’s vacations—frequency and expenses...and you’ll see what I mean.
GOD—at least the God of Christians and Jews. It’s bizarre—and inaccurate—that in his 2009 speech in Turkey he declared that America is no longer a Christian country. According to a Pew study, nearly 80 percent of Americans are Christian, 1.6 percent Jews, and 0.6 percent Muslim. When he spoke at Georgetown University, Obama demanded that the symbol of Jesus be covered in black plywood. And have you noticed that when Obama refers to the Islamic prayer book, it is always “the Holy Koran,” but he never refers to the Jewish or Christian bibles as holy? As businessman and possible presidential contender Herman Cain has said: When the president, “on purpose,” leaves out of the Pledge of Allegiance the words “endowed by their Creator”—not once but three times! ‚Äì “something is wrong.” Scratch, scratch, scratch.
JEWS. Obama’s pronouncement that “Israel is suspicious of of me” because his middle name is Hussein is so phony and calculated that it makes even uniformed people wince. In fact, JihadWatch.org points out the huge number of antagonists to Israel who staff Obama’s offices. Again, the short list: Samantha Power, National Security Council’s Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights; Robert Malley, key foreign policy adviser; Zbigniew Brzezinski, foreign policy adviser; Rosa Brooks, advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy; Chuck Hagel, co-chair of the Intelligence Advisory Board…the list really does go on and on. Oops…didn’t mean to omit U.S. Representative to the cesspool on First Avenue (aka The United Nations) Susan Rice, who recently, as is her wont, threw Israel under the bus, and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who recently stated that all of Israel’s settlements (meaning homes built by Israelis on Israeli land) were “illegal,” not to mention her own deep ties to Saudi money and ole Bill’s deep ties to Saudi money. Astonishingly, Israel-hater Michael Scheuer, calls Obama both arrogant and racist. You can get the entire sordid list in Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencer’s blockbuster book, The Post-American Presidency. One more thing: last week Kamal al-Halbawi became the first Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader to visit Tehran, where he promptly pronounced: “Every night when I go to bed, I pray to wake up the next day to see Israel is wiped off the map.” Reaction from Obama and sidekicks: a deafening silence, which is not at all surprising given that Obama has appointed members of the Muslim Brotherhood to key posts in his “administration.” Claw, claw, claw.
RACISM, which Obama sees wherever he looks, even when it’s not there! But this subject is clearly the driving force of his life, and the issue he is determined not to solve but to exact revenge for what he perceives—thanks to over five decades of Marxist indoctrination—as a simple formula: whitey = bad; people of color = good. Claw, claw, claw.
Yes, every time these issues flicker across Obama’s consciousness, his rage quotient increases. It doesn’t matter how many years elapse in which progress takes place, the rage still grows, which is how leftists react whenever their unrealistic, utopian dreams are not actualized. That rage acts like an unreachable itch, the kind that makes you tear at your skin until it bleeds, but without success. The itch remains.

THE PROJECTION PROBLEM

To understand the intractability of the left’s chronic itching condition, it’s helpful to appreciate what drives them. Leftists are utopia-driven fantasists, basically fixated children who derive their dewy-eyed inspiration from the Communist-Manifesto-embracing lyrics of John Lennon’s “Imagine” (“imagine there’s no countries…no religion too…no possessions…imagine all the people living for today.”)
When the grown-ups among us disagree with them, leftists more often than not refuse to debate the issues based on objective reality or empirical fact, but instead hurl gratuitous insults, call names, and resort to that old psychological stand-by, projection, in other words blaming other people for the very words and actions they, themselves, say and do.
For instance, when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords got shot in the head, the left blamed the tragedy on the “incivility” of conservatives, while studiously ignoring the non-stop rudeness and crudeness emanating from their own ranks, including this gem, where a union intellectual (just kidding) threatens to break a tea-partier’s neck.
If anyone throws a paper napkin out the window or dares to suggest we drill for oil, leftists castigate them for polluting the environment, while they consistently defile every event they attend by leaving mountains of trash that costs millions to clean up, for instance the 2008 “presidential” inauguration, their rally at the Lincoln Memorial in 2010, and now the temper-tantrum demonstrations at the State House in Wisconsin. Makes you wonder what kinds of homes these disrespectful slobs are raised in!
Syndicated columnist David Limbaugh has documented numerous examples of how Obama—the so-called post-racial “president”—uses projection (among other mechanisms) to address issues of race. We can skip Obama calling his grandmother “a typical white person” and accusing the Cambridge, MA, police department of “acting stupidly” when they arrested his pal, Harvard Professor Henry Gates..that is old news. But here is the short list:
  • Appointing Eric Holder as Attorney General, a man who has accused Americans of being “a nation of cowards” when it comes to race. Holder also dismissed a case against New Black Panther Party members for voter intimidation even though it had already been won, prompting former Justice lawyer, J. Christian Adams, to say that the case was dismissed based on the Justice Department’s policy of not prosecuting such cases against blacks when they involve white victims. Holder explained his racist decisions before a House Appropriations subcommittee last week by admitting they were biased toward “my people.” And all this time I thought that the Attorney General’s “people” were all Americans, and not his own hand-picked subset.
  • Holder’s Justice Department—in both a racist and patronizing decision - also overruled a judgment to do away with party affiliation of candidates in local elections by the city of Kinston, N.C., insisting that black voters could not achieve civil rights without the Democrat Party.
  • Just a year ago this month, the Obama regime filed a brief that supported racial preferences in university admissions. Now just how racist and patronizing and insulting can you get? How does Obama think the recipients of this largesse feel when they know their admissions have nothing to do with merit?
  • Unrelated but equally if not more egregious is Holder’s Justice Department—no doubt at the behest of his boss—ignoring the rulings of two federal judges, one on the issue of offshore drilling (for which the Obama “administration” has been held in contempt), and the other on Obamacare—in essence spitting on both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Constitution—two institutions revered by the American public but clearly reviled by the current occupant of the White House.

THE RAGE OF IT ALL

Hard leftists like Obama comprise a negligible percentage of our electorate, but because they’ve all studied the Marxist Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals—or what writer James Lewis calls Rules for Psychopaths ‚Äì they have memorized Rule #1: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
Lewis writes that Alinsky “called ordinary Americans `the enemy,’” writing in his book that “radicals have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class…stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt…They are right…”

Hello all you middle-class people out there who voted for Obama the Alinsky acolyte! Now you know why gas is getting more unaffordable every day, why inflation has reduced your purchases at the supermarket to beans and pasta, why your medical care is ten-times worse than it was only two years ago, why you fear that your aging parents will be death-paneled by the nightmare of Obamacare, why your quality of life has devolved steadily since 2008. (By the way, for 50 straight weeks, the majority of Americans has supported repeal of this socialized-medicine scheme). Is it not obvious by now that it’s the middle class this cabal of Marxists is targeting for extinction?! But what fuels the kind of rage that targets the backbone of our country, the middle-class men and women who work hard every day, sacrifice for their families, pay their bills and their sky-high taxes, believe in God, and love America? What kind of rage motivates anyone to try to cripple and ultimately destroy the middle class, with the ultimate goal of making the entire country—except for the few oligarchs at the very top—dependent on government handouts? It’s the rage of failure—utter, abject, measurable, decades-long failure.

WHAT LIBERAL RAGE HAS WROUGHT

Think about it. The left invented the welfare system, which, until it was overturned in 1994 by Republicans, destroyed black families, condemning generations of young people to grow up without fathers in their homes, which in turn resulted in millions of young men who might otherwise have enjoyed the bounty of the American Dream ending up uneducated, unemployed, in prison, or dead.
But liberals didn’t give up. In their unending quest to create dependency and suffocate independence—the better to maintain power and control over their straggling flock—they insisted that tax-paying citizens throw more and more and more and more money at the problems they created, as we know to no avail.
The left also touted public education, again suggesting that the consistent, across-the-board failures it produced were products not of bad teaching or left-wing curricula but of—tada!—not enough money! So again they asked taxpayers to fund their failures with more and more and more and more money, but again to no avail.
In light of the crashing and tragic failures of these and other social experiments, the left thought up Affirmative Action to make the admission process for both schools and jobs “fair.” Then they thought up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make access to home-ownership “fair.”
Black conservatives have known for decades that these community-annihilating schemes were fraudulent and immoral, but just as today, they were given little air time or print space for their views and were consistently eclipsed by a largely leftist media. Erik Rush, the author of Negrophilia: From Slave Blocks to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession, explains that “Black conservatism threatens the pre-eminence and perceptual validity of [the media’s] ideology. If the Democratic Party loses a substantial portion of the black vote, they’re done for—and they know it. When conservatives of color—black and otherwise—are unleashed, they will quickly become as ubiquitous as in other areas of endeavor. The result, however, will be a death blow to progressivism in America.”
In short, everything the left has tried to make things fairer for minority communities, to up their success quotient, has met with thundering failure, just as every leftist hero they glorify—in their Communist/Socialist/Maoist/Marxist/Leninist firmament—has failed.
That’s where their rage comes from. It’s the rage of failure. And then the unquenchable thirst—the unscratchable itch - for revenge. And that’s what we’re witnessing today, a veritable rampage of revenge on the successful middle class, on successful capitalism, on successful America.
It is these successes that the angry, vengeful left—Obama and his fulminating minions—resent and are working overtime to destroy. Instead of using the brains and energy God gave them to rethink their misguided direction, they have dug in deep, which I guess is understandable, given that a change of mind and heart would mean to them that everything they’ve believed their entire lives is dead wrong.
The problem with megalomaniacal, narcissistic, autocratic personalities is that just beneath the bluster is an eggshell-like fragility. Which is why if you tap them on the shoulder, they explode. If you challenge one of their policies, they lash out. If you take legal, Constitutional steps to overturn the essentially Communistic legislation they’ve rammed through Congress, they devolve into street-fighting thugs.
The next time you see or hear a leftist holding forth, imagine the intractable, insanity-producing itching that’s going on inside of him or her. Picture the internal inflammation, the redness, the cascade of histamine that’s making the itching worse. It is this torturing condition that makes leftists so chronically dissatisfied, such doomsday addicts and incurable scratchaholics. If you itched like they do, you too would also be constantly on the borderline of insanity.

THE WE-THE-PEOPLE ANTIDOTE

When Sarah Palin burst on the national scene in 2008, the left went into paroxysms of uncontrollable itching…even an armory of prednisone would not have touched their out-of-control symptoms! They recognized Palin as a mortal threat and attacked her—and, to their shame, her children—relentlessly. The net result was that Palin’s popularity exploded and her influence grew exponentially as she directly influenced many of the races that resulted in the trouncing and bouncing of Democrats from Congress in the 2010 midterms.
When the Tea Party movement emerged in April 2008, the left again went into panic mode, summoning their equally-itching allies in the craven media to rail against and lie about those nervy advocates of small government and low taxes. The net result was drastic Democrat losses in the midterm elections.
When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070) in April 2010, which required—according to federal law—that all illegal aliens carry registration documents, and also cracks down on those hiring or sheltering illegal aliens, the left broke their fingernails because the scratching got so bad. The net result is that Brewer won 55 percent of votes for her second term, dozens of states are seeking to emulate her actions, and she is now being mentioned for a cabinet position in a future Republican administration.
When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker interpreted the mandate he received from the state’s voters to actually fulfill his campaign promises to reign in government spending and reduce the state’s massive deficit, the left lost it completely. So inflamed did they become that they abandoned all semblance of modesty and started scratching themselves with abandon in front of national and international cameras. The net result was that Governor Walker prevailed, thereby saving his state multimillions and starting on the road back to fiscal sanity.
When New York Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, instituted hearings on March 10th to explore the Islamic radicalization of American Muslims, the left bought thousands of forks so they could use them to scratch themselves silly while their fingernails grew back from the Gov. Walker itching attack. Dozens of individuals and groups citing bogus “discrimination” of Muslims came out in number, practically scratching their own eyes out in frustration. The net result is that King has remained undaunted and un-intimidated, in spite of the death threats he has received. You can see his hearings on CSPAN3 or streamed live at http://www.c-span.org/Li.
These are only five out of dozens if not hundreds of examples of the immensely successful push-back that Republicans, centrist Democrats, and Independents have achieved in spite of the frighteningly fascistic nature of the leftists in power.
There is no force quite as powerful as We the People of the United States of America, as our Armed Forces have proven in the wars we’ve fought and as the grassroots have proven since January 2008.
We can’t quit now! Our very country is at stake!

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:13 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34271

Ace Reporter Hugh Betcha Investigates CFL (Can't Freaking Last) Light Bulbs

Green Bulbs from Red China


After returning two burnt-out, allegedly long-lasting, politically-correct, environmentally- friendly, curly Q, Al Gore-sanctioned, CFL bulbs within two moths of purchase, and having evacuated his office a couple times so the local HAZMAT team could do a sweep of the office and clean up the mercury neurotoxins emitted by a bulb that broke on the floor, Hugh Betcha decided to investigate. Hugh, the “Chief of the Environmental News Bureau” of worldwide media conglomerate, Stoos Views, and named “Most Trusted Journalist in America, 2011”—a man who walks with kings and princes and has the respect of both sides of the aisle in Washington, D.C.—decided to explore these mercury-laden, harmful-ray emitting, but politically- correct bulbs destined, by federal fiat, to phase out the trusty old incandescent bulbs that have graced American households for over a century.

Jetting to New Orleans, Hugh traced his old friend, Al Gore to a sleazy back street business off Bourbon Street, named “Al’s Massage and More.” It seems that Gore had found a new occupation after an incident with a masseuse a year previous, and had gone into the personal comfort business. Hugh was greeted warmly by Gore, who sported black wrap around shades, wore a silky gold and red robe, and puffed on a Benson and Hedges in a gold cigarette holder.
“Got out of the environmental business a couple years back,” Al told his old friend. “Seems that the global warming thing didn’t work out. They’re calling it ‘climate change’ now,” Gore smirked as he invited his friend to sit. “The poles did not disappear, as I predicted, the past two years of record cold and snowfall in every state but Florida sort of hurt my credibility a little, so I have decided to open up this little shop. This has been fun and rewarding. There is a lot of money in the ‘personal comfort’ business, if you know what I mean,” Gore winked slyly. As he nestled down in his overstuffed chair in the bordello-red ante room, he asked the reporter, “What’s on your mind?”
“CFL light bulbs—tell me what you know,” the reporter asked.
Well, I invented them as you know. About the same time as I invented the internet. These promise to be the most environmentally friendly devices yet and will save America millions in energy costs. It is the best thing I have ever done, apart from the internet, and my latest book—Inconvenient Humans.”
“Yeah, but what about the mercury?”
Gore tilted his head back, smiled and waved dismissively: “A minor side effect. What is a little mercury poison as compared to several dollars savings per year from the use of these bulbs? As you know, I made hundreds of thousands of dollars from zinc mines—a little leaching of chemicals into the groundwater from the mining residue was nothing compared to the profit I made from selling the mining rights. Sure, the aquifers had a little higher toxicity, and some land was too toxic to farm, but that is a trade off I was willing to make. If you are worried about the mercury in the CFL bulbs, just don’t drop them, don’t hang around any toxic waste dumps and don’t drink the water if you live within 50 miles of one, and you will do just fine.”
With that, Hugh began to leave, as Gore tugged at his sleeve. “Would you like a personal comfort massage by my assistant, Cherry Love? On the house!”
“No, I have to be going,” Hugh said as he left the room hurriedly.
Hugh’s next stop was the White House to visit his friend, the President—with whom he had many past interviews. Landing in Foggy Bottom, Hugh was met by a Presidential limo and whisked to the White House to meet with Obama and his good friend, Jeff Immelt, Chairman of General Electric. Ushered into the Oval Office, Hugh was greeted warmly by the two men.
Munching on cheeseburgers and fries, the two invited Hugh to sit and talk while they finished lunch. As he sat in a large chair in front of the Presidential desk, Hugh watched as Michelle entered the room.
“Where’s my Big Mac and fries?” The First Lady demanded.
“Right here, dear,” replied the President, as he handed the First Lady a Big Mac, jumbo fries and large Coke. With that, she walked briskly out of the room, anxiously unwrapping the sandwich, not bothering to acknowledge the reporter.
“About the CFL light bulbs, Mr. President,” Hugh began.
“Ah yes,” the President replied, “this will save millions in energy costs, fits nicely with our Think Green Campaign, and creates thousands of jobs. It is the most important environmental development since the windmill and the solar panel, and our friends at G.E. have graciously consented to manufacture these bulbs. In fact, Mr. Immelt and I were just discussing this Think Green Campaign as you walked in—how fortuitous.”
“As far as the jobs,” Hugh continued, “aren’t these light bulbs manufactured in China?”
“Yes, but…”
“And aren’t the unions that represent G.E. employees concerned about the loss of jobs here in the States when G.E. makes all the bulbs in China?”
“Yes, but we are actually doing them a favor,” Immelt chimed in.
“How so?” Hugh inquired, incredulous. “How can creating thousands of jobs in China making bulbs that G.E. sells by the millions here in the States, possibly help the American worker?”
“Very simple,” Immelt replied. “These damn things are dangerous—full of poison you know—like everything else we get from China. You know, poison drywall, poison child toys, poison baby formula….We don’t want to make the damn things here—we just want to sell them.”
“So this has nothing to do with the fact that labor is cheap in China, there are no unions to contend with, and your company can make hundreds of millions more on these bulbs by using slave labor in China?”
“Of course not,” Immelt replied angrily, “this is all about the safety of our workforce.”
“And what about the fact that these CFL bulbs contain mercury, a poisonous neurotoxin, and their rays are harmful to some people with certain skin conditions?” Hugh pressed the two.
“Very simple,” the President replied dismissively, “just don’t drop them; don’t hang around any toxic waste sites and don’t drink the water within 50 miles of them and you’ll be fine.”
“And, I might add, make sure you post conspicuously the number of your local HAZMAT team in case you get clumsy and drop one of these,” Immelt added. “We would not want you or your wife or kids to suffer mercury poisoning when these bulbs land on the floor and burst. Just evacuate the house for a day or two, call the authorities, rent a motel and stay away till it is cleaned up and you will be just fine.”
“But, we did not have to do this with the old incandescent bulbs,” Hugh replied.
“Yeah, but they did not save energy either,” replied Immelt.
Failing to see the logic, Hugh continued: “Didn’t G.E. contribute twice as much to the Democrats in 2008 as they did to the Republicans?”
“Well,” Immelt stammered, “perhaps.”
“And were you named to the President’s advisory panel on the economy?” Hugh pressed Immelt.
“Of course,” Obama interceded, as he sat puffing on a Marlboro after finishing his McDonald’s Happy Meal, “Mr. Immelt has a brilliant mind, knows how to get the economy back on track and is a valued advisor.”
“And his company owns MSNBC—who has never uttered a critical word against the White House since the 2008 election?”

“Well…” Immelt replied, nonplussed.
“By the way, the phase out of the incandescent bulbs begins shortly by federal decree is that correct?” Hugh asked.
“Yes,” replied the President.
“So, the company that manufactures the poisonous green bulbs in Red China; sells them at an obscene profit in America to the detriment of the American union workers; a company that owns MSNBC (Most Sycophants Nuzzling Barack Constantly)—which has never uttered an unkind word about you, Mr. President—and a company that contributed generously to the Democratic Presidential Campaign in 2008, stands to profit more than any other from the federal law that phases out the incandescent bulb, is that right?
“Mere coincidence!” Immelt protested indignantly as he rose from his chair.
“And may I ask when the federally-required phase out of the incandescent bulbs is scheduled to begin?” asked Hugh.
“2012 I believe, unless, for some reason, the government changes its mind,” replied the President.
“The year of the next Presidential election?”
“Precisely,” replied the President.
With that, Hugh excused himself, thanked the two for their time, and returned home to the headquarters of Stoos Views in beautiful downtown Wynstone, South Dakota—where the air is clean, the crime rate low, the people vote red, cling to their guns, and stockpile their incandescent bulbs.


Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:41 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34302

America and Freedom

Leave our Country’s Morals, Values and Standards alone

 

Good morning and welcome back once more…to Miz Judi’s Kitchen!

I would like to talk to you today about something that has been on my mind for a while now. I usually don’t talk about politics, but this morning I thought I would share with you a few things that I have been on my mind, and thought I’d see what you might think.

First off I love my Country, and I want my grandkids to know the same freedoms that I have always known.

Why do you think people come to America? You and I know, it’s because it’s the greatest Country on Earth, and you can do anything you put your mind to do.

So why when they get here, do they want to change everything that we stand for? Didn’t they just leave their own county for a better life, and to be free?

You came here of your own free will, we didn’t go there. If you’re not happy here, simply go back to where you came from. We don’t mind your coming, just leave our Country’s morals, values and standards alone.

Do you think for one minute, that if we were in their Country, they would feed us, clothe us, house us, cater to us, right down to making sure we had internet access or even seeing to it…we had a cell phone

How about using the Arabic Nations as but one example? Let’s say we were walking down the street, and in passing, you were continually told, “God is great,” and this offends you. You think you might be able to file a protest with your community ACLU? I doubt it.

More…


Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:42 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34273

I’ll be impressed by the droves with empathy about school bullying when Obama and the First Lady show a shred of concern about the Progressive Democrats doing millions of dollars in damage to the Wisconsin Government buildings

Host ‘bullying Summit’  but support violence and Islamic radicalism


Now we see Michelle Obama hosting a ‘bullying summit’ at the White House,  desperately concerned over cyber bullying and bullying in general with kids k-12.  I’m a Mom, like many of you.  None of us want our kids to be bullied,  pushed around or to be a bully.  Yes,  Principals,  teachers,  parents and schools must have sane follow through to protect our kids and come down hard on cyber bullying,  sexting or other dangerous behavior.

Isn’t it amazing though that ‘other dangerous behavior’ to the far left and Obama crowd doesn’t include pushing special days for gay expression and sneaking abortions off campus and school grounds.  Apparently,  secretly rushing out to slaughter a baby in the womb without telling parents is the child’s right and though countless people have reported depression,  bleeding and other problems after abortions,  in many school districts,  parents still are not to know.  You know…..confidentiality and child’s rights.
Bullying at some level has always been around in most grades.  Someone thinks you’re fat or skinny.  Someone hates your religion or color.  Someone thinks you talk weird,  or look ugly.  On and on it goes.  Typically,  if some jerk is all over you in the hall,  classroom or on the Internet,  you are supposed to report it to a trusted adult and teacher,  developing a plan and punish the bad behavior. 
I would believe this concern against bullying by the first family a lot more if they were also concerned to stand against the out of control,  international and Islamic bullying going on now all over the Middle East.  I would believe their ‘empathetic concern’ over people’s rights,  if they had stood with thousands of protesters in Iran last year, crying for freedom and begging for American leadership and support.  Instead, Iranians were arrested and mowed down while America passively watched and feigned mild concern.  I would listen to the concern about nasty kids in school if this administration had stood with the people,  law and supreme court in Honduras instead of the dictatorial,  law breaking tyrant,  Zelaya who was going against their constitution and committing voter fraud to stay in power.  I would imagine a world without bullies if Obama hadn’t given over a billion dollars to serial killer group,  HAMAS to continue attacking Israel,  while hiding behind their manipulated and contrived neediness.
I’m supposed to be impressed because the First Lady and Obama are wanting to stop bullying in schools?  This is while we hear speeches from Hillary and Obama that the US can’t lead in world affairs and meltdowns.  We have to wait and see what other countries do regarding Libya,  Egypt,  Tunisia,  Palestine,  Iran and now Saudi Arabia.  We are the leader of the free world and we are told by this administration we are not to lead but follow. 
We have another golden opportunity to support freedom,  democracy,  work now to promote pro west and pro freedom leadership changes through out the Middle East, but no.  We are to watch in the cowardly wings as Nicolas Sarkozy of France shows up to lead.
I’ll be impressed by the droves with empathy about school bullying when Obama and the First Lady show a shred of concern about the Progressive Democrats doing millions of dollars in damage to the Wisconsin Government buildings,  threatening the Governor and family,  then watching the Democrats run to Illinois for weeks to hide from their duty and responsibility to face the issues and vote.  Is ruining millions of dollars of property,  threatening people with bodily harm,  littering and running away from voting duty anything like facing a rude,  name calling bully in the hall?
Americans must stand for Freedom,  responsibility and hope in our schools,  but also around the world.  This President is a total failure and coward when standing for freedom movements going on right in front of our eyes.  To hear lectures from Obama and Hillary that we are not to lead but to follow is not only UN American but only hurts the world more than it is already hurting with the push of radical Islam and tyranny. 
We must make the 2012 election count and throw these ‘ever so concerned’  leftists out of the White House.


Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:44 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34246

EIA thinks it will produce 350,000 barrels a day by 2035, but most analysts think that estimate is far too low.

Billions of barrels of untapped U.S. oil

 

HOUSTON—In the grasslands of western North Dakota, one of the country’s richest oil men is using a controversial gas drilling technology to develop what could be the biggest domestic oil discovery in the last 40 years.


The oil lies underground in a shale rock formation stretching across western North Dakota, northeast Montana, and into Canada’s Saskatchewan Province known as the Bakken.

Thanks to hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” and high oil prices, oil production in the Bakken has exploded.

Global natural gas markets are changing, report says

Source: Power-Gen Worldwide
Technological advances in the production and transportation of natural gas are bringing new opportunities but the old way of doing business in gas markets is being challenged, according to a report from IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (IHS CERA) and the World Economic Forum.

The report, Energy Vision 2011: A New Era for Gas, says that advances in unconventional gas production combined with growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade are changing long-standing assumptions about natural gas markets around the world. The report also states that the biggest demand for natural gas will come from the power generation industry because it is less expensive and emits fewer greenhouse gases than other fossil fuel sources.

As a result of the shale gas revolution, North America has enough recoverable gas to meet current levels of use for more than 100 years. Global LNG trade doubled from 2000 to 2010 and is expected to increase another 50 percent or more in the next decade. Recent advances in technology mean that there is likely to be more gas available at a lower price than was assumed a few years ago.

Europe shale gas: As big as North America

By Nick Grealy, No Hot Air

I have often railed here against what I call the CW or Conventional Wisdom of UK energy experts,  i.e. those who went through various stages during the shale journey. The CW are those who when they don’t make a good living advising the government to spend huge amounts on money on energy, actually are in government themselves, as I used to be. The CW have a vested interest in maintaining the perception that gas is a big problem (cost, security, carbon): Simply put they don’t provide anything as messy as solutions since there is easier and better money to be made spinning out the problem. That explains a lot of why while wilful ignorance on shale is rife in the UK, it’s getting replaced by outright denial and hostility in some quarters.

But CERA are both mainstream and consistently cutting edge on shale. A lot of this must come from the corportate culture of Daniel Yergn’s original company which is curious, open and hopeful, instead of close-minded and fearful and classic top down energy thinking.

So when CERA, who have always been realistic about shale but, like everyone else unable to come up with some numbers, actually come up with some numbers to put against European shale, they will be listened to.


Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:47 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9LT953G1&show_article=1

Obama prepared to tap petroleum reserve if needed
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama said Friday he's prepared to tap the country's emergency oil reserve if necessary. But as gas prices climbed toward $4 a gallon, the president said the U.S. must adopt a long-term strategy of conservation and domestic production to wean itself off foreign oil. "We've been having this conversation for nearly four decades now. Every few years gas prices go up, politicians pull out the same political playbook, and then nothing changes," Obama said at a White House news conference. "And when prices go back down, we slip back into a trance."
"I don't want to leave this to the next president," he said. "And none of us should want to leave it for our kids." Some in Congress have been calling on Obama to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with unrest in the Middle East pushing up oil and gas prices. And the president made clear that that was an option, although not one he's yet ready to exercise. He declined to specify the conditions that would trigger the step, but said it was teed up and could happen quickly if he chooses to call for it. The government is cautious about going to the petroleum reserve, typically holding off except in very extreme cases, such as hurricanes, that affect oil supplies. The reserves—727 million barrels stored in salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana coasts—were created in response to the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s and last tapped in 2008 after hurricanes Gustav and Ike hit. "If we see significant disruptions or shifts in the market that are so disconcerting to people that we think a Strategic Petroleum Reserve release might be appropriate, we'll take that step," Obama said. "Right now, what we're seeing is not a shortage of supply; refineries are actually operating at fairly full capacity at the moment. The problem is, is a great deal of uncertainty in the oil markets." Gas prices in the U.S. now average $3.54 per gallon. Obama said he'd asked administration officials to look out for signs of price-gouging. Oil prices have surged 24 percent since the middle of February as unrest in the Middle East rattled world markets, although prices slid Friday on the possibility of reduced demand because of the devastating tsunami that hit Japan. Republicans have sought to blame Obama's policies for the high gas prices, pointing to the slow pace of permitting for new offshore oil wells in the wake of the massive Gulf spill and an Obama-imposed moratorium on new deepwater exploration, though experts say more domestic production wouldn't immediately impact prices. Obama rejected that criticism Friday. Obama said domestic oil production rose to a seven-year high last year. "Any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality," said the president. Republicans, who've announced they will be advancing a series of energy bills in the House this year aimed at bringing down gas prices, rejected Obama's arguments. "While the Obama administration claims to be committed to American energy production, the facts and its own actions say otherwise," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement. The American Petroleum Institute also criticized Obama's remarks and accused the Obama administration of putting up regulatory roadblocks to domestic production. Obama said that to boost production more, he's directed the Interior Department to assess how many onshore and offshore oil leases already held by industry are going undeveloped so that companies can be encouraged to produce from those lease. He also said the administration was looking at the potential for new production in Alaska and elsewhere. He said these steps and others could increase domestic production in the short- to medium term, but were not a long-term solution, considering the U.S. has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but accounts for over a quarter of worldwide consumption. "The hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we'll always be subject to price spikes. So we've got to get moving on a comprehensive energy strategy that pursues both more energy production and more energy conservation," the president said. He called for greater investments in clean energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels, and for strategies like more fuel-efficient cars.

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:52 PM

http://bigjournalism.com/wjkelly/2011/03/11/msms-anti-beck-propaganda-a-pathetic-ploy-to-force-foxs-hand/

MSM’s Anti-Beck Propaganda a Pathetic Ploy to Force FOX’s Hand


The Chinese military strategist, Sun Tzu, once famously wrote, “Know thyself and thine enemy.” Even though Tzu lived in the late 6th Century B.C., his words offer good counsel to conservatives today in understanding the biased left-wing MSM.


Earlier this week, blogger David Carr was licking his chops at the prospect of a Beck ouster at Fox News Channel in the New York Times. Carr’s unruly salivary gland quickly set-off a violent chain reaction in the liberal hate-o-sphere with articles predicting Beck’s imminent demise with headlines such as:
“Is Fox News pushing Glenn Beck towards the exit?” – Entertainment Weekly
“Glenn Beck to Get the Boot?” – Seattle Post Intelligencer
“America is Bored with Glenn Beck” – Salon
“Glenn Beck on the Brink: Ad Boycott May Have Finally Burned his Bridges” – CBS
Regardless of their media push, Fox News senior vice president of development Joel Cheatwood, seems in no hurry to make or announce a decision about Beck. In fact, if Fox News’ history is any indication, it appears highly unlikely that the George Soros-backed left-wing media will have an impact on his decision-making process.
Most of the giddy hate-filled liberal rhetoric against Beck is nothing new. It is in the fine biased MSM tradition of remarks savaging the host this year:
Joy Behar calls Beck’s a “rodeo clown.” In psychology circles, this is called “projection.” (It’s the hair, Joy.)
Keith Olbermann (when he was actually on the air) called Beck an “idiot.” He had his writers script out funny names calling the Fox News Channel host the “Grand Poobah of Whackjobery.” He accused him of trying to recreate the Martin Luther King rally last fall at the National Mall. He gleefully, falsely, and recklessly blamed him (and every other conservative) for the shootings in Tucson. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Liberal reporter Cokie Roberts once proved her journalistic prowess with this deft analysis:

Beck is worse than a clown. He’s more like a terrorist who believes he has discovered the One True Faith, and condemns everyone else as a heretic. And that makes him something else as well — a traitor to the American values he professes so loudly to defend.
A terrorist and a traitor, eh? Perhaps Roberts could use a refresher course in journalistic ethics – that is – if she ever took the course in the first place.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews continues to call Beck intelligent names like “delusional,” “looney tunes,” and “Captain Quigg.” He has questioned Beck’s emotional, mental, and psychological condition and mused on-air about why Roger Ailes even hired him. He has laughed at Beck’s ratings slide.
Yet even at his worst ratings, Beck still wins the 5 p.m. timeslot in a Matthews smackdown. Beck’s January numbers (his worst ratings) clocked 397,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic and 1.762 total viewers.
Talk about delusional. Talk about looney tunes. And it isn’t Beck I’m talking about. Come on, Chris, admit it: You’d just like to win that 5 p.m. timeslot for a change.
Racist. Terrorist. Traitor. Whackjob. Idiot. Clown. If you are a conservative success story, the name-calling and personal smears are all in a day’s work. However, in the scheme of things, the name calling does not count. It’s the numbers.
And it is this week’s numbers that paint the real picture. Fox News continues to mop the floor with CNN and MSNBC in every time slot – including Beck’s – by double or triple the viewership. Fox News Channel’s primetime viewership (in 000s) was more than double (2,440) its closest competitors MSNBC (1,066). Beck (1,697) bested Matthews (615) by more than double. O’Reilly (3,302) continues to be the real ratings star, trouncing nearest competitor MSNBC’s O’Donnell (1,006). Fox News’ success is no accident and it is clear management knows what it is doing.
If conservative activist James O’Keefe’s undercover video on NPR, and the resulting firestorm, is any indication, Fox News has had its work cut out for it filling in the wide oceanic gulfs of journalistic unfairness that have existed for years without a counterpoint. Fox News continues to give liberal media seizures for a reason: they are fair and balanced. Beck is part of that balance.
The liberal media have been quick to point out the 33% fall in Beck’s viewership since last August. However, there is an expected ebb and a flow to news cycles. Fox News’ ratings were breaking records when Obama forced through his stimulus program (the CBO’s latest estimates in February calculate the cost to American taxpayers at $821 billion over 10 years). Voters were outraged at the deceitful legal gymnastics used to ram through the socialized medicine that is Obamacare. That collective viewer and voter anger and frustration reached a fever pitch during the first two years of Obama’s Administration.
Back in the second quarter of 2009, Michael Calderone noted on Politico:
“Since Obama came into office, Fox has continued not only winning, but doing so at unprecedented levels.”
At that time, Fox showed a 33 percent rise in total viewers compared to the second quarter of 2008, and a 54 percent increase in younger viewers for its primetime weekday shows. Guess who the biggest gainer was? Glenn Beck.
“Beck, who takes aim at the administration repeatedly, is proving an even bigger draw since coming over from HLN: His 5 p.m. slot is up 110 percent from last year,” said Calderone.
Consequently, the current easing up of Beck’s numbers have more to do with the success of the GOP in the mid-term election news cycle than any unhinged theory proposed by media desperate to get their news monopoly back. If Fox News and Beck eventually do part company, it will not be because of ratings but a difference of vision and that is still a big “if.”
Yes, know thyself and thine enemy. Tzu, you hit the nail on the liberal head.

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:54 PM

http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2011/03/11/activists-in-23-states-coming-together-in-texas-to-true-the-vote/    Activists in 23 States Coming Together in Texas to ‘True The Vote’

Patriots and activists from 23 states are about to gather together on March 25 and 26 in Houston, Texas to attend the True The Vote Summit, an effort to make “true” the electoral system in every polling place in the country, to stop voter fraud, and to quash the intimidation of voters. Organizers hope to make sure that we again have free and fair elections.


A local Harris County activist group named The The King Street Patriots built the True The Vote Summit upon their experiences of attempting to “true” the 2010 election in Harris County, Texas.
Back before the recent election, the KSP got together to try and find out what sort of shape the voting rolls were in Harris County, Texas were. What they found was shocking. Due to its investigation, an ACORN organizer was exposed for having registered over 23,000 fake voters in the county. The story made national news.
With that success under their belts the KSPers and their chief Catherine Engelbrecht decided to step it up a notch. And so, during the 2010 midterm election, the group set out to organize citizen poll watchers to monitor every polling place in Harris County. The goal was to make sure that what went on in each polling place followed the letter of the law, was free of cheating and fraud, and was open and welcoming for every voter.
Naturally the floodgates of hate were opened upon them. Leftist agitators let loose a smear campaign against these patriotic folks calling them haters, racists, and worse. The Black Panthers even came out in force to intimidate both the KSP and the voters they were observing.
The attacks on the True The Vote Summit have also continued unabated by the left today. So we know how the left is worried about this movement. Vote fraud is almost exclusively practiced by Democrats and left-wing activists in this country, so an effort like this threatens their operations.

Despite all the attacks they underwent, the King Street Patriots were buoyed by their success in stopping vote fraud during the 2010 elections and with that experience to guide them they now want to offer their assistance and to relay the tools they’ve developed to stop vote fraud to any and every state in the union. The result is the True The Vote Summit to be held March 25 and 26 in Houston, Texas.
According to the event website:

Election fraud attacks the heart of our political system and threatens our rights as citizens.
When True the Vote began monitoring elections last fall in Houston, we were shocked at the fraud we discovered. Precinct judges often failed to check voters IDs, and some even filled out ballots to “help” people vote. These violations are just the tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.
If you are one of the millions of Americans outraged by corruption at the highest levels of our nation’s government, then you can help us stop fraud where it begins – at the polling place, in the precinct where you live, in the streets of your city.
If you care enough to help, contact us today to become part of our action plan. A commitment of just a few hours is all it takes to help restore truth and integrity to our elections.
Appearing to speak at the True The Vote National Summit will be New Media Mogul Andrew Breitbart, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, former Dept. of Justice attorney and Philadelphia Black Panthers whistleblower J. Christian Adams, ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCreif, former FEC commissioner Hans Von Spakovsky and others.
If you are ready to do your duty as an American to, as in Ben Franklin’s warning, “have our Republic and keep it” make haste to sign up to join the True The Vote Summit this month.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:56 PM

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2011/03/11/obama-admin-whitewashes-drilling-policy/

Obama Admin Whitewashes Drilling Policy

Criticism continues to amass on the heels of the blog posted by the Whitehouse Wednesday boasting ‘Expanding Safe and Responsible Energy Production.” Attempting to drive home the point that, long before this current spike, their main concern rested in “increasing responsible domestic energy production – including oil and gas,” the Obama Administration engaged in a bit of revisionist history. In reality, actions taken by President Obama and his staff indicate that despite the rising cost of oil, there is little sense of immediacy to get one of our most profitable industries back to work.



The main argument behind the stagnant permitting, the Obama Administration maintains, is BP’s disasterous blowout in the Gulf, “protecting” Americans from the horrors that would no doubt ensue should deepwater drilling restart at a pre-Gulf oil spill clip. Forbes reporter Christopher Helman makes a valid point in exposing the disingenuous nature of the Obama administration’s willingness to issue permits: while the industry was not adequately prepared to clean up the spill, reports have shown that the main problem was in BP’s implementation of the well, not the overall industry’s handling of the disaster – nor the industry’s chances of a second failure. In fact, the chances of another spill have gone down significantly with the most recent set of safety procedures established by the Department of the Interior. Companies now have the technology to drill safely in deep water, and new measures are in place to contain and control a BP-sized blowout, in the (very) off chance such an incident should happen again. It was BP’s haste in building the well, not the industry’s haste in correcting the problem.

William Reilly, co-chair of the presidential panel tasked with investigating causes of the oil spill, remains impressed with the industry’s ability to respond to the disaster, The Hill reports.

“William Reilly, co-chair of the presidential panel tasked with investigating causes of the BP PLC (BP, BP.LN) oil spill, on Tuesday called the oil and gas industry’s response to the disaster ‘remarkable and reassuring,’” Dow Jones reports.

“Speaking at the IHS CERA energy conference in Houston, Reilly, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator who oversaw the cleanup of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, heaped praise on a pair of spill containment systems developed after the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in April, unleashing the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
Reilly added, “From where I sit, the major obstacles to drill have been removed.”
Despite the continuously improving working environment, the administration has seemingly halted permitting process. In a time where Americans need to get back to work and oil prices soar over $100 a barrel, it seems foolish to stunt such a profitable industry.
All of this information culminated into a coalition letter from several businesses on the ongoing de facto moratorium. Bromwich’s celebration in granting a permit last week only spurred action from some of the most prominent business coalitions. NBCC President and CEO Harry Alford explained:
“The single deepwater drilling permit granted in the Gulf is a political maneuver, and an insult to struggling businesses, meant only to alleviate pressure on Interior Department Secretary Salazar for budget discussions with Congress. The Administration ought to be focusing attention toward alleviating the pressure on business owners on the brink of collapse from the economically destructive and ongoing moratorium.”
In this economic environment Americans cannot afford politics as usual. The White House claiming ‘expanding energy production’ as one of their primary concerns is just another fabrication. It is time to get the oil industries back to work and restore jobs in the Gulf. Failure to act now will delay recovery moving forward.

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Mar 11 11 2:57 PM

http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/03/11/obamas-presser-and-gas-prices-which-time-were-the-left-lying/

Obama’s Presser and Gas Prices: Which Time Were the Left Lying?

It may just be wishful thinking but Politico’s ‘Morning Energy’ today was dropping heavy hints they expected President Obama to use this morning’s presser to defend against any culpability of his policies in ’skyrocketing’ gas prices.


Yeah, any such connection between Obama policies and energy prices is a pretty hard case to make, what with the Obama administration having immediately upon taking office canceled oil and gas leases, placed more areas off limits for domestic exploration and production, changing the Minerals Management Service to an offshore windmill permitting agency since all we need is some offshore windmills (not one but two senior administration officials have said this, including a cabinet secretary), then not letting the Gulf spill ‘go to waste’ by seizing it to strangle our biggest domestic source of oil.
Of course, there is also that long trail of aspirational comments, well beyond vowing to cause electricity prices to ’skyrocket’, indicating this steady gas price hike is their objective, even if overseas developments are causing problems for them [helping the rise advance too quickly such that people pay attention, with these developments adding to the price hikes the admin have built in, with much more obviously undone but hopefully on the way]. As I detailed with many more admissions ten months ago in Power Grab.
Obviously, this is one of the items worrying Team Obama, along with their foreign policy fecklessness. And — in lieu of gimmickry to redirect voters’ gazes from policies that contribute to this, such as by releasing Strategic [NB: not 'Political'] Petroleum Reserve crude — Obama cheerleaders (like Politico) note he could take the opportunity to push his “Clean Energy Standard”.

That’s one of the “other ways to skin the cat” after cap-and-trade failed legislatively. Of course, for one, that is an electricity standard, adding windmill and solar panel mandates that are superfluous to a GHG rationing scheme like EPA’s backdoor cap-n-trade. Because we drive wind- and solar-powered cars. Or something.
But speaking of EPA’s involvement in all of this, Speaker Boehner jabbed at it yesterday when co-incidentally rolling out the Republicans’ energy arguments, “American Energy”. This follows up Newt Gingrich’s chosen talking point — which of course draws no line to exclude stupid, costly and harmful ‘American energy’ like ethanol, windmills or solar panels, any more than that previous stab of “All of the Above”. Sigh. Will someone please stand up and yell “Stop!”?
Anyway, as part of that rollout the Speaker pointed out the administration’s policies including their regulations on greenhouse gases (EPA’s backdoor Kyoto) are responsible for some of the price hike.
Shocked, shocked! the Dems shrieked,  how dare you, it’s idiotic to say that GHG regs on stationary sources like refineries increase the price of gasoline, per E&E News, in its lead story, ” Democrats cry foul over GOP’s attempts to tie fuel prices to EPA”:

“If they could fool people into believing there’s a connection, I think they would gain some political mileage, but it’s all deceptive,” said Rep. Henry Waxman of California [see below], the Energy and Commerce panel’s top Democrat and a chief author of that 2009 climate bill. “There’s no connection to EPA regulating greenhouse gases for certain stationary sources by requiring them to be more efficient and the price of gasoline.”…
“It reminds me of somebody who ate a hamburger and then ends up catching pneumonia and then says, ‘Hamburgers cause pneumonia,’” [Dem. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO)] said.
Mmm. There was also some muttering about how can rules that don’t go into effect until 2012 have contributed? — though they actually began taking effect January 2 [ See "the first step of this [EPA's] Tailoring Rule, which will begin on January 2, 2011″, showing EPA thinks refineries are so not nice that they’re covered twice!: ” all of the covered sources … will simply be adding a GHG component to what would be an otherwise occurring permitting action for conventional pollutants. These sources include fossil fuel-fired power plants, petroleum refineries, cement plants, iron and steel plants, pulp and paper plants, petroleum refineries,…”.] Not much attention to detail by this crowd, either at EPA, or on the Hill.
But, still, wait a sec.
Does anyone remember that $30 million “Say No on 23″ campaign by the Dems and their allies just this past fall? It included a long list of their claiming that Big Oil – specifically, refiners — were the dark forces behind trying to stop California’s version of Obama’s GHG regs (AB 32) from going into effect.
Which is it? a reporter might be prepared to ask today. Surely it will come up. It has to. Which time is your team lying, Mr. President? Was it, as you all said time and time — and time — again, the refiners who were behind the campaign saying that GHG regs will increase their costs — and yes, Virginia, costs are passed on to consumers — or is that now just a made up claim?
Did your team spend $tens of millions of dollars California saying refiners are the ones trying to stop GHG regs from going into effect by yelling about the cost, or not? Did we imagine this? Was that just made up?
If that did occur, why should we believe you now? And, if it was insincere, why should we believe you now? Or aren’t we better off believing all of those vows to raise our gas prices to Europe’s level, etc.?

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Mar 11 11 3:00 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/thanks_for_small_favors_presid.html

Thanks for Small Favors, President Obama


On Feb. 28, just after Interior Secretary Salazar declared that he was not satisfied with Gulf drilling safety standards, President Obama's drilling czar, Michael Bromwich, announced that a permit had been approved to resume deep-water drilling 70 miles off the Louisiana coast. Not a new permit, mind you, but one for a project that had already begun drilling before the Deepwater Horizon accident in April 2010. In the months ahead, Bromwich hinted, there might be more approvals, even approval for a new deep-water well. Maybe so, maybe not.

 
That's the way it works with crony socialism. Just to show how business-friendly he can be, Obama agrees to the resumption of drilling on one deep-water well. That well, operated by Noble Energy, was approved after Noble signed up capping equipment produced by Helix Well Containment Group that met the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement's new standards.

 
If the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement ("BOEMRE") seems like a mouthful, it's the same agency that used to be known as the Minerals Management Service ("MMS"). In line with its expanded appellation and newly appointed director -- a veteran of the Clinton Justice Department -- the agency has taken on a much more aggressive role in regulating offshore drilling, so much so that practically no drilling has taken place.

 
This is the way bureaucracy operates under crony socialism. Permits trickle out at a pace decided by a bureaucrat who has spent his entire career in government at the direction of a President who has never worked outside government (inside government either, many would say). Once government controls the means of production and decides how much production and on what terms, the private sector has in effect been nationalized. Having been stifled by this kind of regulation, businesses have to decide whether to limp along in the manner of state-regulated utilities or pack up and leave. In the energy sector, a lot of companies have been leaving. Deep-water rigs have departed for Africa and Latin America, and new exploration and production is relocating abroad.

 
Lest anyone think that Obama has suddenly become energy friendly, let's review what else he has done in the last few months. Along with his refusal to approve any new deep-water wells, there's the small matter of increased taxes. At a time when the price of oil has exceeded $100 a barrel, the President's FY2012 budget includes a reduction of $44 billion in funds to promote energy independence. The proposed budget would entirely eliminate the current Oil and Gas Research and Development Program while significantly increasing funds for alternative fuels that meet less than 1% of our nation's energy needs.

 
Those cuts for fossil fuels compare with a 38.5% increase in education spending. Maybe that's because oil-field workers aren't big contributors to the Democratic Party the way teachers' unions are. But piling new taxes on oil companies while boosting teachers' salaries is not going to make America energy independent. You won't get very far pumping a lesson on Women's History Month into your tank.

 
Meanwhile, in yet another power grab, Obama's EPA wants to slap costly new regulation on refineries and other industrial boilers. Its initial job-killing plan was estimated to cost American workers $3.9 billion annually. EPA Director Lisa Jackson seemed surprised at the level of opposition but subsequently offered a new plan estimated by the EPA to be 46% less expensive.

 
Amazingly, Jackson claimed that the new plan, at about half the cost, would accomplish essentially the same environmental goals as the first one. That being the case, why wasn't the less costly plan offered to begin with? Since it seems to pull these plans out of thin air whenever it is politically expedient to do so, maybe the EPA can come up with a third plan that is less costly still.

 
In fact, Jackson's giveback is typical for this administration. What the Obama EPA seeks is not a reasonable level of regulation -- that is to say, minimal regulation necessary for public welfare -- but regulation so far-reaching that private businesses operate at the behest of bureaucrats. Having mugged American business and threatened to strip them of every dime of profit, the agency now decides to make nice and allow some American corporations to subsist within a system of state corporatism.

 
But not those that produce or burn fossil fuels. The revised regulations on industrial boilers carved out an exemption for schools, hospitals, and some small businesses but did nothing to ease the burden on larger companies. Why is it that teachers, once again, are suddenly exempt from the burden of regulation while energy companies are not? Teachers are being rewarded for being good little Obama comrades, while those connected with fossil fuels are blacklisted. Maybe it's because energy companies actually produce something of value and have the ability to create private sector jobs independent of government. Evidently no one in the Obama administration wants to see those kinds of companies prosper. 

 
Underlying Obama's energy policy is the goal of de facto nationalization of all major sectors of the economy. Drilling in the Gulf may be allowed to resume, although gradually, but Obama has not backed down on his socialist agenda. His latest budget doubles down on subsidies for green vehicles and alternative fuels. He continues to rally support for alternative fuel mandates, a backdoor means toward carbon emissions control. And Obama's friends at the Environmental Resources Defense Council are promoting CAFE standards of 60 mpg by 2025, a goal that would run the American auto industry into the ground a second time and bankrupt consumers as well. The only thing that has changed is that, with gas prices climbing over $4 a gallon, Obama needs cover through the 2012 election for an energy policy that is not working.

 
I suspect that more deep-water approvals are forthcoming, but not many and slowly. Even as a bipartisan resolution has been introduced in the House calling for faster permitting, there is no leadership on this issue from the White House. Or rather, there is leadership in the wrong direction. Obama managed to shut down deep-water permitting in the Gulf for an unprecedented ten months, then act like Santa Claus when he re-authorized a permit that had already been granted. What happens when he actually approves a permit for new drilling? He'll make it sound like we're on the way to $2 gas when, under his plan, we're on the way to no gas at all.

 
A lot of voters are unhappy because they know that Obama-style socialism is not working. They know that fewer Americans are working, prices are going up, and government debt is out of control. That's why they voted Democrats out of office in record numbers last November. Obama is attempting to placate the public by acting like he has learned his lesson and is willing to compromise. But approval for resumption of one deep-water well, or of a few wells in the coming months, is not compromise. It's a cynical ploy designed to deflect attention from the continuing takeover of the energy sector.

 

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Mar 11 11 3:02 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_calling_tea_party_racist.html

Obama Calling Tea Party Racist Reveals A Far More Disturbing Reality

By Lloyd Marcus
Please consider the validity of what I am about to say rather than having a knee jerk reaction dismissing it as being "over the top."   Folks, we have an irresponsible egocentric evil man occupying the Oval Office.


The Democrats and the liberal mainstream media sold the American people on Obama, "the man."  Despite Obama's zero experience at running anything, they said a leader with his spirit and heart was "what we have been waiting for".

 
Fearful of criticizing our first black president, politicians politely say, "President Obama's policies have been unfruitful," while ignoring the huge elephant in America's living room.

 
The elephant of which I speak and America's major problem is "Obama, the man"; socialist, divisive and evil.

 
My dad says a snake can stay under water a very long time just like a fish. But eventually, it must come up for air. Why? Because, it is not a fish. It is a snake. Obama continues to come up for air revealing his true self.

 
President Obama said the Tea Party is racist. That's the unmistakable meaning of his statement that race is a "key component" of Tea Party protests. The liberal media, NAACP and Democrats have been relentlessly promoting this same baseless allegation. When final confirmation comes down from the highest office in the land, the Oval Office, that the Tea Party is racist; the allegation becomes "official" in the minds of millions. President Obama is slandering millions of decent hard working Americans who simply disagree with his progressive/socialist agenda.

 
Think of the repercussions. Obama's indictment of the Tea Party will birth tremendous racial discord across America in schools, churches, and civic life.  Obama's proclamation will cause Americans to double down on their already extreme caution when criticizing our black president.  Sadly, I suspect such intimidation is a part of Obama's plan; anything to empower his mission to "fundamentally transform America."

 
Make no mistake about it, Obama and company have successfully intimidated many white Americans into not dissing the black president in public.

 
I stopped in a fast food restaurant for a burger. Around fifteen white seniors were having lunch. I overheard them ranting about Obama's overreaches and socialist policies. Upon seeing me, a black man, they became silent. I was tempted to say, "Please continue, I whole-heartedly agree with you!" Too bad they did not notice my Tea Party Express t-shirt.

 
Barack Hussein Obama received more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history. So Obama alleging millions of Tea Party patriots are simply upset because America elected a black president is disingenuous, absurd and manipulative.

 
Obama is exploiting his race and sacrificing national race relations solely to implement his progressive/socialist agenda. Callously and strategically, the President of the United States is pitting millions of black and white Americans against each other. Lord help us, that is pure evil.

 
Quoting deceased make-up legend, Mary Kay, "Leadership spreads from the top down."

 
A fine black young adult whom I have known for years has always appeared to be racially color blind.  He idolizes Obama.  Suddenly, I have noticed this kid beginning to view everything through a racial lens. His latest absurd statement, "Friends" is a racist TV show because there are no black cast members."

 
While I admit this example is anecdotal, I suspect Obama's divisiveness is inspiring millions of Americans to choose sides along racial lines.

 
Before knowing the facts, Obama immediately assumed the white police officer was guilty of racial profiling in the Professor Gates case.  This suggests Obama has racial emotional baggage.  Such a luxury cannot be afforded the president of "all Americans."

 
Obama is not who most Americans thought he was and is exactly who the liberal mainstream media hoped he would be: their Great Black Hope for implementing their progressive/socialist agenda.

 
They will do whatever it takes to protect Obama; ignoring his character flaws, lawlessness, deceptions and lies. If Obama says two plus two equals five, the liberal media will defend it as being the "New Math."  We cannot trust the liberal media to tell us the truth regarding Obama.

 
Obama's inauguration brought tears to the eyes of millions of Americans. Blacks are only 12% of our nation's population, which means it took many million white votes to put Obama in the Oval Office. Thus, most of the American tears of joy were white.

 
President Obama is fully aware of this truth.

 
Obama willfully dividing Americans by exploiting his race for political gain is a despicable betrayal of the whites who elected him. But even more disturbing, it reveals the true character of the man running our country. America deserves much, much better.

 
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
"One Million People To Defeat Barack Obama 2012". Please join us!
Please sign and encourage your friends to sign this petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/1milliontodefeatbarackobama
LloydMarcus.com
Spokesperson & Entertainer of Tea Party Movement & Tea Party Express.
The American Tea  Party Anthem cd/album.
Confessions of a Black Conservative, written by Lloyd Marcus & foreword by Michelle Malkin
President,
NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of ALL Colors)
Join Lloyd Marcus
Facebook Page
Tea Are The World, "Taking Back America" The Making of Documentary... The MUST SEE Tea Party Hist

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Mar 11 11 3:03 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_politics_of_social_securit.html

The Politics of Social Security Reform


Democrat politicians are waging yet another media campaign to block Social Security reform.  Late last month Senator Durbin claimed, "Social Security does not add one penny to the deficit."  Two days later, a White House aide assured voters that Social Security reform is "not one you care about" and President Obama's budget director opposed reform in a USA Today op-ed.  The Hill then quoted half a dozen more Democrats singing from the same anti-reform songbook.

The inspiration for their lyrics dates back to the 1930s, when Coots and Gillespie wrote, You better watch out, You better not cry, You better not pout, I'm telling you why: Santa Claus is coming to town.

Why do Democrats scold workers like PTA mothers in December?  Probably because the politicians worry that they will stop believing in Santa Claus government and become enthusiastic about Social Security privatization.  At least some Americans must have noticed that the stock market rose by about 80 percent over the past two years and the Social Security trust fund gained only eight percent.

For decades, leftist politicians and their big media chorus girls have intimidated reform-minded lawmakers by claiming that modifying the Social Security entitlement scheme is politically equivalent to touching the deadly third rail in a subway station.  However, the real reason the left wants to keep reformers away from the third rail is because that's where the power is distributed.  In politics, money is power and the Social Security trust fund currently has assets of 2.6 trillion dollars.

Despite that large endowment, trust fund investments still earn too little to cover dividend distributions and administrative costs, so the Social Security Administration must rely on a constant stream of payroll tax receipts.  The SSA invests in debt from the US Treasury, an organization that has never defaulted on its payments.  How then could the SSA possibly be running out of money?

The answer, of course, is that Social Security is not just a retirement plan.  It is a schizophrenic combination of financial enterprises and fund raising:

  • A tax-deferred intermediate bond fund that invests only in US Treasury debt
  • A term life insurance pool
  • A disability insurance pool (since 1956)
  • A Ponzi scheme that shifts wealth from private individuals to government
  • A federal flat tax, currently on income up to $106,800

A Treasury bond fund is a poor investment for younger workers.  Yields on intermediate-term Treasury bonds barely beat inflation: In real dollars, they typically return only two or three percent.  Still, if the money were held in individual private accounts, it might be a good investment for retirees or those nearing retirement, as it would be a safe place to park cash for covering monthly retirement expenses.

However, the investments aren't really held in individual private accounts.  And as a bond fund, its net asset value is far below what is needed to sustain its current dividends.  The retirement portion of the trust fund had assets of $2.34T at the beginning of 2010 and it paid dividends and administrative costs of $586B during 2010 -- about 25 percent of its assets -- while earning only 3.4 percent on its investments.  (SSA annual report, page 38)  If it were a Wall Street government bond fund, it would be broke in just a few years, though the SEC probably would shut it down long before that.

As a disability insurance pool, its asset value is far too small to sustain its current claims rate.  The DI portion of the trust fund had assets of $204B at the beginning of 2010 and it paid claims and administrative costs of $128B during 2010 -- about 63 percent of its assets.  (SSA annual report, page 41)  Why is the inefficient, fraud-plagued government in the insurance business?  If DI were a Connecticut insurance company, it would be broke within a year or two.  In other words, DI primarily is a taxpayer-funded welfare program.  That might be fine, but don't call it "insurance".

In contrast, as a government-run Ponzi scheme, Social Security has a brighter future.  In 2010, it took in $791B and paid out a total of $715B.  Yes, its costs soon will exceed its income, but its assets will cover the shortfall for another 26 years or so.  (SSA annual report, page 58)

In 1935, when the Democrats launched it, the Ponzi scheme seemed brilliant.  And by playing Santa Claus with the proceeds, it bought them control of Congress for much of the rest of the century.  But it also planted the seeds of its own inevitable destruction because economically and politically, it is "State Socialism":

  • Participation is involuntary
  • Contributions are pooled (no individual investment accounts)
  • Individual benefits are linked only loosely to contributions
  • It shifts control of private wealth from individuals to big government
  • It shifts fiscal responsibility from individuals to big government
  • It buys votes by shifting wealth from the politically weak to the politically powerful

In their role as Santa Claus, Democrats plundered the trust fund to advance their political fortunes.  Initially, the individual benefits far surpassed the investments.  For instance, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller, who retired in November 1939 after paying a total of $24.75 in Social Security taxes -- $387 in today's currency.  She lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975.  During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits -- about $180,000 in today's currency.

That's an extreme example, but on average, the initial financial windfall of Social Security investment returns diminished continuously over the decades.  Payroll tax hikes outpaced the rise in retirement distributions, yet Santa's workshop still is running out of money.  During the 20th Century, politicians distributed much of that money to buy votes.  It's gone.  Conversely, today's politicians are scrambling to find ways to avoid looking like the Grinch when they take the promised money away.

Winners and Losers

The chart below predicts how the politicians will play the Grinch, while wearing their Santa masks.  The numerous reform options are summarized into three categories: Hike payroll taxes, cut initial benefits, and shift to private individual accounts.  As shown, tax hikes give politicians even more money and power.  Benefits cuts are politically neutral or slightly positive if they are implemented slowly.  Conversely, privatization shifts money and power back to individuals -- where it came from.  So naturally, the big-government politicians will continue to demagogue that solution.

Why don't the individuals revolt?  --Because the scheme is rigged to favor current retirees, who are politically powerful via AARP and other left-wing activist organizations.  Meanwhile, most current taxpayers are too busy working to protest the fact that they're getting shafted, and their children can't vote -- or they are told by their leftist college professors to vote Democrat.  Consequently, the big-government politicians are getting away with fiscal child abuse.

The simplest way to privatize Social Security might be to raise the limit on tax-deferred IRA contributions to about $18K per year and let workers invest their retirement money any way they like.  If Congress gave workers the option of doing that or remaining in the Social Security program, virtually everyone would switch to the private, self-directed IRA.  After all, they still would have the option of investing their IRA money in an intermediate government bond fund, which is exactly what they have now, so there would be no downside for those that make the switch.

However, overnight privatization won't happen, for at least two reasons: selfish big-government politicians never voluntarily surrender trillions of dollars of vote-buying power; and, without the Ponzi income, the Social Security trust fund would be insolvent in only a few years, so existing retirees could not be paid.

Just Obey Maternal Democrats and Pretend there's a Santa Claus

Given that politicians already spent most of the trust fund's endowment, and that the US population demographics also work against it, Social Security can't be saved without harming retirees, workers, or future workers.  In fact, Congressman Ryan's "roadmap" for Social Security -- probably the most viable reform plan out there -- harms all three groups.  What's worse, any plan that saves Social Security will leave the retirement money in the hands of "the crooks and buffoons in Washington", as Dan Mitchell, of the Cato Institute, describes them.

The best way to privatize Social Security is to grant Democrats their wish: refuse to privatize it.  Ignoring the problem will ensure that the program will self-destruct in the late 2030s, just as the Soviet Union self-destructed two decades ago.  Conversely, fixing Social Security now would be like sending massive foreign aid to the Soviet Union in 1985.

All three groups -- retirees, workers, and future workers -- still will be harmed by the trust fund's bankruptcy, but not without ample warning.  The SSA's current best guess is that the trust fund will be depleted in about 26 years.  Then a taxpayer revolt might demand that: 1) payroll taxes no longer be withheld; 2) tax-deferred IRA deduction limits be incremented by an amount equal to the obsolete payroll tax; and 3) the insolvent Social Security Administration be closed after a century of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Selfish big-government politicians even might cooperate, realizing that they can't loot an empty store.

What about the "social safety net"?  Since DI already has devolved into a welfare program, it might as well be moved to the HHS general budget.  On the other hand, Social Security retirement payments rarely mean the difference between living and dying.  And if they do, chances are those recipients also participate in some of the other 70 (yes, 70!) federal poverty programs that already exist.

Furthermore, Americans are the most generous charitable contributors in the world, voluntarily donating billions of hours and hundreds of billions of dollars annually to private charities that are far more efficient than the federal government.  So there's plenty of historical evidence that volunteers would be eager to pitch in too, should the need arise.

And even though the big-government politicians try to hide it, there also is plenty of evidence that workers have suspected for some time that Social Security is going broke.  At the end of 2009, Americans had set aside $4.2T in private IRAs and $4.1T in private defined-contribution plans such as a 401(k), a combined value of $8.3T.

During 2010, the stock market and its dividends returned 15 percent while intermediate bond funds returned about eight percent, so IRA and the defined-contribution funds probably earned an average of about 10 percent.  That brought their combined value to about $9.1T, well over three times the asset value of the Social Security trust fund.   More evidence that Americans can get along just fine without a Santa Claus government.

Before Social Security, retirees also used to rely more on their children for financial assistance.  In that regard, Social Security is partly responsible for the falling birth rate in America -- which ironically is threatening the program itself.  And in a roundabout way, Social Security also might be harming education.  Here's why: If parents think they might some day have to rely on their children for support, they have greater incentive to make sure the kids are well educated and inspired to get good jobs.  Today's teachers -- especially in the inner city -- complain that many parents show little interest in motivating their children to learn.  Could that partly be Social Security's fault?

Medicare and Medicaid are far bigger fiscal problems, so politicians should tackle those entitlement programs first.  And those programs sometimes really do determine the outcome of life-and-death situations.  Such a debate also has the benefit of shining a bright spotlight on ObamaCare, which fundamentally is just a nationwide expansion of Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that already are poorly run, fraught with corruption, nearly insolvent, and are driving physicians out of the healthcare profession.


Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Mar 11 11 3:06 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/deconstructing_obama_booktv_de.html

Deconstructing Obama Book-TV debut


Huge thanks to Herb Meyer for his swell review in yesterday's American Thinker and my deep appreciation for those readers who commented so favorably. 

From the beginning the effort to get the truth about President Obama has been a collaborative one, aided greatly by AT's publisher Thomas Lifson and by many of the readers.  We take the effort one more step on Sunday morning at 10 AM Eastern when C-SPAN II premieres my presentation for its worthy Book-TV program.

This was recorded three weeks ago at the Kansas City Public Library despite efforts by the city's left wing alternative paper, the Pitch, to stop the presentation on the predictable grounds of racism.  So much for the left's commitment to free speech.  More than 300 people were in attendance.

The beauty of Book-TV is that it invades the homes of people who otherwise screen out any information generated in the right half of the blogosphere.  I can write their emails of outrage in advance. 

The 7 PM showing on Saturday March 12 has been bumped back to 7 PM on March 19 to accommodate a special tribute to the late David Broder.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Mar 11 11 3:07 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/is_obama_a_radical_or_a_typica.html

Is Obama a radical or a typical Democrat


A Wall Street Journal op-ed by Michael Medved posits that President Obama is not a radical, but rather is one of the host of FDR's followers who have taken over the Democratic Party:


In what sense does Obama count as more radical than FDR, the patron saint of the modern Democratic Party?

Where does he advocate government intervention and expansion more sweeping, costly or constitutionally questionable than the programs of the New Deal...

President Obama not only conforms to the big government, tax-and-spend traditions that have characterized his party for nearly a century; he stands squarely in the center of the Democrats' current coalition.

Medved notes that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards might have pursued the same agenda as Obama.  Indeed, Ms. Clinton did her senior college thesis on Saul Alinsky.

To Medved's point, the 111th Congress just ended was dominated by such long-time liberal lions as Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, David Obey, Russ Feingold, and Barney Frank, all of whom have worn the same path that Obama now strides.

Medved also notes the mainstream political pedigrees of Obama's cabinet appointments.

To make that point, however, Medved perhaps overlooks such fellow travelers as self-described communist Van Jones, Mao-philosopher Anita Dunn,  "queering education" Kevin Jennings, rationing romantic Donald Berwick, and Chavez-champion Mark Lloyd, among others.

Radicals aside, Obama's "typical Democrat" appointments are a fertile field as well: including CO2-controller Lisa Jackson, drilling banner Ken Salazar, foreign policy failure Hillary Clinton, economic failure Tim Geithner, nation-of-cowards Eric Holder, and Janet "Incompetano," to borrow Mark Steyn's term.

Rush Limbaugh has in recent days questioned whether Republicans should campaign against Obama's philosophy or only his policies.  Are Obama's Marxist philosophy and his background and associations to be off limits once again? 

Medved last month cautioned against Limbaugh's argument that Obama is trying to weaken America, and Medved now cautions that we stick to the Democratic policy issues. 

Medved asserts that the effort to defeat Obama in 2012 should focus on Obama's record as a typical Democrat:


Republicans need not despair that President Obama fails to conform to the hackneyed (if groundless) charges of radicalism. They will find the president easier to beat when they re-adjust their attacks to portray him as typical rather than radical.

The problem with Mr. Obama isn't that he functions far outside the Democratic mainstream. The real problem is that mainstream itself, a toxic stew of dysfunctional and discredited notions that have flopped reliably whenever they've been employed.

Since the Democrats have brought us ObamaCare and $1.6 trillion deficits, environmental extremism and the resulting energy shortages, rising prices for gas and food and a three-year and counting bout with unemployment and economic malaise, the ‘toxic stew' of Obama's Democratic regime offers much to run against.

We are cautioned too that Obama remains personally popular, yet who among us likes to be conned, victimized by a smile and a voice. 

Obama ran as a centrist and governs as anything but. The President forced ObamaCare down an unwilling public's throat, using budget-fudging, legal foot-dragging and political waivers to make it stick.

Obama has called rural Americans bitter clingers and tea partiers racist, and has demonized almost everyone, from insurers and bankers to doctors and bondholders, angrily denouncing just about anyone who disagrees with him on the issue of the day.

What's not to like?

The President's "fundamental transformation" translates by the dictionary to changing the essential nature of our nation.  That phrase alone sets Obama apart, and should be fair game in the coming campaign.


Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Mar 11 11 3:08 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/stop_government_funding_of_la.html

Stop government funding of La Raza


As we observe the baby steps being taken by the newly elected budget-cutting Congress of 2010, we are coming to realize how absurd the old Washington political approach of throwing money at our problems is. The remarkable capitalist engine driving our free republic had become so incredibly powerful that for decades politicians have been able to shovel billions of dollars toward our foreign allies and adversaries, developed a safety net that assured food and medical care for nearly all U.S. citizens (and millions of non-citizens) and funded crackpot studies of no use and political causes of nearly every stripe.

The funding for one such political group seems particularly inappropriate considering our current fiscal dilemma. Mike Piccione at Human Events pulled the tax returns from 2006 to 2009 for the radical Latino group, the National Council of La Raza, and discovered that our federal government shelled out nearly $12 million to help the controversial group promote open borders and amnesty for illegals during that period.
La Raza translates from the Spanish to "the Race." The group has been associated with the motto: "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza, nada." This translates as "For The Race, everything, outside The Race, nothing." The group publicly rejects it's link to this motto as well as any connection to the popular Mexican concept of "reconquista" (Mexico) or taking back the southwestern United States by overwhelming demographics.
The details of La Raza's use of those federal funds includes generous compensation to 17 foundation officers and board members ranging from $119,675 to $378, 446. The tax returns also itemize a total of $800,787 for expenses "to lobby the U.S. government for money."
Apparently at one time this made sense. A similar donation to a white supremacist group would never had gotten out of the gate. Paying special interest groups in order to enable them to lobby the government to pay them to lobby doesn't seem like a very good investment, especially to a group promoting the continuation and extension of billions of dollars in payments for the welfare, education and medical payments for non U.S. citizens.
Call or write your congressman and insist that all funding to La Raza be ended.


Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help