The top headline of The Drudge Report
OPEC Members Seek Emergency Meeting After Price Collapse
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Bailout Bill Full Text
Here is the Senate's bailout bill in its full text. You decide whether this is the bill that we save us from financial ruin.
RCP Presidential Poll and Electoral Map
RCP Average
9/26-10/04
Obama-49.3
McCain-43.4
Spread-+5.9
Electoral Map With Toss-Ups
Obama/Biden-264
McCain/Palin-163
Toss Up-111
Read more at www.realclearpolitics.com
9/26-10/04
Obama-49.3
McCain-43.4
Spread-+5.9
Electoral Map With Toss-Ups
Obama/Biden-264
McCain/Palin-163
Toss Up-111
Read more at www.realclearpolitics.com
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Obama's Chicago Report Card and Defining Change
These were emailed to me recently and I thought I would share them. I think they give a great perspective to this election.
OBAMA'S CHICAGO - report card
Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq.
Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley.....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course they're all blaming each other. They can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.5% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country. This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.
Ah, defining change
CHANGE
In the late 1950's most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along promising Change, every Cuban was at least receptive. When the young leader spoke eloquentlyand passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him... They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.He said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, and everyone followed. He said he wouldbring justice and equality to all, and everyone said 'Praise the Lord!'The young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring youchange,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!' But by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the timeeveryone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing . By thetime the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had beenknocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, andinner tubes fleeing to Florida. Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young leader who promises change without asking, WHAT change? Or have we fallen for smoothtaking jive?
OBAMA'S CHICAGO - report card
Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq.
Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley.....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago. Of course they're all blaming each other. They can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.5% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country. This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.
Ah, defining change
CHANGE
In the late 1950's most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along promising Change, every Cuban was at least receptive. When the young leader spoke eloquentlyand passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him... They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.He said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, and everyone followed. He said he wouldbring justice and equality to all, and everyone said 'Praise the Lord!'The young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring youchange,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!' But by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the timeeveryone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing . By thetime the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had beenknocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, andinner tubes fleeing to Florida. Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young leader who promises change without asking, WHAT change? Or have we fallen for smoothtaking jive?
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Biden Blunders
Among the many wrong utterances of Senator Joe Biden are his recollections of history involving Americans watching FDR speak of the 1929 stock market crash on television and during the debate tonight attributing Article 1 to the executive branch.
Words I'm Sick of Hearing After This Week
These are some words, phrases, and individuals that I am sick of hearing of or about.
Bailout
Mainstreet
Compromise
Wallstreet
Crisis
Bi-Partisanship
The phrases consequences of doing nothing and plenty of blame to go around have irritated me as well.
And finally I do not want to see or hear from the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd anymore. These are two men who did nothing and in the case of Barney Frank seemed to be oblivious to the situation entirely.
Bailout
Mainstreet
Compromise
Wallstreet
Crisis
Bi-Partisanship
The phrases consequences of doing nothing and plenty of blame to go around have irritated me as well.
And finally I do not want to see or hear from the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd anymore. These are two men who did nothing and in the case of Barney Frank seemed to be oblivious to the situation entirely.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Your Government the Way You Want It
The left and the right are divided into the way they see the world and how they choose to respond to the problems presented to them. They follow their beliefs in how things should be constructed and how lives should be led. The philosophy of government is one of many examples of where liberal and conservative ideology call for the government to perform different tasks and operate differently.
Left-The major difference between liberals and conservatives is the size of government. The left is quite happy with an ever increasing government. The size of government corresponds to the many things in which liberals ask the government to provide for its citizens. The result is a government rich with entitlements. These entitlements usually are called for as a proper right of the citizen and a guaranteed part of life. Whereas a conservative might see the private sector as a better distributor of services, liberals tend to rely on the government. For liberals the social problems of the society are to be corrected by the government. This may lead to programs being instituted to seek to eliminate those problems, welfare, racial inequity, etc. The result is that many problems are not solved or regulation is implemented to such a degree that it has a discouraging effect.
Right-Whereas liberals have no problem with an ever-inflating government, conservatives tend to want government as small as possible. This stems from the realization that government cannot solve every problem and should not attempt to do so in many cases. For conservatives would be happier with less control from Washington D.C. and more control being given to the states. Liberty is a main issue with conservatives, the idea of freedom and being left alone. The problem with the government growing they begin to have a bigger say over how you live your life. The right is happier letting markets solve the problem instead of the government in control. The private sector can work more efficiently then the bogged-down bureaucracies of the federal government. The right also believes that taxes can be lowered along with reduced spending instead of a large government that seek to punishes successful individuals with high taxes.
How do you want you government? You will have a clear choice this election.
Left-The major difference between liberals and conservatives is the size of government. The left is quite happy with an ever increasing government. The size of government corresponds to the many things in which liberals ask the government to provide for its citizens. The result is a government rich with entitlements. These entitlements usually are called for as a proper right of the citizen and a guaranteed part of life. Whereas a conservative might see the private sector as a better distributor of services, liberals tend to rely on the government. For liberals the social problems of the society are to be corrected by the government. This may lead to programs being instituted to seek to eliminate those problems, welfare, racial inequity, etc. The result is that many problems are not solved or regulation is implemented to such a degree that it has a discouraging effect.
Right-Whereas liberals have no problem with an ever-inflating government, conservatives tend to want government as small as possible. This stems from the realization that government cannot solve every problem and should not attempt to do so in many cases. For conservatives would be happier with less control from Washington D.C. and more control being given to the states. Liberty is a main issue with conservatives, the idea of freedom and being left alone. The problem with the government growing they begin to have a bigger say over how you live your life. The right is happier letting markets solve the problem instead of the government in control. The private sector can work more efficiently then the bogged-down bureaucracies of the federal government. The right also believes that taxes can be lowered along with reduced spending instead of a large government that seek to punishes successful individuals with high taxes.
How do you want you government? You will have a clear choice this election.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline of The Drudge Report
Showdown: Russia Vows Shield Response Beyond Diplomacy
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Showdown: Russia Vows Shield Response Beyond Diplomacy
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Ex Iowa Congressman Endorses Obama
In a bit of local news, Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of Jim Leach last week. Leach, a former congressman from Iowa and Republican announced his support of Obama. Leach is one of a group of Republicans supporting Obama with their Republicans for Obama group. The move for those like Leach and former Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island mark an interesting phenomenon this election. It must be said that the two men were moderate to liberal Republicans when they served, but what has driven some to switch to Obama? His ideas and policies seem to run antithetical to what Republicans stand for. Leach apparently appreciates Obama's non-ideological approach and his sense of bi-partisanship. The reality seems to counter the fantasy world that these people inhabit. Obama is a typical liberal and his future policies depict this reality. People may want change but becoming mesmerized by messianic figures is not the answer.
Read More
Read More
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Fineman Fingers Biden for Obama's Number Two
The long wait to find out who Barack Obama will have as his running mate this fall may be over. Howard Fineman wrote today that the likely pick will be Senator Joe Biden. This after Fineman had discussed the issue with two individuals of Obama's list of potential VP's. Biden, a Senator from Delaware, is a longtime beltway insider who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. That experience, lacking from Obama's resume, may be the reason for such a choice.
Read More
Read More
Russia-Georgia War Highlights Need For Directed-Energy Defences
By James Jay Carafano Ph.D
Heritage Foundation
For the second time in recent years, the United States has witnessed another wake-up call for the importance of fielding directed-energy weapons capable of shooting-down mortar and artillery fire, as well as intercepting short-range rockets and missiles.The Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Congress need to place more emphasis on fielding working prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible.
People as Targets
Terrorism continues to be the scourge of the 21st century, but the age of conventional wars is far from over. In recent years we have had plenty examples where both means of warfare have employed conventional weapons to target civilians. Specifically, indirect fire weapons from mortars to short-range missiles have been directly targeted against innocents or employed against military targets in urban areas, putting civilian populations at risk. Terrorists in North Africa attempted to shoot down a commercial airliner with a short-range surface-to-air missile. In Iraq, insurgent groups used mortars to fire on administrative buildings, as well as military facilities in Baghdad and other urban areas.
Even more troubling, however, is the use of these conventional weapons in combat zones aimed at the heart of civilian populations. In the 2006 battles between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hezbollah's Katyusha rocket attacks killed and wounded dozens of Israelis, destroyed property, and sent thousands to bomb shelters. The rain of rockets threatened to spark a larger regional conflict.
Another Rage of Rockets
The Russian incursion into Georgia last week saw the use of rockets in urban areas by both sides. According to reports in The New York Times, Georgia fired BM-21 rockets, a system similar to the Katyusha, at separatist military headquarters. Although the rockets appear to have been aimed at legitimate targets, the risk of damage to the surrounding civilian community from these inaccurate weapons may have been high. According to other press and eyewitness reports, during the massive Russian military offensive, ground troops fired dozens of SS-21s, a short-range ballistic missile that can carry a high-explosive warhead. It is not clear whether these weapons were fired at legitimate military targets. In addition, the large SS 21 high-explosive warhead can carry either fragmentation bombs or mines making the risk of civilian causalities in urban areas very high.
The Promise of Directed Energy
Despite repeated warning signs that both unconventional and conventional combatants have no problem using the weapons of war to target both military and civilian populations, the United States has shown little sense of urgency in developing effective countermeasures for either equipping military forces or safeguarding civilian populations.
Directed energy weapons, such as the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL), demonstrate tremendous potential against all kinds of mortar, artillery, rocket, aircraft, and missile threats. Directed energy can be used against short-range threats like the Katyusha rockets being fired at Israel and against ballistic missiles like the SS-21s fired at Georgia. Such systems could also be used for homeland security, such as protecting critical infrastructure, national security events (such as the presidential nominating conventions) and commercial air traffic from terrorist attack.
Concluding that the THEL was not sufficiently mobile and robust for battlefield use, the U.S. Army decided to forgo its full development. Meanwhile, though the Department of Homeland Security has experimented with some systems to defend commercial flights against surface-to-air missiles, it too has not deployed any operational systems.
The Clock Is Ticking
Rather than deploy the THEL, the national security community has turned to a new generation of lasers for developing suitable directed-energy protective systems. These lasers employ a solid-state technology, incorporating multiple industrial thin disk lasers into a single high-powered energy devise. The military is currently developing prototypes for a mobile version of this system.
Congress should insist and the administration should press to field operational prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible for both defense and homeland security applications. Both land-based and air-based platforms (mounted on manned and unmanned aircraft) should be fielded as soon as possible. Putting a system in the field now would provide some limited operational capability and invaluable operational experience on how to use these systems.
Courtesy of Heritage Foundation, read more at www.heritage.org
Heritage Foundation
For the second time in recent years, the United States has witnessed another wake-up call for the importance of fielding directed-energy weapons capable of shooting-down mortar and artillery fire, as well as intercepting short-range rockets and missiles.The Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Congress need to place more emphasis on fielding working prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible.
People as Targets
Terrorism continues to be the scourge of the 21st century, but the age of conventional wars is far from over. In recent years we have had plenty examples where both means of warfare have employed conventional weapons to target civilians. Specifically, indirect fire weapons from mortars to short-range missiles have been directly targeted against innocents or employed against military targets in urban areas, putting civilian populations at risk. Terrorists in North Africa attempted to shoot down a commercial airliner with a short-range surface-to-air missile. In Iraq, insurgent groups used mortars to fire on administrative buildings, as well as military facilities in Baghdad and other urban areas.
Even more troubling, however, is the use of these conventional weapons in combat zones aimed at the heart of civilian populations. In the 2006 battles between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hezbollah's Katyusha rocket attacks killed and wounded dozens of Israelis, destroyed property, and sent thousands to bomb shelters. The rain of rockets threatened to spark a larger regional conflict.
Another Rage of Rockets
The Russian incursion into Georgia last week saw the use of rockets in urban areas by both sides. According to reports in The New York Times, Georgia fired BM-21 rockets, a system similar to the Katyusha, at separatist military headquarters. Although the rockets appear to have been aimed at legitimate targets, the risk of damage to the surrounding civilian community from these inaccurate weapons may have been high. According to other press and eyewitness reports, during the massive Russian military offensive, ground troops fired dozens of SS-21s, a short-range ballistic missile that can carry a high-explosive warhead. It is not clear whether these weapons were fired at legitimate military targets. In addition, the large SS 21 high-explosive warhead can carry either fragmentation bombs or mines making the risk of civilian causalities in urban areas very high.
The Promise of Directed Energy
Despite repeated warning signs that both unconventional and conventional combatants have no problem using the weapons of war to target both military and civilian populations, the United States has shown little sense of urgency in developing effective countermeasures for either equipping military forces or safeguarding civilian populations.
Directed energy weapons, such as the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL), demonstrate tremendous potential against all kinds of mortar, artillery, rocket, aircraft, and missile threats. Directed energy can be used against short-range threats like the Katyusha rockets being fired at Israel and against ballistic missiles like the SS-21s fired at Georgia. Such systems could also be used for homeland security, such as protecting critical infrastructure, national security events (such as the presidential nominating conventions) and commercial air traffic from terrorist attack.
Concluding that the THEL was not sufficiently mobile and robust for battlefield use, the U.S. Army decided to forgo its full development. Meanwhile, though the Department of Homeland Security has experimented with some systems to defend commercial flights against surface-to-air missiles, it too has not deployed any operational systems.
The Clock Is Ticking
Rather than deploy the THEL, the national security community has turned to a new generation of lasers for developing suitable directed-energy protective systems. These lasers employ a solid-state technology, incorporating multiple industrial thin disk lasers into a single high-powered energy devise. The military is currently developing prototypes for a mobile version of this system.
Congress should insist and the administration should press to field operational prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible for both defense and homeland security applications. Both land-based and air-based platforms (mounted on manned and unmanned aircraft) should be fielded as soon as possible. Putting a system in the field now would provide some limited operational capability and invaluable operational experience on how to use these systems.
Courtesy of Heritage Foundation, read more at www.heritage.org
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline of The Drudge Report
Paper: Obama Ready To Announce His VP
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Paper: Obama Ready To Announce His VP
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
The Bear's Bullish Behavior
An old aggressor has reverted back to its old ways. Russia, in its entry into Georgia, has not only raised questions about its motives, but its future plans. The cold war may have ended but with each new action taken by Russia it becomes harder to dismiss their actions as anything but an attempt to reassert control. The news cycle has focused on the conflict since it started and many eyes have turned to a relatively unknown territory who plays the role of David to Russia's Goliath. The story has developed to sides as observers note the military aspect of Russia entering its former satellite but also how the world community has responded to such actions.
The first part of the story is fairly simple to evaluate. You have a country with leaders that long for a previous time when its borders reached farther latitudes and longitudes and power was not challenged. This pre-fall of the wall mentality is what has become a critical issue in a world besieged by evil and evildoers people. The increased threat comes as dangerous people with competing agendas to the rest of the world link-up and work against the world's interest. The question comes to who controls Russia? President Medvedev is the designated leader but his Prime Minister is Vladimir Putin who recently held the job. Medvedev may seem to control things but one would wonder if he is used to directed as if manipulated by a puppeteer. One can not fully know what lies beneath in regards to Putin, the Communist Party member and KGB agent. Perhaps what is longed for is a renewed action by Russia to assert dominance of the region in a return to the time of the Czar.
Looking at this story there is also the issue of how the world has responded. The United States appears to have taken the lead to come to the defense of Georgia. A condemnation of the act committed by Russia was sadly lacking from much of the world. This movement to be tentative has real consequences. Russia historically has been slow to change its actions apart from a strong rebuff by the rest of the world. The world should know better then to appease for it can lead to a side strengthened with a new resolve to proceed further without fear of punishment. Perhaps an unintended consequence of Russia's invasion was to galvanize many of Georgia's neighbors and former Soviet states in rebuking Russia's actions.
It has not been a long time since that wall came down and with it a renewed warmth. What has taken place since could caution some that foresaw a new day for Russia. But it is the Cold war remnants of leadership with that mindset that appear to wish for old days and times. The result of which could be a potential for such disorder to harken to days of real and present fear for the world. These are the times when the world needs one voice to call out against aggressors and actions that threaten true stability. I fear this may not be possible from world organizations that are routinely found to be idle when their action is needed most. I do not believe we are of imminent threat to be caught in another Cold War but the atmosphere has cooled. Russia's present action in Georgia and its possible future actions should send a chill up all of our spines.
The first part of the story is fairly simple to evaluate. You have a country with leaders that long for a previous time when its borders reached farther latitudes and longitudes and power was not challenged. This pre-fall of the wall mentality is what has become a critical issue in a world besieged by evil and evildoers people. The increased threat comes as dangerous people with competing agendas to the rest of the world link-up and work against the world's interest. The question comes to who controls Russia? President Medvedev is the designated leader but his Prime Minister is Vladimir Putin who recently held the job. Medvedev may seem to control things but one would wonder if he is used to directed as if manipulated by a puppeteer. One can not fully know what lies beneath in regards to Putin, the Communist Party member and KGB agent. Perhaps what is longed for is a renewed action by Russia to assert dominance of the region in a return to the time of the Czar.
Looking at this story there is also the issue of how the world has responded. The United States appears to have taken the lead to come to the defense of Georgia. A condemnation of the act committed by Russia was sadly lacking from much of the world. This movement to be tentative has real consequences. Russia historically has been slow to change its actions apart from a strong rebuff by the rest of the world. The world should know better then to appease for it can lead to a side strengthened with a new resolve to proceed further without fear of punishment. Perhaps an unintended consequence of Russia's invasion was to galvanize many of Georgia's neighbors and former Soviet states in rebuking Russia's actions.
It has not been a long time since that wall came down and with it a renewed warmth. What has taken place since could caution some that foresaw a new day for Russia. But it is the Cold war remnants of leadership with that mindset that appear to wish for old days and times. The result of which could be a potential for such disorder to harken to days of real and present fear for the world. These are the times when the world needs one voice to call out against aggressors and actions that threaten true stability. I fear this may not be possible from world organizations that are routinely found to be idle when their action is needed most. I do not believe we are of imminent threat to be caught in another Cold War but the atmosphere has cooled. Russia's present action in Georgia and its possible future actions should send a chill up all of our spines.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline of The Drudge Report
Kremlin Anger: Poland Says Yes To U.S. Missles
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Kremlin Anger: Poland Says Yes To U.S. Missles
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Monday, August 04, 2008
Robert Novak to Retire After Diagnosis
Longtime columnist Robert Novak has decided to retire after a long and distinguished career. Novak who was diagnosed with a brain tumor recently stated the diagnosis as "dire". I know I echo the sentiments of many who wish Mr. Novak and his family well during this tremendously difficult time.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Rove Protest in Iowa Leads to Arrests
Activists arrested in the land of corn aftering confronting Karl Rove as he came to Iowa Friday.
Read More
Read More
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Obama Making a Change
After twenty years in the pews of Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama has decided to leave, resigning his membership in the controversial church. Obama and his church have come under scrutiny this campaign season. The scrutiny involves the controversial and inflammatory remarks of the former pastor Jeremiah Wright. The spotlight has focused on the church once again following the pulpit remarks of Father Pfleger, an Obama supporter whose remarks regarding Senator Hillary Clinton drew ire from many and resulted in a quick dismissal from Obama. Read more
Friday, May 30, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Party Weekend: Feel No Pain
Read Article
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Party Weekend: Feel No Pain
Read Article
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Real Clear Politics Election 2008
Find more at www.realclearpolitics.com
Democrat delegate count
Democrat delegate count
Obama
Total: 1983
Super: 324
Pledged: 1659
Clinton
Total: 1782
Super: 283
Pledged: 1499
Margin: Obama +201
Obama Vs. McCain-Obama +1.8
Clinton Vs. McCain-Clinton +2.0
RCP Average
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Ready to Lower the Boom
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_el_pr/democrats
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Ready to Lower the Boom
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_el_pr/democrats
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Many Asking What Happened?
If there is one thing that Washington D.C. loves it is a good tell-all. The pundits and press were welcomed to just such a prize with Scott McClellan’s new memoir. McClellan was the White House press secretary from 2003-2006. It is not surprising for Mr. McClellan to write a book after leaving his previous post as many have to so before him. The shock comes with what he had to say in 341 pages. The book lays out very harsh criticisms of the Bush administration including maintaining a constant campaign mode, misleading the public about the war, and the handling of the Valerie Plame case
The attacks are unusual on many fronts. McClellan was seen as being a loyal Bush devotee, going back to his days in Texas. Secondly, in his capacity as press secretary it has been said that his issues or problems with policy were never made known. This has been echoed by former aides to the President including former press secretary Ari Fleischer and key assistant Dan Bartlett. Fleischer reported no misgivings by McClellan when McClellan was his deputy. Others have stated that McClellan was not even in most meetings when policy matters were being discussed or if he was he did not make a contribution.
The question is why? Why, if McClellan had such a strong opposition to what was going on in the White House did he stay for three years? Karl Rove and others have pointed out that the words do not sound like those of McClellan. Some have speculated a publisher’s hand to make the story juicier. Certainly one would expect someone with such strong feelings would either voice them or leave. McClellan is now being questioned on this point. It has to do with the voracity of his words and the timing of this tome. It appears too many to be perhaps a disgruntled employee going for a money grab. If that is the case then this man with the undistinguished White House career can look forward to lonely days ahead. Of course the left is willing to welcome him with open arms.
As much as gossip is loved it is second to none for liberals when it involves a Republican turning on his own. The parade will begin as McClellan starts his book promotion tour. Such notable stops include a stint of Keith Olbermann’s show, the man with a psychotic hatred of President Bush who plays a human being on television. And so it will go as liberals try to wring every last drop out of McClellan until they no longer want him and turn to the next shiny object to come into their view.
Hypocrisy is not new to Washington. It almost appears to be policy for politicians to say one thing and do another. Perhaps that is where McClellan picked up the skill which he has apparently mastered. This is a man who had such a visceral disagreement with what was going on in the White House but never said a word publicly or privately and instead went right along dealing out “propaganda” as he put. His memory for events might prove troublesome as he appears to have forgotten his own feelings about tell-alls. It was he who had trouble with Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke’s books. He calls into question their use of opinion, personal views, and timing of the books, sound familiar Scott? (Read more at Hot Air)
It is hard to say if any fallout will happen as a result of this book. Congressman Robert Wexler, a democrat from Florida, has asked that McClellan come and testify before his committee to discuss the issues raised in his book. Give a democrat an inch and they will take a mile. In the end, the story will eventually leave our consciousness like so many before and we will forget about Scott McClellan, the forgettable man who occupied the space in front of a podium, microphone, and said nothing.
The attacks are unusual on many fronts. McClellan was seen as being a loyal Bush devotee, going back to his days in Texas. Secondly, in his capacity as press secretary it has been said that his issues or problems with policy were never made known. This has been echoed by former aides to the President including former press secretary Ari Fleischer and key assistant Dan Bartlett. Fleischer reported no misgivings by McClellan when McClellan was his deputy. Others have stated that McClellan was not even in most meetings when policy matters were being discussed or if he was he did not make a contribution.
The question is why? Why, if McClellan had such a strong opposition to what was going on in the White House did he stay for three years? Karl Rove and others have pointed out that the words do not sound like those of McClellan. Some have speculated a publisher’s hand to make the story juicier. Certainly one would expect someone with such strong feelings would either voice them or leave. McClellan is now being questioned on this point. It has to do with the voracity of his words and the timing of this tome. It appears too many to be perhaps a disgruntled employee going for a money grab. If that is the case then this man with the undistinguished White House career can look forward to lonely days ahead. Of course the left is willing to welcome him with open arms.
As much as gossip is loved it is second to none for liberals when it involves a Republican turning on his own. The parade will begin as McClellan starts his book promotion tour. Such notable stops include a stint of Keith Olbermann’s show, the man with a psychotic hatred of President Bush who plays a human being on television. And so it will go as liberals try to wring every last drop out of McClellan until they no longer want him and turn to the next shiny object to come into their view.
Hypocrisy is not new to Washington. It almost appears to be policy for politicians to say one thing and do another. Perhaps that is where McClellan picked up the skill which he has apparently mastered. This is a man who had such a visceral disagreement with what was going on in the White House but never said a word publicly or privately and instead went right along dealing out “propaganda” as he put. His memory for events might prove troublesome as he appears to have forgotten his own feelings about tell-alls. It was he who had trouble with Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke’s books. He calls into question their use of opinion, personal views, and timing of the books, sound familiar Scott? (Read more at Hot Air)
It is hard to say if any fallout will happen as a result of this book. Congressman Robert Wexler, a democrat from Florida, has asked that McClellan come and testify before his committee to discuss the issues raised in his book. Give a democrat an inch and they will take a mile. In the end, the story will eventually leave our consciousness like so many before and we will forget about Scott McClellan, the forgettable man who occupied the space in front of a podium, microphone, and said nothing.
'Dead Air' America Co-Founder Nabbed
For a basically non-existant radio enterprise Air America has sure had its share of problems in recent days. Apart from not paying employee health insurance now comes word that a key financier of the liberal radio network was nabbed in Guam for money laundering. Evan Montvel-Cohen was picked up yesterday by officials in Guam.
Read more at New York Post
Read more at New York Post
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
2008 Libertarian Ticket Barr/Root
If you did not have the opportunity or the patience to watch a full days worth of Libertarian party proceedings on C-Span here are the results. Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr was elected as the Libertarian Party's Presidential nominee after six ballots. Barr will have Wayne Allyn Root, the noted odds-maker as his running mate.
Find out more at www.lp.org
Find out more at www.lp.org
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Scott the Snitch
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Scott the Snitch
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
California Court: Gay Marriage Legal
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516013347.668wf0ld&show_article=1
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
California Court: Gay Marriage Legal
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516013347.668wf0ld&show_article=1
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
No Bullets Over Bosnia
Like wife like husband. The former first lady came under fire, pun unintentional, as she tried to explain her recent remembering of her trip to Bosnia back in the 90’s. Hillary’s remembering, or misremembering, brought new criticism to this candidate for President. She and her surrogates tried to put out the fires and create an air of innocence about Senator Clinton’s remarks. The remarks were simply a bad choice of words; the problem is that she made similar remarks more than once. When considering her comments one must suspend belief, to borrow a phrase from Hillary, to think that she did not know what she was saying. The problem comes in deciphering whether she had simply come to believe the fantastical rendering of the story. After all we have a case history ripe with similar examples by Hillary’s husband, our former President. We can think of those words uttered by George Costanza, “It is not a lie if you believe it.” It is safe to assume that anything coming from a Clinton’s mouth is believed at least by them.
Fast forward a few weeks later and what has been the result? Hillary was able to win in Pennsylvania and more recently in Indiana and West Virginia. Obama has won the North Carolina primary. Both look to split the last remaining primaries which finish up on June 3rd. Hillary’s route to the nomination is realistically non-existent but she is unwilling to give up the fight. Tides have turned for the inevitable candidate who months ago looked like a sure bet. She has been bested by the young upstart who has survived missteps and guilt by associations. The latter involving Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack’s pastor for over twenty years, and William Ayers, a radical Weather Underground member. Now Barack Obama enjoys 1st place in all statistical categories, popular vote, pledged and superdelegates.
The turn of events has been quite amazing to watch. As someone very interested in politics, I have found it fascinating to watch the Democrat’s race. You have on one hand a young, inexperienced legislator who has been on a quick ascension course to the point in which Barack Obama finds himself, a general election away from being President. This has come with his supplanting of Hillary Clinton, part of the dynamic political power couple that has dominated Democrat politics since the early 90’s. This comes after the realization that Hillary Clinton will not win her party’s nomination. No matter how much her and her supporters wish to make it not so, her chances appear as plausible as the camel finally making its way through the eye of the needle. I will say I side with those wishing for Senator Clinton to fight on and keep the contest going. My motives being ulterior, I hope to see the chaos that radio show host Rush Limbaugh has set in motion.
Part of these feelings comes from my high disregard for what Democrats have come to stand for. The other in the realization is that my Republican party is in real trouble this fall. We face a fracture of our own party as conservatives have not fully embraced John McCain. This support will be needed as the tides appear to be turning, one would only have to see the results of the recent special elections to reach that conclusion. Unity might come grudgingly or not at all as McCain and those around him seem to enjoy the occasional poke in the conservative eye. Some might come to the decision to stay home and avoid this election which will have huge ramifications. These center around a President Barack Obama with an increased majority and control of Congress.
Apart from the main narrative of this election, that being Barack Obama winning the nomination, I see another. We may finally have seen the last of the Clintons. I know that seems hard to believe as they are creatures drawn to Washington D.C. and power like moths to a flame unable to remove themselves from its shiny glow. I see it as unlikely that Obama would call on Senator Clinton to become his running mate. The reason being you get all the negatives for little in return. Clinton’s only hope is an Obama loss in November so she can regroup for 2012. But for now Hillary Clinton goes on to fight another day in a fruitless endeavor. Hillary may have many regrets after reflecting on this campaign. Beginning with Super Tuesday and her manipulation of the facts of her rendezvous in Bosnia, Hillary’s campaign has had trouble contending with their inevitable billing that preceded the campaign season. Comparing Bosnia with her campaign, Hillary encountered no bullets that day and she now finds herself with an empty chamber shooting blanks.
Fast forward a few weeks later and what has been the result? Hillary was able to win in Pennsylvania and more recently in Indiana and West Virginia. Obama has won the North Carolina primary. Both look to split the last remaining primaries which finish up on June 3rd. Hillary’s route to the nomination is realistically non-existent but she is unwilling to give up the fight. Tides have turned for the inevitable candidate who months ago looked like a sure bet. She has been bested by the young upstart who has survived missteps and guilt by associations. The latter involving Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack’s pastor for over twenty years, and William Ayers, a radical Weather Underground member. Now Barack Obama enjoys 1st place in all statistical categories, popular vote, pledged and superdelegates.
The turn of events has been quite amazing to watch. As someone very interested in politics, I have found it fascinating to watch the Democrat’s race. You have on one hand a young, inexperienced legislator who has been on a quick ascension course to the point in which Barack Obama finds himself, a general election away from being President. This has come with his supplanting of Hillary Clinton, part of the dynamic political power couple that has dominated Democrat politics since the early 90’s. This comes after the realization that Hillary Clinton will not win her party’s nomination. No matter how much her and her supporters wish to make it not so, her chances appear as plausible as the camel finally making its way through the eye of the needle. I will say I side with those wishing for Senator Clinton to fight on and keep the contest going. My motives being ulterior, I hope to see the chaos that radio show host Rush Limbaugh has set in motion.
Part of these feelings comes from my high disregard for what Democrats have come to stand for. The other in the realization is that my Republican party is in real trouble this fall. We face a fracture of our own party as conservatives have not fully embraced John McCain. This support will be needed as the tides appear to be turning, one would only have to see the results of the recent special elections to reach that conclusion. Unity might come grudgingly or not at all as McCain and those around him seem to enjoy the occasional poke in the conservative eye. Some might come to the decision to stay home and avoid this election which will have huge ramifications. These center around a President Barack Obama with an increased majority and control of Congress.
Apart from the main narrative of this election, that being Barack Obama winning the nomination, I see another. We may finally have seen the last of the Clintons. I know that seems hard to believe as they are creatures drawn to Washington D.C. and power like moths to a flame unable to remove themselves from its shiny glow. I see it as unlikely that Obama would call on Senator Clinton to become his running mate. The reason being you get all the negatives for little in return. Clinton’s only hope is an Obama loss in November so she can regroup for 2012. But for now Hillary Clinton goes on to fight another day in a fruitless endeavor. Hillary may have many regrets after reflecting on this campaign. Beginning with Super Tuesday and her manipulation of the facts of her rendezvous in Bosnia, Hillary’s campaign has had trouble contending with their inevitable billing that preceded the campaign season. Comparing Bosnia with her campaign, Hillary encountered no bullets that day and she now finds herself with an empty chamber shooting blanks.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Dems Crank It Up
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080419214454.3d67d9qf&show_article=1
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Dems Crank It Up
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080419214454.3d67d9qf&show_article=1
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Coming Back
It has been a long time but I have not forgotten about you or this blog. I have taken a needed break from blogging as I focus on school. I do hope to get back into the swing of things and back to skewering liberals as soon as possible. I do hope you will continue to visit this site and help it grow.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Mitt Romney to Endorse McCain
NBC News is reporting that Mitt Romney will endorse John McCain. An announce is expected at 4 p.m eastern.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
She Can't Catch Us
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Plouffe_She_cant_catch_us.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
She Can't Catch Us
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Plouffe_She_cant_catch_us.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Obama and McCain Make it Clean Sweep
Potomac primary proved positive for Barack Obama and John McCain. Barack Obama continued his sweep last night winning all three Democrat contests in, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Likewise, John McCain run all three contest on the Republican side holding off Mike Huckabee. The night was particularly good for Barack Obama as he continues his winning streak over Hillary Clinton. The count for him is now 21 states to her 10. He is expected to be strong in the next round of contests in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Clinton has all but officially established Texas and Ohio as her firewall against Obama's momentum.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Delegate Count
Democrats
Obama
Pledged Delegates-1004
Total Delegates-1144
Clinton
Pledged Delegates-925
Total Delegates-1138
Republicans
John McCain-724
Mike Huckabee-234
Courtesy of www.realclearpolitics.com
Obama
Pledged Delegates-1004
Total Delegates-1144
Clinton
Pledged Delegates-925
Total Delegates-1138
Republicans
John McCain-724
Mike Huckabee-234
Courtesy of www.realclearpolitics.com
Fight Still Left in Huckabee
Mike Huckabee apparently did not get the memo that he was not going to win the Republican nomination for President. But despite that he continues his campaign against John McCain, the all but officially declared nominee. Huckabee was able to perform admirably this past weekend winning two out the three contests. The former Arkansas governer was able to win in Kansas, Louisiana, and lost a closely contested contest in Washington. It appears for now that John McCain's official coronation will have to be put on hold for awhile. Republicans are now in the process of trying to unite the party around John McCain, this is more difficult with reservations about McCain by conservatives.
Clean Sweep For Obama
Barack Obama had a good weekend. Obama won every contest over the weekend including, Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana, Maine, and the Virgin Islands. Obama will try to take his momentum into today's contests. Today is the Potomac showdown, the crab-cake contests, or whatever label you want to put on Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Hillary Clinton has suffered through a string of embarassing losses. She has announced that she has made a change at the top of her campaign. Patti Solis Doyle, now the former campaign manager, will be replaced by Maggie Williams, a former aide to Clinton when she was first lady. Despite Obama's run of victories the delegate count remains close. The thought or worry is that the superdelegates will play an unexpected role in choosing a nominee. What is known is that while the Republicans have an almost declared nominee, the Democrats continue to battle it out. The Republicans will need all the time they have to coalesce around John McCain.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Romney to Suspend Campaign
Reports are that Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign. The former Massachusetts Governor is speaking at the CPAC conference where his announcement is expected to come. Romney is significantly behind John McCain in delegates and a path for victory did not seem to exist.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Election Shock: Obama Claims Delegate Lead
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Election Shock: Obama Claims Delegate Lead
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Super Tuesday Breakdown
Results as they are known
Republicans
McCain wins-Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, California
Romney wins-Massachusetts, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Colorado, Alaska
Huckabee wins-Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia
Democrats
Clinton wins-Oklahoma, Tennesee, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California
Obama wins-Illinois, Georgia, Delaware, Alabama, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Alaska
Projections from Fox News and http://www.foxnews.com/
Refresh page to get latest results
Republicans
McCain wins-Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, California
Romney wins-Massachusetts, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Colorado, Alaska
Huckabee wins-Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia
Democrats
Clinton wins-Oklahoma, Tennesee, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California
Obama wins-Illinois, Georgia, Delaware, Alabama, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Alaska
Projections from Fox News and http://www.foxnews.com/
Refresh page to get latest results
Obama Wins Georgia
Barack Obama has won the Georgia Democrat Primary. This is an early victory for Obama is his quest to be victorious on Super Tuesday. His win in the peach state might be a harbinger of great things to come for the Illinois senator.
Not So Fast Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee has now been projected as the winner of the West Virginia caucus. Mitt Romney had led after the first ballot but had not reached the required 50%. A second ballot was cast without Ron Paul with Mike Huckabee as the winner.
Romney Close to Winning West Virginia
Romney heads up the West Virginia polls but has not secured a win. Mitt Romney has not secured the 50% needed so another ballot will be cast. The first ballot results were: Mitt Romney 43%, Mike Huckabee 33%, John McCain 16%, and Ron Paul 10%. Ron Paul will be removed and the other three candidates will compete on the second ballot. West Virginia is a winner take all state and 18 delegates are up for grabs. The day will be long as 24 states will hold contests today.
www.race42008.com
www.race42008.com
Monday, February 04, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Tomorrow Is The Day
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080204/D8UJPVT01.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Tomorrow Is The Day
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080204/D8UJPVT01.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Romney Wins Maine
Mitt Romney has won the Maine Republican caucus. The state received little attention from the candidates apart from a few appearances by Ron Paul. Romney's real challenge is to compete next week against John McCain on Super Tuesday when the majority of delegates are up for grabs.
McCain Considered Abandoning Ship
John McCain has had to fight the label that he was a liberal or not in tune with conservatives. Speculation had it that McCain had considered leaving the Republican party back in 2001. Bob Cusack, a writer for The Hill newspaper, wrote about McCain's flirtation with leaving the GOP. Cusack talks about the meeting between Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and former Rep. Tom Downey (D-NY) and McCain's chief political strategist. This was at a time when Democrats were trying to recruit Republicans to leave their party. Targets included Lincoln Chaffee, Republican Senator from Rhode Island, and Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont who became an Independent. In McCain's case it was apparently initiated from his end by his chief political strategist, John Weaver. McCain was apparently upset after his 2000 loss to George W. Bush in the Republican primary. McCain has denied any such reports that he was close to leaving the Republican party. Individuals like Daschle stand by their claims that such meetings did occur, Daschle even included it into his book. McCain has remained dubious to conservatives who have disagreed with him on many issues and his associations with Democrats, especially in regards to immigration and campaign finance reform. The year is now 2008 and John McCain is seeking the Republican nomination again. This time it looks as if his wish will come true as he leads in the polls and appears to have the Super Tuesday momentum. Conservatives are still wary of McCain and have made it known, especially radio talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. For Republicans it may come down to the choice of lesser of two evils in November, and whether they want to remain in power or hold on to their principles.
Read the original Cusack article from The Hill newspaper, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
Read the original Cusack article from The Hill newspaper, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
Friday, February 01, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
MSFT Bids $45B For YHOO; GOOG Spooked
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
MSFT Bids $45B For YHOO; GOOG Spooked
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Thursday, January 31, 2008
According to Rasmussen McCain Tops Obama and Clinton
The latest Rasmussen Report compares John McCain head to head with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. John McCain comes out on top against the Democrat duo. The numbers are this, McCain leads Clinton 48% to 40% and Senator Obama 47% to 41%. The data shows an interesting and emerging trend by McCain on an upward surge, no pun intended. This has been in correlation with each of his primary wins. McCain leads the other two in most demographic areas. This would seem to bode well for Republicans hoping to maintain control over the White House. The problem is that John McCain has had his critics mainly from the conservative base who questions his conservative credentials. Some might argue that simply winning is enough no matter who the candidate is on the ballot. McCain is gaining momentum and Mitt Romney is trying to stem McCain's surging tide toward the nomination. Conservatives may have to chose between voting for McCain, not voting or turning to a third party. Either of the last two options would almost certainly lead to a Democrat win.
Find out more at www.rasmussenreports.com
Find out more at www.rasmussenreports.com
Congress Must Stop Playing Politics with FISA and National Security
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Robert Alt and Andrew Grossman
January 31, 2008
WebMemo #1791
This week, Congress passed a 15-day extension of the Protect America Act, just two days before the law was set to expire, so that House Democrats could leave Washington for a party retreat. The Protect America Act updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to exempt surveillance of communications between persons located outside of the United States when the communications happen to pass through domestic networks, a type of communications to which Congress never intended FISA to apply. A 15-day extension is not good enough, because it puts intelligence-gatherers in an impossible situation: They must either try to guess what sort of legislation Congress will pass and act accordingly or assume that FISA will apply and begin the arduous task--at the cost of hundreds of hours of work per FISA application and potentially weeks or months of delay--of bringing this surveillance within the FISA regime. Congress must make the authorities in the Protect America Act permanent and, to further aid intelligence-gathering cooperation, enhance its provisions to provide retroactive and permanent liability protection to American businesses that cooperate with reasonable intelligence requests.
Playing Politics with Security
The U.S. government has publicly acknowledged thwarting over 19 terrorist conspiracies aimed at the United States since September 11, 2001. Covert intelligence and surveillance have likely stymied even more threats. These results have been achieved using, in part, surveillance and investigatory powers under the Patriot Act and tools like the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The Protect America Act was intended to strengthen and clarify civil liberty protections under the TSP and to ensure that the program remained an effective instrument for terrorist surveillance.
When Congress passed the Protect America Act last spring, it set the bill to expire in six months. That "compromise" was driven by politics. On the one hand, it allowed Members of Congress to dodge criticism of allowing statutory authorities for critical counterterrorism tools to lapse, and on the other, it allowed them to put off having to make difficult policy decisions that could offend critics of the Administration and the TSP. The bill just passed by Congress does more of the same, stretching out the debate while trying to give lawmakers cover from criticism that their inaction is undermining counterterrorism efforts.
Extending the statutory authorities in the Protect America Act would not be controversial but for politics. This particular debate, in fact, is only a recent one. The Protect America Act was intended to correct an erroneous FISA Court decision seeking to extend that court's power to control foreign surveillance that was never intended to be covered under FISA and never had been. The decision was based, according to those who have seen it, on the irrelevant details of recent changes in technology that do not implicate the core concerns behind FISA. Congress never intended FISA to apply to wholly international communications that do not involve persons in the United States, but instead recognized that surveillance of wholly international communications is an inherent power of the President and part of his solemn responsibility to protect America's security. Permanent extension of this authority simply returns FISA to the status quo before the erroneous court decision, thereby allowing vital and uncontroversial intelligence work to continue unabated.
No Free Lunch
Passing temporary extensions of the Protect America Act, however, makes Americans less safe than providing permanent authority. Serious counterterrorism investigations can take years. They can consume vast amounts of manpower and resources. Creating uncertainty over what authorities will be available in the future greatly complicates the task of the intelligence services and the telecommunications industries that must cooperate with them to make their efforts efficient and effective. The longer Congress drags out and leaves unsettled this vital issue, the more it hamstrings effective long-term planning and complicates decisions about future operations. Thus, American security does pay a price every time Congress kicks the can down the road.
The risks to national security of bringing communications between persons located outside of the United States that happen to pass through domestic networks inside the FISA process are great. Just preparing to present an application to the FISA Court, which grants orders for classified surveillance programs, takes hundreds of hours of lawyer and intelligence analyst time. Though critics are quick to point out that the FISA Court rejects few applications, this is due to the immense time and effort Justice Department officials dedicate to preparing FISA applications, which are over 100 pages on average, and the back-and-fourth process entailed in FISA Court review. Potentially delaying crucial foreign intelligence-gathering operations by weeks or months, as temporary extensions threaten to do, simply endangers national security. This is particularly distressing when there is no legitimate purpose other than political gamesmanship for doing so.
Inconsistency and uncertainty with respect to legal authorities put national security at risk. As documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and the Department of Justice's Bellows Report, the legal authorities behind FISA and foreign surveillance in general are extremely complicated, frequently leading to confusion and mistakes. Intelligence officials work hard to stay within the bounds of the law, and when the law is unclear or uncertain, they become even more conservative, denying some surveillance requests that would be legal and requiring more time to approve others that fall well within the law. In some cases, confusion may cause agents in the field to avoid requesting important surveillance altogether. When Congress leaves the law unclear, it directly harms national security.
Stop the Insanity
It is time for Congress to stop playing politics with national security and pass sensible legislation that meets the needs of those who protect the country from attack while upholding Americans' civil liberties. The Protect America Act accomplished these crucial goals.
First, its major provision concerns persons not on U.S. soil. Constitutional protections were never intended to extend to cover wholly foreign intelligence gathering for national security purposes. Further, this surveillance relies on the same minimization procedures that have always applied to reduce the intrusion on the privacy interests of Americans who (whether wittingly or unwittingly) communicate with suspected terrorists or other enemy soldiers.
The act also wisely extended prospective immunity to communications providers that have worked with U.S. intelligence services to facilitate intelligence gathering for national security. With 40 or more civil lawsuits already filed against these providers for their cooperation,
Congress should take the logical, fair step and provide retroactive immunity as well.
The bill ultimately should go further and expressly authorize the President to use his constitutional authority to conduct the intelligence gathering at home and abroad necessary to protect America from future terrorist attacks. That, however, is most likely a debate for another day. For now, Congress should make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent and let the government get back to the business of stopping terrorists before they attack.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Robert Alt is Deputy Director of, and Andrew M. Grossman is Senior Legal Policy Analyst in, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, find this and other articles at www.heritage.org
January 31, 2008
WebMemo #1791
This week, Congress passed a 15-day extension of the Protect America Act, just two days before the law was set to expire, so that House Democrats could leave Washington for a party retreat. The Protect America Act updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to exempt surveillance of communications between persons located outside of the United States when the communications happen to pass through domestic networks, a type of communications to which Congress never intended FISA to apply. A 15-day extension is not good enough, because it puts intelligence-gatherers in an impossible situation: They must either try to guess what sort of legislation Congress will pass and act accordingly or assume that FISA will apply and begin the arduous task--at the cost of hundreds of hours of work per FISA application and potentially weeks or months of delay--of bringing this surveillance within the FISA regime. Congress must make the authorities in the Protect America Act permanent and, to further aid intelligence-gathering cooperation, enhance its provisions to provide retroactive and permanent liability protection to American businesses that cooperate with reasonable intelligence requests.
Playing Politics with Security
The U.S. government has publicly acknowledged thwarting over 19 terrorist conspiracies aimed at the United States since September 11, 2001. Covert intelligence and surveillance have likely stymied even more threats. These results have been achieved using, in part, surveillance and investigatory powers under the Patriot Act and tools like the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The Protect America Act was intended to strengthen and clarify civil liberty protections under the TSP and to ensure that the program remained an effective instrument for terrorist surveillance.
When Congress passed the Protect America Act last spring, it set the bill to expire in six months. That "compromise" was driven by politics. On the one hand, it allowed Members of Congress to dodge criticism of allowing statutory authorities for critical counterterrorism tools to lapse, and on the other, it allowed them to put off having to make difficult policy decisions that could offend critics of the Administration and the TSP. The bill just passed by Congress does more of the same, stretching out the debate while trying to give lawmakers cover from criticism that their inaction is undermining counterterrorism efforts.
Extending the statutory authorities in the Protect America Act would not be controversial but for politics. This particular debate, in fact, is only a recent one. The Protect America Act was intended to correct an erroneous FISA Court decision seeking to extend that court's power to control foreign surveillance that was never intended to be covered under FISA and never had been. The decision was based, according to those who have seen it, on the irrelevant details of recent changes in technology that do not implicate the core concerns behind FISA. Congress never intended FISA to apply to wholly international communications that do not involve persons in the United States, but instead recognized that surveillance of wholly international communications is an inherent power of the President and part of his solemn responsibility to protect America's security. Permanent extension of this authority simply returns FISA to the status quo before the erroneous court decision, thereby allowing vital and uncontroversial intelligence work to continue unabated.
No Free Lunch
Passing temporary extensions of the Protect America Act, however, makes Americans less safe than providing permanent authority. Serious counterterrorism investigations can take years. They can consume vast amounts of manpower and resources. Creating uncertainty over what authorities will be available in the future greatly complicates the task of the intelligence services and the telecommunications industries that must cooperate with them to make their efforts efficient and effective. The longer Congress drags out and leaves unsettled this vital issue, the more it hamstrings effective long-term planning and complicates decisions about future operations. Thus, American security does pay a price every time Congress kicks the can down the road.
The risks to national security of bringing communications between persons located outside of the United States that happen to pass through domestic networks inside the FISA process are great. Just preparing to present an application to the FISA Court, which grants orders for classified surveillance programs, takes hundreds of hours of lawyer and intelligence analyst time. Though critics are quick to point out that the FISA Court rejects few applications, this is due to the immense time and effort Justice Department officials dedicate to preparing FISA applications, which are over 100 pages on average, and the back-and-fourth process entailed in FISA Court review. Potentially delaying crucial foreign intelligence-gathering operations by weeks or months, as temporary extensions threaten to do, simply endangers national security. This is particularly distressing when there is no legitimate purpose other than political gamesmanship for doing so.
Inconsistency and uncertainty with respect to legal authorities put national security at risk. As documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and the Department of Justice's Bellows Report, the legal authorities behind FISA and foreign surveillance in general are extremely complicated, frequently leading to confusion and mistakes. Intelligence officials work hard to stay within the bounds of the law, and when the law is unclear or uncertain, they become even more conservative, denying some surveillance requests that would be legal and requiring more time to approve others that fall well within the law. In some cases, confusion may cause agents in the field to avoid requesting important surveillance altogether. When Congress leaves the law unclear, it directly harms national security.
Stop the Insanity
It is time for Congress to stop playing politics with national security and pass sensible legislation that meets the needs of those who protect the country from attack while upholding Americans' civil liberties. The Protect America Act accomplished these crucial goals.
First, its major provision concerns persons not on U.S. soil. Constitutional protections were never intended to extend to cover wholly foreign intelligence gathering for national security purposes. Further, this surveillance relies on the same minimization procedures that have always applied to reduce the intrusion on the privacy interests of Americans who (whether wittingly or unwittingly) communicate with suspected terrorists or other enemy soldiers.
The act also wisely extended prospective immunity to communications providers that have worked with U.S. intelligence services to facilitate intelligence gathering for national security. With 40 or more civil lawsuits already filed against these providers for their cooperation,
Congress should take the logical, fair step and provide retroactive immunity as well.
The bill ultimately should go further and expressly authorize the President to use his constitutional authority to conduct the intelligence gathering at home and abroad necessary to protect America from future terrorist attacks. That, however, is most likely a debate for another day. For now, Congress should make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent and let the government get back to the business of stopping terrorists before they attack.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Robert Alt is Deputy Director of, and Andrew M. Grossman is Senior Legal Policy Analyst in, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, find this and other articles at www.heritage.org
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Daily Drudge
Delegate Count
Democrats
Delegate Total
Hillary Clinton-232 (48 Pledged, 184 Superdelegates)
Barack Obama-158 (63 Pledged, 95 Superdelegates)
John Edwards-62 (26 Pledged, 36 Superdelegates)
Mike Gravel-0
Note: John Edwards has announced he will be dropping out of the race
2,025 delegates needed to win
Republicans
Delegate Total
John McCain-97 (95 Pledged, 2 Unpledged)
Mitt Romney-74 (67 Pledged, 7 Unpledged)
Mike Huckabee-29 (26 Pledged, 3 Unpledged)
Ron Paul-6 (6 Pledged)
Rudy Giuliani-2 (1 Pledged, 1 Unpledged)
Note: Rudy Giuliani has announced he will be dropping out of the race
1,191 delegates needed to win
Courtesy of http://www.cnn.com/
Edwards Calls It Quits
John Edwards has announced that he will be dropping out of the race. The former senator is expected to announce this at 1p.m. eastern time in New Orleans. New Orleans is the location of Edward's announcement that he was entering the race last year. This leaves us with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fighting for the nomination. It will be interesting to see who Edwards chooses to support, in doing so he might play the role of kingmaker. One thing we do know is that history will be made as either a woman or an African American will be a nominee for president.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Giuliani Dropping Out Of Race
Rudy Giuliani will drop out of the race tomorrow and endorse Senator John McCain. Giuliani suffered a big loss in Florida where he made his stand. Giuliani will fly to California tomorrow and endorse John McCain from the Ronald Reagan Library where the debate will be held.
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
McCain Wins Florida
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UFTU1G0&show_article=1
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
McCain Wins Florida
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UFTU1G0&show_article=1
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Real Clear Politics State Polls
Florida Republican Primary
RCP Average
1/22-1/28
McCain-30.7
Romney-30.1
Giuliani-14.7
Huckabee-12.9
Paul-3.6
McCain +0.6
Courtesy of Real Clear Politics
www.realclearpolitics.com
RCP Average
1/22-1/28
McCain-30.7
Romney-30.1
Giuliani-14.7
Huckabee-12.9
Paul-3.6
McCain +0.6
Courtesy of Real Clear Politics
www.realclearpolitics.com
Sunshine State Showdown
Tune in tonight as we find out the winner of the Florida Republican primary. Most years this would not be as important. But with the way the campaign season has gone, Florida might help clear up the muddled picture that is the Republican race. Rudy Giuliani's strategy of making Florida his Alamo appears to have back fired on America's mayor. Despite his time, money, and energy, the contest appears to be between Mitt Romney and John McCain. The national race appears to mirror that of Florida with the nominee being either McCain or Romney. Florida's contest is closed so McCain will have to win over Republicans and not simply rely on independent support. Each man covets what a win in Florida would give them. A win would start to solidify who the frontrunner will be. With Super Tuesday rapidly approaching, Florida's momentum could propel the winner to a huge day on February 5th. Money might become an issue, John McCain might not be able to compete against Mitt Romney's personal wealth and it could become a contest of attrition. In a few hours we will know the winner and perhaps the next Republican nominee for president.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Daily Drudge
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Obama Wins Endorsement of Kennedys
Barack Obama picked up two more endorsements, they happen to come from the same family. It was recently announced that Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the former President will endorse Senator Obama. She cites the ability to finally support a candidate like her father for the reason behind the endorsement. We have also learned that Senator Ted Kennedy will throw his support to Obama and is expected to make a statement on Monday.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
FL Gov Endorses Senator John McCain
John McCain has picked up two major endorsements in his run to win the Sunshine State Primary. Senator Mel Martinez recently endorsed McCain and now Florida Governor Charlie Crist has done the same. Becoming more accepted by the Republican establishment then in 2000, McCain has picked up a slew of endorsements, many from his Senate colleagues. All eyes will be on Florida on Jan. 29th as we will find out the winner of the Florida primary and possibly who will be the Republican frontrunner and have an inside track to the nomination
Obama Wins South Carolina
It has now been determined that Barack Obama will win the South Carolina Primary. The Illinois Democrat appears to have won by a significant margin the black vote. Bill and Hillary's bullying looks to have backfired. Senator Clinton is now in a race against John Edwards for second place.
Why Are Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain Not Concerned About the Security of Our Country?
By Rusty Ford
You would think that two Democrats and one Republican Senator who are running for president would be on different sides of the issue of providing amnesty to illegal aliens. Especially since all votes in the Senate this year on this issue have had most of the Republicans on one side of the issue and most of the Democrats on the other. All three of these candidates voted consistently in support of amnesty to illegal aliens.
It is not the amnesty issue that makes me wonder why these three are not concerned for the security of our country but rather how far they are willing to take the issue. All three voted for YES on the comprehensive immigration reform bill in June 2007. This bill would have provided amnesty to all illegal aliens in the country. They also voted against an amendment to this bill that would have allowed amnesty to most illegal aliens but would have barred those who had committed major crimes while living in our country illegally. I just do not understand how anyone can think that a politician cares about the safety and security of the people they represent when they are willing to bless these criminals, who are here illegally, amnesty and a path to citizenship.
All three voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184) to S.1385. S 1385 was an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have given amnesty to illegal aliens. The Cornyn Amendment would have barred illegal aliens who committed the following crimes from receiving amnesty.
1. absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported)
2. aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks(e.g., terrorists)
3. aliens who fail to register as sex offenders
4. aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses
5. aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders
6. alien gang members
7. aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.
I guess these three believe it is in the best interest of the security of our country and the safety of its citizens to give amnesty to people who come into this county illegally and commit major crimes. None of these candidates are mentioning this issue or their votes on this amendment on the campaign trail so I will proclaim it loud and clear for them so that there is not a mistake of where they stand.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been deemed for whatever reason to be security risks to our country.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the saftey of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been convicted of sexual crimes and refuse to register as sex offenders.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty peoplewho are in this country illegally and who illegally carry weapons with them.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who commit crimes against children and who abuse their families.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who are members of alien gangs. We do not think there is enough of a gang problem here in our country and are committed to seeing that gangs from other countries start up operations here.
And last but not least, we, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been arrested three times for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
I have searched for any indication given by any of these candidates as to why they voted this way and I have not be enable to find any place where they explained why they voted against the security of our country and the safety of its citizens. I assume that this information is not out there because there simply is not justification for such a vote. They have played their hand and we now see how little they care for America’s safety. I know each of these candidates have good points and stand behind positions that many Americans agree with. But how cans any right-minded citizen who has been informed about their position on this issue, in good conscience vote for them.
About the Author: Rusty Ford Read more of Rusty's articles here http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/96187/rusty_ford.html
Source: http://www.isnare.com/
Permanent Link: http://www.isnare.com/?aid=217181&ca=Politics
You would think that two Democrats and one Republican Senator who are running for president would be on different sides of the issue of providing amnesty to illegal aliens. Especially since all votes in the Senate this year on this issue have had most of the Republicans on one side of the issue and most of the Democrats on the other. All three of these candidates voted consistently in support of amnesty to illegal aliens.
It is not the amnesty issue that makes me wonder why these three are not concerned for the security of our country but rather how far they are willing to take the issue. All three voted for YES on the comprehensive immigration reform bill in June 2007. This bill would have provided amnesty to all illegal aliens in the country. They also voted against an amendment to this bill that would have allowed amnesty to most illegal aliens but would have barred those who had committed major crimes while living in our country illegally. I just do not understand how anyone can think that a politician cares about the safety and security of the people they represent when they are willing to bless these criminals, who are here illegally, amnesty and a path to citizenship.
All three voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184) to S.1385. S 1385 was an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have given amnesty to illegal aliens. The Cornyn Amendment would have barred illegal aliens who committed the following crimes from receiving amnesty.
1. absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported)
2. aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks(e.g., terrorists)
3. aliens who fail to register as sex offenders
4. aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses
5. aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders
6. alien gang members
7. aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.
I guess these three believe it is in the best interest of the security of our country and the safety of its citizens to give amnesty to people who come into this county illegally and commit major crimes. None of these candidates are mentioning this issue or their votes on this amendment on the campaign trail so I will proclaim it loud and clear for them so that there is not a mistake of where they stand.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been deemed for whatever reason to be security risks to our country.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the saftey of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been convicted of sexual crimes and refuse to register as sex offenders.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty peoplewho are in this country illegally and who illegally carry weapons with them.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who commit crimes against children and who abuse their families.
We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who are members of alien gangs. We do not think there is enough of a gang problem here in our country and are committed to seeing that gangs from other countries start up operations here.
And last but not least, we, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been arrested three times for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
I have searched for any indication given by any of these candidates as to why they voted this way and I have not be enable to find any place where they explained why they voted against the security of our country and the safety of its citizens. I assume that this information is not out there because there simply is not justification for such a vote. They have played their hand and we now see how little they care for America’s safety. I know each of these candidates have good points and stand behind positions that many Americans agree with. But how cans any right-minded citizen who has been informed about their position on this issue, in good conscience vote for them.
About the Author: Rusty Ford Read more of Rusty's articles here http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/96187/rusty_ford.html
Source: http://www.isnare.com/
Permanent Link: http://www.isnare.com/?aid=217181&ca=Politics
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Fire On the Strip
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/15138622/detail.html
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Fire On the Strip
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/15138622/detail.html
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Dennis Kucinich Ends Bid For President
While not a notable announcement, Dennis Kucinich has decided to drop out of the race for President. A marginal play at best, Kucinich's most memorable campaign moment was his admission that he believed in UFO's during one of the Democrat debates. He will return to Congress and continue his campaign to turn America left.
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
'Shame On You'
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UC7BEO1&show_article=1
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
'Shame On You'
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UC7BEO1&show_article=1
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Real Clear Politics State Polls
Democrats
South Carolina-Jan. 26th
RCP Average
Poll range 1/14-1/22
Hillary Clinton-42.6
Barack Obama-30.0
John Edwards-14.6
Obama +12.6
Florida-Jan. 29th
RCP Average
Poll range 1/11-1/22
Hillary Clinton-47.0
Barack Obama-29.4
John Edwards-11.4
Clinton +17.6
Republicans
Florida-Jan. 29th
RCP Average
Poll range 1/20-1/22
John McCain-22.6
Mitt Romney-22.2
Rudy Giuliani-19.0
Mike Huckabee-14.4
Ron Paul-5.4
Fred Thompson-7.3
McCain +0.4
Courtesy of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
South Carolina-Jan. 26th
RCP Average
Poll range 1/14-1/22
Hillary Clinton-42.6
Barack Obama-30.0
John Edwards-14.6
Obama +12.6
Florida-Jan. 29th
RCP Average
Poll range 1/11-1/22
Hillary Clinton-47.0
Barack Obama-29.4
John Edwards-11.4
Clinton +17.6
Republicans
Florida-Jan. 29th
RCP Average
Poll range 1/20-1/22
John McCain-22.6
Mitt Romney-22.2
Rudy Giuliani-19.0
Mike Huckabee-14.4
Ron Paul-5.4
Fred Thompson-7.3
McCain +0.4
Courtesy of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Move Over Hillary, Bill Fights For South Carolina!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?ei=5090&en=75b41812ad90fbd7&ex=1358744400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1201129731-sQaYh2siujux3hx/ujUCEA&pagewanted=print
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Move Over Hillary, Bill Fights For South Carolina!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?ei=5090&en=75b41812ad90fbd7&ex=1358744400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1201129731-sQaYh2siujux3hx/ujUCEA&pagewanted=print
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Storming Norman Backs McCain
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf has decided to endorse John McCain for President. The candidates are busy campaigning heavily in Florida ahead of its primary on Jan. 29th. As with all endorsements it is hard to determine their value. McCain has put together wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and with a win in Florida could become the prohibitive favorite.
Politics Ain't Beanbag
When Finley Peter Dunne coined that phrase he must have known that individuals like the Clintons would inhabit the world of politics one day. They are perhaps the best practitioners of the no holds barred, no limit politics. This dynamic duo has cultivated an impressive political machine that has left many behind in its destructive path. This battle scarred couple seem to have set their sights on Barack Obama for their next target. After all this is Hillary's turn to be President and Bill's chance for a third term.
It is interesting how this Democrat party family feud has evolved. It appeared as if Hillary would sail through the Democrat nomination process. She had all the name i.d., money, and organization to do just that. Doing so would allow her to avoid attacks from her own side and she could focus herself on simply fending off the Republicans. But Barack Obama threw a wrench into Hillary's machine. After stagnating in the polls, Obama won Iowa and became viable to many voters looking to see if he would be able to be a true counter to Senator Clinton. Mrs. Clinton has had to adopt new strategies to confront Obama, namely bringing in her attack dog Bill.
The former President has been called upon to fight off Obama and do her dirty work. This tag team approach appears to have been somewhat successful. With each attack by Bill, Hillary has been able to rebound and win a contest. First there was New Hampshire and then Nevada where huffed and puffed about Obama and his union supporters inhabiting casinos during the caucus. The role Bill is playing is usually reserved for V.P. candidates, or wives in John Edwards case. Bill softens him up and Hillary finishes him off in the political ring.
Hillary and Barack continued their tit for tat during Monday night's Democratic debate. The mud was flying on both sides as each candidate tried to out slime the other. John Edwards remained relatively clean and at one point had to remind everyone that he was still there. Each of Senator Obama's and Clinton's policies and former statements were fair game. Accuracy did not seem to be a priority as anything that might stick in the minds of the voters was said. The queen of double talk tried to portray Obama's position on the war in Iraq and changing and nebulous. Meanwhile her own position on the war seems to change with the conditions on the ground.
Both Hillary and Barack tried to tag the other with their previous involvements, Hillary and Wal-Mart and Barack working for what Hillary called a "slum landlord business." It did not take long for corporations to come under attack. The "C" word for liberals constitutes a swear word, even worse is being associated with or working for one. It would seem to me that being anti-business is bad business. Liberals like to think of business as some monolithic force destroying the fabric of America.
I am not sure if the debate produced a clear winner. Maybe it was John Edwards who while ignored managed to stay out of the fray. Unfortunately he is neither a woman or black so he can forget about the nomination. Obama and Clinton may be the losers as both continued their war of words. Another loser may be anarchy as this debate was sans rules. The debate got out of hand at many points as Obama and Clinton could not resist going after each other and looking like lions about to descend on their prey. Wolf Blitzer tried to maintain control and keep Obama and Clinton from devouring each other live on stage. You have to give Obama credit he has held up against the double-headed assault of the Clintons so far. But South Carolina is next and Hillary is sure to have Bill on stand-by ready to pounce.
It is interesting how this Democrat party family feud has evolved. It appeared as if Hillary would sail through the Democrat nomination process. She had all the name i.d., money, and organization to do just that. Doing so would allow her to avoid attacks from her own side and she could focus herself on simply fending off the Republicans. But Barack Obama threw a wrench into Hillary's machine. After stagnating in the polls, Obama won Iowa and became viable to many voters looking to see if he would be able to be a true counter to Senator Clinton. Mrs. Clinton has had to adopt new strategies to confront Obama, namely bringing in her attack dog Bill.
The former President has been called upon to fight off Obama and do her dirty work. This tag team approach appears to have been somewhat successful. With each attack by Bill, Hillary has been able to rebound and win a contest. First there was New Hampshire and then Nevada where huffed and puffed about Obama and his union supporters inhabiting casinos during the caucus. The role Bill is playing is usually reserved for V.P. candidates, or wives in John Edwards case. Bill softens him up and Hillary finishes him off in the political ring.
Hillary and Barack continued their tit for tat during Monday night's Democratic debate. The mud was flying on both sides as each candidate tried to out slime the other. John Edwards remained relatively clean and at one point had to remind everyone that he was still there. Each of Senator Obama's and Clinton's policies and former statements were fair game. Accuracy did not seem to be a priority as anything that might stick in the minds of the voters was said. The queen of double talk tried to portray Obama's position on the war in Iraq and changing and nebulous. Meanwhile her own position on the war seems to change with the conditions on the ground.
Both Hillary and Barack tried to tag the other with their previous involvements, Hillary and Wal-Mart and Barack working for what Hillary called a "slum landlord business." It did not take long for corporations to come under attack. The "C" word for liberals constitutes a swear word, even worse is being associated with or working for one. It would seem to me that being anti-business is bad business. Liberals like to think of business as some monolithic force destroying the fabric of America.
I am not sure if the debate produced a clear winner. Maybe it was John Edwards who while ignored managed to stay out of the fray. Unfortunately he is neither a woman or black so he can forget about the nomination. Obama and Clinton may be the losers as both continued their war of words. Another loser may be anarchy as this debate was sans rules. The debate got out of hand at many points as Obama and Clinton could not resist going after each other and looking like lions about to descend on their prey. Wolf Blitzer tried to maintain control and keep Obama and Clinton from devouring each other live on stage. You have to give Obama credit he has held up against the double-headed assault of the Clintons so far. But South Carolina is next and Hillary is sure to have Bill on stand-by ready to pounce.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Syndication Weekly
It's the economy stupid. Those were the sentiments of Bill Clinton the first time he ran for President and the title of Phyllis Schafly's latest column. Politics sometimes comes down to a catchphrase and may get you elected. Bill used the feeling about the economy back in '92 to beat Bush the elder out of a second term. Schafly ask whether the same thing might happen this election cycle. After all we have all been hit over the head with economic talk from talking heads that have been predicting disaster on a daily basis. We even have another Clinton running for office, but no Bush although you would not no it from the Democratic candidates campaign rhetoric. Mantra seems to be what we hear from both sides of the aisle and Schafly ask if it will be nothing more then the same. Both sides seem to have their answers that can be pulled out of their pockets are read off at a moment's notice. The column points out that it has been certain U.S. policies that have created much of our current problems. This would include our dealings with immigration which has been minimal or pathetically inept. In Schafly's mind Free Trade has not lived up to its monikor, and the U.S. worker has payed the price. A debate over Free Trade can take place at another time. I agree that many are looking for those who can restore jobs and are looking at the candidates for answers.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/jan08/08-01-23.html
Courtesy of www.eagleforum.org
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/jan08/08-01-23.html
Courtesy of www.eagleforum.org
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Dead At 28
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA4KG4.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Dead At 28
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080123/D8UBA4KG4.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Thompson Drops Bid For Nomination
Fred Thompson announced that he will be dropping out of the race for his party's nomination for president. Thompson, who entered the race late, never really caught any momentum. Mostly lackluster, Thompson's campaign lacked a great deal of passion except for moments during recent Republican debates. Many felt as if Thompson would be the one to fill the conservative void that many Republicans were looking to support. Instead after entering the race he enjoyed a spot near the top of the polls only to sink and be passed by other candidates. A series of disappointing finishes followed in the first primary and caucus contests. Some have speculated that Thompson helped John McCain in South Carolina by taking away from Hucabee support. Now those Thompson supporters will have to find a new home and I am sure all candidates would welcome them.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Good Thing It's a Holiday!
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/world_markets.html
Coutesy of www.drudgereport.com
Good Thing It's a Holiday!
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080121/world_markets.html
Coutesy of www.drudgereport.com
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Delegate Count Jan. 19, 2008
Democrats
Hillary Clinton-210
Barack Obama-123
John Edwards-52
Dennis Kucinich-1
Mike Gravel-0
2,025 needed to win
Total includes pledged delegates and superdelegates.
Republicans
Mitt Romney-72
John McCain-38
Mike Huckabee-29
Fred Thompson-8
Ron Paul-6
Rudy Giuliani-2
1,191 needed to win
Total includes pledged and unpledged delegates
Courtesy of www.cnn.com
Election Center 2008
Hillary Clinton-210
Barack Obama-123
John Edwards-52
Dennis Kucinich-1
Mike Gravel-0
2,025 needed to win
Total includes pledged delegates and superdelegates.
Republicans
Mitt Romney-72
John McCain-38
Mike Huckabee-29
Fred Thompson-8
Ron Paul-6
Rudy Giuliani-2
1,191 needed to win
Total includes pledged and unpledged delegates
Courtesy of www.cnn.com
Election Center 2008
Obama For "Change"? Array He's Got My Vote By J.J. Jackson
By J.J. Jackson
Have you heard the good news? Barack Obama is for change! Well, that seals it! He’s got my vote!
Why you ask? Isn’t he a liberal Democrat? Well yeah, but he’s for change! So let’s look at the status quo which he will be looking at changing shall we?
First up is McCain/Feingold which is a horrible restriction on free speech despite the constitutional provision prohibiting Congress from making any law that restricts our freedom of speech. Elect Obama and he will “change” this and end this horrible law.
Next are the constant infringements on our second amendment rights by the myriad of gun laws on the books which do not punish criminal activity but rather simply infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own arms. Elect Obama and he will “change” this.
Then there is the horrid income tax which basically allows the government to take money you worked hard for before you get a chance to spend or save it unless you put it in one of their approved forms of investment. Since I firmly believe that the money earned by people in compensation for their labor belongs to them first and not the government I have to vote for Obama because he will “change” this.
Moving on, there is that pesky problem of unborn children who are both alive (see basic definition of life if you disagree) and human being denied their constitutional protections and being murdered. That is definitely something that needs changing. So Barack Obama appears to be our man!
Oh, and then there is the constant treasonous messages coming from our elected officials during a time of war which continually go unpunished. Personally I’m tired of the claims that our troops are cold-blooded murderers and that the war is lost being echoed by terrorists around the world to give aid and comfort to their followers. With his campaign promise of “change”, President Obama will undoubtedly correct this and start prosecuting the offenders.
And what about Social Security? After all it is clearly above and beyond the limited powers of the federal government to tax and spend. Just read Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (including his Federalist 41) and any other of a myriad of founding fathers that actually wrote the Constitution. So apparently with Barack Obama in the White House we can expect this massive mortgaging of our future to be ended in the name of “change”.
Along those same lines we can obviously expect an end to Welfare.
War on Poverty? Gone - ended in the name of “change”. We’ve spent trillions and still have “poverty” so it apparently hasn’t worked. Elect Barack Obama and we can get away from this failed policy and save us billions.
Then of course Barack Obama will obviously terminate the Department of Education which is also specified nowhere as a power of our government. Can you feel the winds of “change” blowing yet?
Ah! I’m swelling with pride at knowing that there is a candidate that is going to help “change” America for the better! But wait, more “change” would be on the way if Obama is elected!
How about policies and laws that classify people by the color of their skin, ethnic background, sex, and so on and grant them special rights and privileges based on that classification? Gone! All in the name of “change”!
Huh? What’s that? That’s not the sort of “change” Barack Obama is talking about? Well, of course it’s not. And I’m not really going to vote for him either because I know that.
What I was demonstrating to you was how many people will vote for him based on his broad based message of simply “change”. Every speech Barack Obama gives he makes sure that the center point of it is this one word and repeats it as often as he thinks he can get away with it because to claim to be for “change” gives people a blank slate upon which to project their own hopes and desires.
Don’t like a certain policy? Well, Barack Obama is for “change”. So he hopes that you will consider voting for him in the hope that when he talks about simply being for change. He’ll only talk about specifics of his policy for “change” when he has to. No need to give people willing to believe what they want to believe anything to not like after all.
But when he does talk about specifics we really see that what he calls “change” is not much more than the status quo; bigger government and less liberty on a greater scale than we already have.
The only question is how long he can ride this wave of nebulousness before he actually has to start delving a little deeper into what changes he actually proposes. And how much longer until people figure out that when he is talking about “change” he really means more of the same failed policies that have put America in the precarious situation it is in today? And will people even care?
I shudder to think that they will not.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-for-change-array-hes-got-my-vote-310806.html
About the Author:J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog . He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts . His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn .
Have you heard the good news? Barack Obama is for change! Well, that seals it! He’s got my vote!
Why you ask? Isn’t he a liberal Democrat? Well yeah, but he’s for change! So let’s look at the status quo which he will be looking at changing shall we?
First up is McCain/Feingold which is a horrible restriction on free speech despite the constitutional provision prohibiting Congress from making any law that restricts our freedom of speech. Elect Obama and he will “change” this and end this horrible law.
Next are the constant infringements on our second amendment rights by the myriad of gun laws on the books which do not punish criminal activity but rather simply infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own arms. Elect Obama and he will “change” this.
Then there is the horrid income tax which basically allows the government to take money you worked hard for before you get a chance to spend or save it unless you put it in one of their approved forms of investment. Since I firmly believe that the money earned by people in compensation for their labor belongs to them first and not the government I have to vote for Obama because he will “change” this.
Moving on, there is that pesky problem of unborn children who are both alive (see basic definition of life if you disagree) and human being denied their constitutional protections and being murdered. That is definitely something that needs changing. So Barack Obama appears to be our man!
Oh, and then there is the constant treasonous messages coming from our elected officials during a time of war which continually go unpunished. Personally I’m tired of the claims that our troops are cold-blooded murderers and that the war is lost being echoed by terrorists around the world to give aid and comfort to their followers. With his campaign promise of “change”, President Obama will undoubtedly correct this and start prosecuting the offenders.
And what about Social Security? After all it is clearly above and beyond the limited powers of the federal government to tax and spend. Just read Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (including his Federalist 41) and any other of a myriad of founding fathers that actually wrote the Constitution. So apparently with Barack Obama in the White House we can expect this massive mortgaging of our future to be ended in the name of “change”.
Along those same lines we can obviously expect an end to Welfare.
War on Poverty? Gone - ended in the name of “change”. We’ve spent trillions and still have “poverty” so it apparently hasn’t worked. Elect Barack Obama and we can get away from this failed policy and save us billions.
Then of course Barack Obama will obviously terminate the Department of Education which is also specified nowhere as a power of our government. Can you feel the winds of “change” blowing yet?
Ah! I’m swelling with pride at knowing that there is a candidate that is going to help “change” America for the better! But wait, more “change” would be on the way if Obama is elected!
How about policies and laws that classify people by the color of their skin, ethnic background, sex, and so on and grant them special rights and privileges based on that classification? Gone! All in the name of “change”!
Huh? What’s that? That’s not the sort of “change” Barack Obama is talking about? Well, of course it’s not. And I’m not really going to vote for him either because I know that.
What I was demonstrating to you was how many people will vote for him based on his broad based message of simply “change”. Every speech Barack Obama gives he makes sure that the center point of it is this one word and repeats it as often as he thinks he can get away with it because to claim to be for “change” gives people a blank slate upon which to project their own hopes and desires.
Don’t like a certain policy? Well, Barack Obama is for “change”. So he hopes that you will consider voting for him in the hope that when he talks about simply being for change. He’ll only talk about specifics of his policy for “change” when he has to. No need to give people willing to believe what they want to believe anything to not like after all.
But when he does talk about specifics we really see that what he calls “change” is not much more than the status quo; bigger government and less liberty on a greater scale than we already have.
The only question is how long he can ride this wave of nebulousness before he actually has to start delving a little deeper into what changes he actually proposes. And how much longer until people figure out that when he is talking about “change” he really means more of the same failed policies that have put America in the precarious situation it is in today? And will people even care?
I shudder to think that they will not.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-for-change-array-hes-got-my-vote-310806.html
About the Author:J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog . He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts . His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn .
Saturday, January 19, 2008
McCain Wins South Carolina
Everyone is now ready to declare Senator John McCain the winner in South Carolina. McCain wins the hotly contested contest in the Palmetto state. This is somewhat of a disappointment for Huckabee who had the edge in evangelical support which makes up a large part of South Carolina. The candidates will now turn to Florida and join Rudy Giuliani in the battle to become the front runner.
Hunter Out of Race
Duncan Hunter has made it known that he is no longer continuing his bid for the Republican nomination for president. Hunter who has never made it out of the bottom of the polls finished with only two percent in the Nevada caucus today. The California congressman who was strong on national security and defense and intent on solving illegal immigration never gained traction as a candidate.
Hillary Wins Nevada
It now appears as if Hillary Clinton will win Nevada beating Barack Obama. News sources are all declaring Senator Clinton as the winner of the Nevada Democrat caucus. She will take this win and try to build on it as the Democrats move to South Carolina.
Mitt Romney Wins Nevada
MSNBC is reporting that Mitt Romney has won the Republican caucus in Nevada. We will see if this has any affect on South Carolina. Romney may have been helped by the strong Mormon support in that part of the country. This would be the third state won by Romney which include Michigan and Wyoming. The win will add to Romney's delegate count but it remains to be seen if this will propel him to front runner status. No one candidate has been able to keep momentum and be declared the prohibitive favorite.
Race Day
Today is the day as we wait on the results of the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucuses. In a divided race so far no clear cut frontrunners have emerged on either side, especially for the Republicans. So these two contests today might clear the mud a little more and reveal a leader of the pack. It appears as if McCain and Huckabee are fighting it out in South Carolina. As has been stated before many feel this is a must win for both. Another story has been the fall of Giuliani who has fallen in the Palmetto state polls and nationwide. Will his wait for the sunshine state pay off? Nevada will be a race between Obama and Clinton. Obama is trying to slay the political giant and emerge as number one. Clinton lost out when the courts ruled in favor of allowing voting in the casinos. This ruling will appear to help Barack Obama after winning the endorsement of the culinary union. So it will be a battle of the unions and Obama will be singing one tune today, just get them to the casino on time.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Why Tax Rate Reductions Are More Stimulative Than Rebates: Lessons from 2001 and 2003
January 18, 2008
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1776
With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with economic stimulus proposals centered on tax rebates. Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
Tax Rebates Don't Stimulate
By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.
Economic growth requires four main factors: (1) an educated, trained, and motivated workforce; (2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; (3) a solid infrastructure; and (4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts and contain a functioning price system.
High tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it less profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.
By contrast, tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create any new wealth.
Supporters of rebates argue that they "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)
Supporters of rebates respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality it is more responsible to let the savers keep that money for a new home or their children's education, rather than to have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy.
Simply put, low tax rates encourage working, saving, and investing, which in turn encourages job creation and wage growth. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth.
The Failed 2001 Tax Rebates
While the 2001 tax cuts reduced some marginal tax rates, the centerpiece was tax rebates. These rebates were rationalized as a pre-payment of the reduction of the lowest marginal income tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent. Yet because they were not based on encouraging productive behavior, the rebates had little economic impact.
In the spring and summer of 2001, Washington borrowed billions from the capital/investment markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. In the fourth quarter of that year, consumer spending responded with 7 percent annualized growth, and investment spending correspondingly decreased by 23 percent. The economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent annualized rate.[1] The simple redistribution from investment to consumption did not create new wealth.
All traces of the rebate policy effectively disappeared by the next quarter. Consumer spending retreated to 1.4 percent annualized growth, and investment spending partially recovered from its steep decline with a 13.6 percent annual growth. The economy remained stagnant through much of 2002.
The Successful 2003 Tax Rate Cuts
By contrast, the 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1776
With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with economic stimulus proposals centered on tax rebates. Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
Tax Rebates Don't Stimulate
By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.
Economic growth requires four main factors: (1) an educated, trained, and motivated workforce; (2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; (3) a solid infrastructure; and (4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts and contain a functioning price system.
High tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it less profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.
By contrast, tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create any new wealth.
Supporters of rebates argue that they "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)
Supporters of rebates respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality it is more responsible to let the savers keep that money for a new home or their children's education, rather than to have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy.
Simply put, low tax rates encourage working, saving, and investing, which in turn encourages job creation and wage growth. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth.
The Failed 2001 Tax Rebates
While the 2001 tax cuts reduced some marginal tax rates, the centerpiece was tax rebates. These rebates were rationalized as a pre-payment of the reduction of the lowest marginal income tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent. Yet because they were not based on encouraging productive behavior, the rebates had little economic impact.
In the spring and summer of 2001, Washington borrowed billions from the capital/investment markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. In the fourth quarter of that year, consumer spending responded with 7 percent annualized growth, and investment spending correspondingly decreased by 23 percent. The economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent annualized rate.[1] The simple redistribution from investment to consumption did not create new wealth.
All traces of the rebate policy effectively disappeared by the next quarter. Consumer spending retreated to 1.4 percent annualized growth, and investment spending partially recovered from its steep decline with a 13.6 percent annual growth. The economy remained stagnant through much of 2002.
The Successful 2003 Tax Rate Cuts
By contrast, the 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:
- GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
- Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
- The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
- The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs--and 5.3 million jobs over 13 quarters.[2]
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was occurring naturally, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
Conclusion
The 2003 tax rate cuts succeeded, because they increased incentives to work, save, and invest, thereby creating new wealth. The 2001 tax cuts, based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution, did not significantly increase economic growth. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Table 1.1.1, at www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp (January 18, 2008).
[2]U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Table 1.1.1, revised, at www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp (January 16, 2007); Yahoo Finance, "S&P 500 Index," at www.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC (January 16, 2007); and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)," at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth (January 16, 2007).
Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, find more articles at http://www.heritage.org/
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Rivals Blast Obama's Praise For Reagan
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2325872
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Rivals Blast Obama's Praise For Reagan
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2325872
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A Thousand Words
What more could I possibly say then what is already so perfectly said through this image.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/2008/01/global_warming_protest_snowed.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Place Your Bets: The Voting Will Go On!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080117/D8U7TB380.html
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Place Your Bets: The Voting Will Go On!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080117/D8U7TB380.html
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Obama Closing
No longer a 21 point lead, Hillary Clinton is now in a statistical dead heat with Barack Obama. According to a new Zogby poll. Obama has steadily climbed back from a once overwhelming deficit to currently sitting one point beyond Senator Clinton. It is clear that Obama's star is rising has so in recent weeks especially after his win in Iowa. I admit I have labeled Hillary the inevitable candidate based on her national numbers and the political organization behind her. While not ready to put the nail in Hillary's political coffin, Obama's rise has given cause for reflection. Once thought to be unstoppable, Hillary's inevitability has suffered serious blows by Obama's success. Clinton stopped the bleeding in her campaign with a win in New Hampshire, but Obama's win in Iowa showed the ability to compete against Hillary and turn out voters. Change is the buzz word for this election cycle and Obama has made it his message and strategy for defeating Hillary. What only a few months ago seemed impossible may indeed be possible. The election season moves on and this David may find himself victorious over his Goliath.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1554681020080117?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1554681020080117?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Romney's Turn!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080116/D8U6UN580.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Romney's Turn!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080116/D8U6UN580.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Delegate Count
Through Jan. 15
Democrats
Hillary Clinton-190
Barack Obama-103
John Edwards-51
Dennis Kucinich-1
Mike Gravel-0
2,025 Needed to Win
Republicans
Mitt Romney-52
Mike Huckabee-22
John McCain-15
Fred Thompson-6
Ron Paul-2
Rudy-Giuliani-1
Duncan Hunter-1
1,191 Needed to Win
*Totasl includes both declared and undeclared delegates
Courtesy of www.cnn.com
Democrats
Hillary Clinton-190
Barack Obama-103
John Edwards-51
Dennis Kucinich-1
Mike Gravel-0
2,025 Needed to Win
Republicans
Mitt Romney-52
Mike Huckabee-22
John McCain-15
Fred Thompson-6
Ron Paul-2
Rudy-Giuliani-1
Duncan Hunter-1
1,191 Needed to Win
*Totasl includes both declared and undeclared delegates
Courtesy of www.cnn.com
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Mac Pulled Back
So much for John McCain's forward momentum towards the Republican nomination. After a comeback win in New Hampshire it appears as if he has been pulled back down to Earth, after a meteoric rise after a win in the Granite State. Many will now talk about how the Republican race is now once again undecided after each of the top three candidates have won the early contests. While Romney might not be considered the front runner he has stabilized his campaign with a win in Michigan many felt he had to have. Now all focus will be on South Carolina as we move state by state waiting for someone to emerge as the true number one. With these early results Giuliani's strategy may prove successful with no permanent momentum behind a single candidate.
Michigan Primary Coverage
NBC News is declaring Mitt Romney the winner of the Michigan Primary. John McCain will finish second with Mike Huckabee third.
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
The $18B Write Off And New Rescue By Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080115/earns_citigroup.html?.v=5
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
The $18B Write Off And New Rescue By Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080115/earns_citigroup.html?.v=5
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Monday, January 14, 2008
Real Clear Politics State Polls
Michigan Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/9-1/13
Romney-27.0
McCain-26.3
Huckabee-15.9
Paul -6.6
Giuliani -5.7
Thompson-5.4
Romney +0.7
Nevada Democratic Caucus
Research 2000 1/11-1/13
Obama-32
Clinton -30
Edwards-27
Obama +2.0
South Carolina Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Huckabee-26.5
McCain-22.8
Romney-16.8
Thompson-10.3
Giuliani-6.8
Paul-5.0
Huckabee +3.7
South Carolina Democratic Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Obama-42.7
Clinton- 32.0
Edwards-16.0
Obama +10.7
Florida Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/7-1/13
McCain-21.3
Giuliani-21.3
Huckabee-18.3
Romney-17.0
Thompson-8.8
Paul-4.8
Tie
Florida Democratic Primary
RCP Average1/7-1/13
Clinton-49.0
Obama-27.5
Edwards-11.5
Clinton +21.5
Courtesy of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
RCP Average 1/9-1/13
Romney-27.0
McCain-26.3
Huckabee-15.9
Paul -6.6
Giuliani -5.7
Thompson-5.4
Romney +0.7
Nevada Democratic Caucus
Research 2000 1/11-1/13
Obama-32
Clinton -30
Edwards-27
Obama +2.0
South Carolina Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Huckabee-26.5
McCain-22.8
Romney-16.8
Thompson-10.3
Giuliani-6.8
Paul-5.0
Huckabee +3.7
South Carolina Democratic Primary
RCP Average 1/4-1/13
Obama-42.7
Clinton- 32.0
Edwards-16.0
Obama +10.7
Florida Republican Primary
RCP Average 1/7-1/13
McCain-21.3
Giuliani-21.3
Huckabee-18.3
Romney-17.0
Thompson-8.8
Paul-4.8
Tie
Florida Democratic Primary
RCP Average1/7-1/13
Clinton-49.0
Obama-27.5
Edwards-11.5
Clinton +21.5
Courtesy of http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Brett Favre's Wife and Hillary Clinton
A wonderful email that was sent to me by one of my relatives. This is for those of you like me who laugh when we hear the words experience and Hillary in the same sentence.
In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move. Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, State, company or corporation. She has never been a CEO or led anything larger than an office. She's had a "staff" when she was first lady and first lady of Arkansas. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef".
I do not know where this originated from so I am unable to direct you to the source or to give credit.
In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move. Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, State, company or corporation. She has never been a CEO or led anything larger than an office. She's had a "staff" when she was first lady and first lady of Arkansas. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef".
I do not know where this originated from so I am unable to direct you to the source or to give credit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
