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
Thursday, January 31, 2008
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.
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
The Real American Idol
Courtesy of http://www.drudgereport.com/
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
'Who Better...'
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080110/D8U3ACF00.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
'Who Better...'
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080110/D8U3ACF00.html
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Kerry Endorses Obama
Massachusetts Senator and former candidate for president John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama for president. Some may find the endorsement surprising considering Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, is still in the race. Perhaps Senator Kerry like everyone else realizes the futility of the Edwards campaign and sees this as a two dog race between Obama and Hillary. Obama might want to ask for a favor from his newest endorser. Many see Edwards as splitting votes from Obama as both compete for the change vote. The sooner Edwards drops out the better for Obama.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Richardson Drops Out of Race
Bill Richardson has officially dropped out of the race. Richardson was unable to crack into the top tier of candidates in the Democrat field despite the touting of his experience throughout his campaign. In a weird twist the Democrats have relagated those most experienced candidates into the second tier forcing almost all to drop out of the race. Instead their three top tier candidates' experience is minimal at best, the three being led by Senator Hillary Clinton.
Delegate Count
Democrats
Barack Obama-25
Hillary Clinton-24
John Edwards-18
Joe Biden -0
Chris Dodd-0
Mike Gravel-0
Dennis Kucinich-0
Bill Richardson-0
2,209 delegates needed for nomination
Republicans
Mike Huckabee-31
Mitt Romney-19
John McCain-7
Fred Thompson-3
Duncan Hunter-1
Sam Brownback-0
Rudy Giuliani-0
Ron Paul-0
Tom Tancredo-0
1,259 delegates needed for nomination
Courtesy of MSNBC Decision 08
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914/
Barack Obama-25
Hillary Clinton-24
John Edwards-18
Joe Biden -0
Chris Dodd-0
Mike Gravel-0
Dennis Kucinich-0
Bill Richardson-0
2,209 delegates needed for nomination
Republicans
Mike Huckabee-31
Mitt Romney-19
John McCain-7
Fred Thompson-3
Duncan Hunter-1
Sam Brownback-0
Rudy Giuliani-0
Ron Paul-0
Tom Tancredo-0
1,259 delegates needed for nomination
Courtesy of MSNBC Decision 08
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914/
Ice Queen Cometh Forth With Tears
Apparently Hillary Clinton does have emotions. Well if you believe what she did the other day was real then you would say she has emotions. I being of the skeptical nature, especially when it involves a Clinton, am not so convinced. The emotion that she portrayed was uncharacteristic for the former first lady who has kept emotion out of her life when it comes to her public appearances. But there she was tearing up; breaking down from the emotional roller coaster of the campaign, or maybe the fact that Obama had just trounced her in Iowa. After all this is Hillary's time to be president, an heir apparent to fulfill the Clinton dynasty and bring back the good old times of the Clinton decade of the 90's.
The once thought breakdown of the Clinton political machine has made a 180 degree turn with Senator Clinton's win in New Hampshire last night. Surprising to many pundits and pollsters who had Barack Obama winning the Granite state primary. The results poured in throughout the night and Obama never took the lead and closed out in second place. One story of the night might be how the pollsters and their polls could have gotten the race so wrong? Almost all the polls showed winning with some projecting a double digit win. Instead Hillary staring as the comeback kid took her place on stage at the end of the night a declared winner. The other story of the night was how Hillary staged such a comeback.
Maybe we should not be shocked by Hillary's win in New Hampshire. She certainly has been the declared front runner for some time. The win by Obama in Iowa simply shifted the focus from Hillary and cast doubt on her political machine. But firing on cylinders she rallied enough support to win and to perhaps take over control of this race from Barack Obama. With Obama winning Iowa and with the bump he got compounded with the short time between contests, Senator Clinton was able to sway support back to her side. Could it be that her tearful display was just the thing to gain her that support?
In a week in which she drew fire from Obama and John Edwards perhaps she garnered the sympathy only enjoyed by her during her husband's scandals. It could be that women saw the attacks as an attack on Hillary and drove support her way. If true then the strategy certainly worked and gives her new life. For such a strong response to one emotional performance Hillary might deserve an Oscar, it is not totally ridiculous Al Gore has one.
Because of my skeptical nature I doubt the genuineness of Hillary's emotional breakdown. I am not alone in this as many have questioned her display. I happen to think that speaks volumes about Mrs. Clinton. For most we would not even question if someone was simply employing a strategy to garner sympathy. When it comes to the Clintons and their ambitions, nothing is out of the realm of possibility. After all the breakdown seemingly came as a result of her loss to Senator Obama in Iowa. And as she talked about in her tearful conversation with her audience, everything positive that can happen in this country would be as a result of her place in the White House. The campaign trail is long and obviously takes its toll but does it compare to life as the president and especially with the problems that exist for the next one. If someone is unable to bear the brunt of a campaign can we really look to them to lead our country during the next crisis.
Maybe Hillary's emotion show was not just for show. Perhaps she shared a real emotional moment with us. We must look at the source and decide what we can believe. Maybe I am to skeptical and should except Hillary's display on face value as a women feeling the emotions of a long campaign. It is wholly believable that Hillary would try every play in her playbook to disrupt the wave Obama was riding after Iowa. The suspension of disbelief required to accept Hillary's emotion as real rivals that of global warming and Bill not knowing the definition of is.
The once thought breakdown of the Clinton political machine has made a 180 degree turn with Senator Clinton's win in New Hampshire last night. Surprising to many pundits and pollsters who had Barack Obama winning the Granite state primary. The results poured in throughout the night and Obama never took the lead and closed out in second place. One story of the night might be how the pollsters and their polls could have gotten the race so wrong? Almost all the polls showed winning with some projecting a double digit win. Instead Hillary staring as the comeback kid took her place on stage at the end of the night a declared winner. The other story of the night was how Hillary staged such a comeback.
Maybe we should not be shocked by Hillary's win in New Hampshire. She certainly has been the declared front runner for some time. The win by Obama in Iowa simply shifted the focus from Hillary and cast doubt on her political machine. But firing on cylinders she rallied enough support to win and to perhaps take over control of this race from Barack Obama. With Obama winning Iowa and with the bump he got compounded with the short time between contests, Senator Clinton was able to sway support back to her side. Could it be that her tearful display was just the thing to gain her that support?
In a week in which she drew fire from Obama and John Edwards perhaps she garnered the sympathy only enjoyed by her during her husband's scandals. It could be that women saw the attacks as an attack on Hillary and drove support her way. If true then the strategy certainly worked and gives her new life. For such a strong response to one emotional performance Hillary might deserve an Oscar, it is not totally ridiculous Al Gore has one.
Because of my skeptical nature I doubt the genuineness of Hillary's emotional breakdown. I am not alone in this as many have questioned her display. I happen to think that speaks volumes about Mrs. Clinton. For most we would not even question if someone was simply employing a strategy to garner sympathy. When it comes to the Clintons and their ambitions, nothing is out of the realm of possibility. After all the breakdown seemingly came as a result of her loss to Senator Obama in Iowa. And as she talked about in her tearful conversation with her audience, everything positive that can happen in this country would be as a result of her place in the White House. The campaign trail is long and obviously takes its toll but does it compare to life as the president and especially with the problems that exist for the next one. If someone is unable to bear the brunt of a campaign can we really look to them to lead our country during the next crisis.
Maybe Hillary's emotion show was not just for show. Perhaps she shared a real emotional moment with us. We must look at the source and decide what we can believe. Maybe I am to skeptical and should except Hillary's display on face value as a women feeling the emotions of a long campaign. It is wholly believable that Hillary would try every play in her playbook to disrupt the wave Obama was riding after Iowa. The suspension of disbelief required to accept Hillary's emotion as real rivals that of global warming and Bill not knowing the definition of is.
The Madness of Would-be King John by J.J. Jackson
Liberals complain loudly about President Bush and how he is supposedly accruing power to the Executive Branch. While he has certainly promoted some bad laws, which liberals would tend to love otherwise, that increase the power of the federal government as a whole and without Constitutional Amendment, to say that he is accruing power for himself is a bit of a stretch. If you listen to the political left, President Bush is a virtual tyrant wielding dictatorial power.
Talk about projection. Especially when you have Hillary Clinton running around crying about how if only you would vote for her, pretty please with a cherry on top, she would work to relinquish some of these powers which President Bush has menacingly and supposedly acquired. But remarkably you never hear these same liberals decrying her own power grabs such as when she proudly proclaims that as president she would take money from the oil companies and your 401k for the “common good”. Oh no. That, despite having absolutely no constitutional basis in the least, is ok.
With Iowa now behind us we have seen liberals like Barack Obama run out to an amazing lead over other candidates on a message of accruing power to the federal government. Take your pick of the other candidates from his party and you’ll hear the same message with different wrapping.
You even have second place finisher, and would-be King, John Edwards who will not be outdone issuing his own dictates over the past months.
Weeks ago, for example, he threatened Congress that if within six months of his election they did not pass his version of socialized health insurance and medicine, he would with his powers as President take away Congress’s own sweet health insurance deal. Now, I’ve read the Constitution. And I’ve read it many times. Obviously that is many more times than John Edwards and other Democrats. And I’m perplexed as to what powers John Edwards claims to find that would allow him to do this.
Under Article I Section 6, Congress is granted the right to compensation for their service as the laws which they pass (not the President) dictate. Now, that doesn’t mean that I agree with how much they get compensated for the often poor job they do, but the Constitution allows it. Mr. Edwards could certainly veto any law that Congress would pass affecting their own compensation, but if that veto is overridden, and the courts fail to find anything unconstitutional about the appropriation what is he going to do? Whine at them? Comb his hair menacingly at them?
Or does he really think he has the ability, like a good little authoritarian, to rule by decree beyond the powers of the Constitution? Will he simply accrue more power to himself?
Of course this is all a moot point right now considering that Mr. Edwards finished a distant second to Barack Obama and his own authoritarian socialist plans. The good news for Edwards? He came out slightly ahead of Senatorette Clinton. You go “girl”!
So, since Democrat voters seems to be drawn to which ever candidate has the most arbitrary and authoritarian policies I though maybe I could help out Mr. Edwards. What John needs is a bigger, more absurd list of government decrees than his opponents.
So what else could Mr. Edwards dictate? Well, I’ve come up with a list that would befit the madness of a man such as John Edwards and probably any other of the Democratic Party’s candidates for that matter.
First, the sky will be now pink. And if Congress doesn’t pass legislation within 100 hours after his coronation mandating such a change, he will make it so with a stroke of his pen. “After all, don’t you think pink looks better?” you will be asked to the sound of a guns being cocked and then pointed at your head.
Second, water shall no longer be called water. Instead it will now be called The Nectar Of John Edwards. Because all good things flow from John’s good graces. And if Congress doesn’t act within thirty days to make this true, he will simply declare it to be so.
Third, AIDS will be cured. And if the drug companies don’t cure AIDS within six months after Mr. Edwards takes his oath of office he will nationalize them and have the disease cured within thirty more days.
Fourth, to appease the radical environmentalist, all oil refineries will be shut down and 10,000 new wind farms will be built within thirty days. But they will not be built anywhere near the Kennedy Compound in Massachusetts or near the property of any other of the Democrat Party power elites mind you. And what if those 10,000 new wind farms are not built? Well, the executives of all the oil companies will be put on trial for treason, found guilty and summarily shot. At which point 10,000 new wind farms will magically appear from special acorns which Edwards will plant.
Fifth, Global Warming will be ended. Not only will it be ended, but it will be reversed by King John’s will alone. All glaciers will be returned to their previous locations and all people currently living on land that was habitable before this reversal shall be rounded up and placed into government work camps where they will be charged with maintaining the glaciers.
You want more? Well John Edwards will be pleased to accommodate you.
Sixth, poverty will be ended and the “two Americas” will become one. Thanks to Mr. Edwards, all wages will be controlled and equal and all will make $1,000,000 per year. Expect for him of course. After all he is king and he deserves so much more. This will be done within a year of his taking office. Sure, there won’t be much on the shelves to buy, but you’ll be rich so quite your belly aching!
Seventh, all hurricanes will be banned from the United States. That’s right, you heard correctly - banned. And if Congress will not act to ban all hurricanes within the first ten minutes of his presidency, he will make it the absolute law of the land and protect all citizens from their wrath. Of course, he’ll do this by simply issuing a decree that hurricanes are no longer to be called hurricanes but rather “big windy thingies filled with lots of the Nectar of John Edwards”. But hey, there won’t be anymore hurricanes!
Don’t believe him? What are you? One of those “free-thinking” types?
Eighth and lastly, because only John Edwards can solve the problems of this world, he will declare himself King of the World for life and reserve the right to issue proclamations which will automatically become true regardless of how nutty.
With a platform like this there is no way that the liberals would not flock to his side and propel him into the White House in 2008. Take my advice John. Liberals love this sort of insanity.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-madness-of-wouldbe-king-john-299102.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 .
Talk about projection. Especially when you have Hillary Clinton running around crying about how if only you would vote for her, pretty please with a cherry on top, she would work to relinquish some of these powers which President Bush has menacingly and supposedly acquired. But remarkably you never hear these same liberals decrying her own power grabs such as when she proudly proclaims that as president she would take money from the oil companies and your 401k for the “common good”. Oh no. That, despite having absolutely no constitutional basis in the least, is ok.
With Iowa now behind us we have seen liberals like Barack Obama run out to an amazing lead over other candidates on a message of accruing power to the federal government. Take your pick of the other candidates from his party and you’ll hear the same message with different wrapping.
You even have second place finisher, and would-be King, John Edwards who will not be outdone issuing his own dictates over the past months.
Weeks ago, for example, he threatened Congress that if within six months of his election they did not pass his version of socialized health insurance and medicine, he would with his powers as President take away Congress’s own sweet health insurance deal. Now, I’ve read the Constitution. And I’ve read it many times. Obviously that is many more times than John Edwards and other Democrats. And I’m perplexed as to what powers John Edwards claims to find that would allow him to do this.
Under Article I Section 6, Congress is granted the right to compensation for their service as the laws which they pass (not the President) dictate. Now, that doesn’t mean that I agree with how much they get compensated for the often poor job they do, but the Constitution allows it. Mr. Edwards could certainly veto any law that Congress would pass affecting their own compensation, but if that veto is overridden, and the courts fail to find anything unconstitutional about the appropriation what is he going to do? Whine at them? Comb his hair menacingly at them?
Or does he really think he has the ability, like a good little authoritarian, to rule by decree beyond the powers of the Constitution? Will he simply accrue more power to himself?
Of course this is all a moot point right now considering that Mr. Edwards finished a distant second to Barack Obama and his own authoritarian socialist plans. The good news for Edwards? He came out slightly ahead of Senatorette Clinton. You go “girl”!
So, since Democrat voters seems to be drawn to which ever candidate has the most arbitrary and authoritarian policies I though maybe I could help out Mr. Edwards. What John needs is a bigger, more absurd list of government decrees than his opponents.
So what else could Mr. Edwards dictate? Well, I’ve come up with a list that would befit the madness of a man such as John Edwards and probably any other of the Democratic Party’s candidates for that matter.
First, the sky will be now pink. And if Congress doesn’t pass legislation within 100 hours after his coronation mandating such a change, he will make it so with a stroke of his pen. “After all, don’t you think pink looks better?” you will be asked to the sound of a guns being cocked and then pointed at your head.
Second, water shall no longer be called water. Instead it will now be called The Nectar Of John Edwards. Because all good things flow from John’s good graces. And if Congress doesn’t act within thirty days to make this true, he will simply declare it to be so.
Third, AIDS will be cured. And if the drug companies don’t cure AIDS within six months after Mr. Edwards takes his oath of office he will nationalize them and have the disease cured within thirty more days.
Fourth, to appease the radical environmentalist, all oil refineries will be shut down and 10,000 new wind farms will be built within thirty days. But they will not be built anywhere near the Kennedy Compound in Massachusetts or near the property of any other of the Democrat Party power elites mind you. And what if those 10,000 new wind farms are not built? Well, the executives of all the oil companies will be put on trial for treason, found guilty and summarily shot. At which point 10,000 new wind farms will magically appear from special acorns which Edwards will plant.
Fifth, Global Warming will be ended. Not only will it be ended, but it will be reversed by King John’s will alone. All glaciers will be returned to their previous locations and all people currently living on land that was habitable before this reversal shall be rounded up and placed into government work camps where they will be charged with maintaining the glaciers.
You want more? Well John Edwards will be pleased to accommodate you.
Sixth, poverty will be ended and the “two Americas” will become one. Thanks to Mr. Edwards, all wages will be controlled and equal and all will make $1,000,000 per year. Expect for him of course. After all he is king and he deserves so much more. This will be done within a year of his taking office. Sure, there won’t be much on the shelves to buy, but you’ll be rich so quite your belly aching!
Seventh, all hurricanes will be banned from the United States. That’s right, you heard correctly - banned. And if Congress will not act to ban all hurricanes within the first ten minutes of his presidency, he will make it the absolute law of the land and protect all citizens from their wrath. Of course, he’ll do this by simply issuing a decree that hurricanes are no longer to be called hurricanes but rather “big windy thingies filled with lots of the Nectar of John Edwards”. But hey, there won’t be anymore hurricanes!
Don’t believe him? What are you? One of those “free-thinking” types?
Eighth and lastly, because only John Edwards can solve the problems of this world, he will declare himself King of the World for life and reserve the right to issue proclamations which will automatically become true regardless of how nutty.
With a platform like this there is no way that the liberals would not flock to his side and propel him into the White House in 2008. Take my advice John. Liberals love this sort of insanity.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-madness-of-wouldbe-king-john-299102.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 .
Syndication Weekly
Jonah Goldberg is not a fan of Iowa's first in the nation status. To be fair his latest column states that no state should have all the power. I was very interested to read Mr. Goldberg's comments as an Iowan. I would agree that perhaps the world is not holding their breath to see which Republican and which Democrat should be their party's nominee for president. By judging the interest in this country be media migration to the state, I would rate it very high. But the argument may be moot as Iowa has been chosen to be first and such attention might follow any state which found itself first. Goldberg does praise the people of Iowa for their niceness, and for having a great steakhouse in Montour. His comments are not simply directed at the Hawkeye state but go for New Hampshire, or any one state in the union. He writes that no one state should have all the power. Goldberg writes about how stupid caucusing is as compared to voting. One involves a secret ballot the other a song and dance in front of your neighbors that involves politicking and jockeying for bodies to make a certain candidate viable. Mr. Goldberg describes it as, "a mix of Chinese fire drill, Politburo theatrics, and Roman priestly ceremony. I would agree with that comparison, I am glad that as a Republican we are left with a simple straw poll vote. For as much as we value tradition, I think the choice of a caucus is somewhat antiquated. If we want as much participation we should aim at creating a process all want to participate in. Mr. Goldberg also makes the participation argument in which he points to the relatively small numbers that take part in the caucus. I think that this is not unique to Iowa but overall participation in our political process in nowhere near where it should be. Maybe some other states would do a better job, as a native Iowan I must admit I enjoy the attention our small state gets every four years. We draw attention from the nation as pundits, media, and other observers come to watch the process unfold. This is rare attention for our state, those same individuals are not flocking every year to watch the corn grow. In the concluding statements Mr. Goldberg provides a solution to the problem by instituting that the states rotate. In doing so Mr. Goldberg states that by doing so it will ensure, "that the country isn't hostage by the same left-wing and right-wing populists every four years."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODZjOGE1YmY0OGEyNzdhN2QyY2Q1OTlhNzZjMTgzYzg=
Courtesy of National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODZjOGE1YmY0OGEyNzdhN2QyY2Q1OTlhNzZjMTgzYzg=
Courtesy of National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com
The Daily Drudge
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
New Hampshire Primary Democrat Results
MSNBC and the AP are declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of the New Hampshire Primary over Barack Obama.
New Hampshire Primary Republican Results
Fox News is reporting that Arizona Senator John McCain has won the New Hampshire primary over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Now We Have to Finish It
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashonh.htm
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Now We Have to Finish It
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashonh.htm
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Carefully Consider Compassion
Compassionate conservatism came into our vocabulary with the election of President George W. Bush as our 43rd president. It was a new way to define that particular brand of conservatism that aims itself at helping the lowly and disadvantaged. The problem is that this philosophy inevitably leads to government solutions that look like government solutions. With issues like healthcare and immigration compassion clouds judgements and can result in failed policies. You end up with the government trying to solve problems by putting it on its credit card. The time comes to pay up and while shouts for more hand-holding across the aisle pierce our ears, it is those unholy unions that lead to ruinous legislation. One has only to look at Medicare entitlements and the continual attempts to open up our border and bestow amnesty to those who entered our borders illegally.
We may not have recognized this brand of governing in President Bush but we have become familiar with it and are now able to see the problems with it as a governing philosophy. We fool ourselves by believing that by diluting our true conservative roots with muddled philosophies that claim to be aimed at lifting up those down in the muck and mire. This Prince Charming attitude of coming to the aid of the citizen in distress with entitlements and monetary promises is what conservatives have argued against. It used to be that liberals wholly owned such views on governing but it has crept into the thinking of some Republicans, while calling it heroic.
We now have a candidate in the form of Mike Huckabee who seems to want to continue the legacy of compassion. The former Arkansas governor has defined himself as socially conservative, but it is on other issues like fiscal politics where things get murky. Some are weary of him because of his fiscal approaches in his state which included raising taxes in numerous areas, including taxes on purchases made on the Internet. His spend and tax attitude has turned off many from his own state. While he may be solid on social issues, his moderate tones on issues like taxes, the environment, and immigration make you wonder if he will come up heads or tails when political decision time comes.
Rush Limbaugh has it right when he talks about changing conservatism to fit the candidate. Do we want someone who will agree on one set of issues but match the liberals word for word on others? As a proud conservative who has yet to see a liberal solve a problem with their philosophy you can guess how I would respond. Having compassion is not a negative character trait. In fact I think it is conservatives who truly have compassion for the people of this country. But that compassion does not involve doling out entitlements and wasteful government spending on worthless government programs. You truly help someone succeed for the long term with a hand up and not a hand out, a cliche I know but very true.
Mike Huckabee might seem like a long shot to win the Republican Party's nomination. With his win in the Iowa caucus it does not seem as long a shot. But for those who are still deciding on who they will support you should ask yourself the following. Do we want someone who mirrors the Democrats on many critical issues? I would presume the answer would be no considering the election in 2006 which resulted in many Republicans losing office because they forgot their conservative roots. We have already had one man from Hope lead this country do we really want another?
We may not have recognized this brand of governing in President Bush but we have become familiar with it and are now able to see the problems with it as a governing philosophy. We fool ourselves by believing that by diluting our true conservative roots with muddled philosophies that claim to be aimed at lifting up those down in the muck and mire. This Prince Charming attitude of coming to the aid of the citizen in distress with entitlements and monetary promises is what conservatives have argued against. It used to be that liberals wholly owned such views on governing but it has crept into the thinking of some Republicans, while calling it heroic.
We now have a candidate in the form of Mike Huckabee who seems to want to continue the legacy of compassion. The former Arkansas governor has defined himself as socially conservative, but it is on other issues like fiscal politics where things get murky. Some are weary of him because of his fiscal approaches in his state which included raising taxes in numerous areas, including taxes on purchases made on the Internet. His spend and tax attitude has turned off many from his own state. While he may be solid on social issues, his moderate tones on issues like taxes, the environment, and immigration make you wonder if he will come up heads or tails when political decision time comes.
Rush Limbaugh has it right when he talks about changing conservatism to fit the candidate. Do we want someone who will agree on one set of issues but match the liberals word for word on others? As a proud conservative who has yet to see a liberal solve a problem with their philosophy you can guess how I would respond. Having compassion is not a negative character trait. In fact I think it is conservatives who truly have compassion for the people of this country. But that compassion does not involve doling out entitlements and wasteful government spending on worthless government programs. You truly help someone succeed for the long term with a hand up and not a hand out, a cliche I know but very true.
Mike Huckabee might seem like a long shot to win the Republican Party's nomination. With his win in the Iowa caucus it does not seem as long a shot. But for those who are still deciding on who they will support you should ask yourself the following. Do we want someone who mirrors the Democrats on many critical issues? I would presume the answer would be no considering the election in 2006 which resulted in many Republicans losing office because they forgot their conservative roots. We have already had one man from Hope lead this country do we really want another?
Real Clear Politics New Hampshire Poll
01/02-01/05
Democrats
Obama-33.0%
Clinton-30.3%
Edwards-18.0%
Richardson-5.5%
Obama +2.7%
Republicans
McCain-32.0%
Romney-27.%
Huckabee-12.0
Paul-8.8%
Giuliani-8.8%
Thompson-2.3%
McCain +4.2%
Courtesy of www.realclearpolitics.com
Democrats
Obama-33.0%
Clinton-30.3%
Edwards-18.0%
Richardson-5.5%
Obama +2.7%
Republicans
McCain-32.0%
Romney-27.%
Huckabee-12.0
Paul-8.8%
Giuliani-8.8%
Thompson-2.3%
McCain +4.2%
Courtesy of www.realclearpolitics.com
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Iowa Caucus Results
Democrats
Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%
Republican
Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13%
Note: Obama was able to defeat the formidable Clinton machine to win big in Iowa. It remains to be seen if this win will give him the momentum in the next states to win it all. For the Republicans Huckabee was ab?le to bring out his supporters and rally against Romney's superior resources and organization. The story is McCain's finish which many believe was a great result and may springboard him into New Hampshire where he leads or is tied in the polls. The question is where this puts Mitt Romney who devoted so much time and money to Iowa. His campaign focused on winning the early states and with Iowa lost New Hampshire is fastly swinging to McCain. Will he have enough to survive?
The Daily Drudge
The top headline from The Drudge Report
Obama, Huckabee
Obama and Huckabee are victors in tonight's Iowa caucus.
Courtesy of www.drudgereport.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
