Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through Abortion
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have made a stunning admission in favor of cleansing America of unwanted populations by aborting them. In an interview with the New York Times, the judge said that Medicaid should cover abortions, and that she had originally expected that Roe v. Wade would facilitate such coverage in order to control the population of groups "that we don't want to have too many of."
The statement was made in the context of a discussion about the fact that abortions are not covered by Medicaid, and therefore are less available to poor women. "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out," said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women "of means" can easily access abortion.
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.
"So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."
Harris v. McRae is a 1980 court decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.
Justice Ginsburg's remarks appear to align her expectations for abortion with those of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and other prominent members of the 20th century's eugenics movement. Sanger and her eugenicist peers advocated the systematic use of contraception, sterilization, and abortion to reduce the numbers of poor, black, immigrant and disabled populations.
Ironically, the New York Times interview began as an exploration of Ginsburg's thoughts on Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor as she prepares for her confirmation hearings this month. Coverage of Sotomayor frequently emphasizes her success story as an underprivileged minority from the Bronx who rose to prominence at Princeton and Yale Law.
Ginsburg also defended a controversial statement repeated by Sotomayor in several speeches, where she stated she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
"I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that," said Ginsburg. "Think of how many times you've said something that you didn't get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could. I'm sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. ... That I'm a woman, that's part of it, that I'm Jewish, that's part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me."
The judge also praised the advent of earlier abortions with the wider distribution of the morning-after pill, saying "I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change."
When the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban in 2007, Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, saying the court's reasoning "reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution - ideas that have long since been discredited."
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Obama a Big "Pushover" To Putin and Russia
Insightful column from today's IBD I thought I'd share:
Russia's nondemocratic rulers over the years have shown an uncanny knack for detecting weakness in their foes. Russia's Vladimir Putin is continuing the tradition.
President Obama no doubt believes he was dealing with honest brokers when he agreed with Russia's leaders to cut U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads to about 1,600 each. For the U.S., that's a cut of about a third.
But please read the fine print. This is a "preliminary" agreement. In order for it to go into effect, Russian leaders say they want the U.S. to give up its plans for a missile defense system.
To do so would, in effect, be a unilateral disarmament by the U.S. against the most feared weapons on earth — nuclear missiles. It's an abandonment of our allies, including Poland and the Czech Republic. It's not an acceptable bargaining chip.
It's reminiscent of the time in 1961 when President Kennedy — like Obama, youthful, attractive, intelligent, well-spoken — met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. During that meeting, Khrushchev quickly sized up Kennedy as a foreign-policy lightweight.
Within months, he tested Kennedy's mettle — erecting the Berlin Wall, and, the following year, sending missiles to Cuba to challenge the U.S. just 90 miles off its own coast.
In public, Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev; behind the scenes, he caved, trading our missiles in Turkey for the ones in Cuba. Kennedy, in interviews, later regretted his own callowness.
Compare that with President Reagan's 1986 showdown with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland. That came on the heels of a U.S. deployment of missiles in Europe, Reagan's refusal to sign a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and his 1983 "Star Wars" speech. He was negotiating from strength — the only thing Russians get.
In 1985, Reagan had told Gorbachev bluntly during Geneva arms talks: "We won't stand by and let you maintain weapon superiority over us. We can agree to reduce arms, or we can continue the arms race, which I think you know you can't win."
In Reykjavik, with the world's media egging him on to make a deal, any deal, on nuclear arms with the USSR, Reagan said, "Nyet." Why? He wouldn't give up U.S. missile defense. With that stand, the Soviet Union's demise was assured.
By contrast, Obama on Tuesday called Russia, a country that's falling apart, a "great power" and reassured the nondemocratic Putin he'll keep Russia's interests in mind while crafting U.S. policy.
"As I said in Cairo," the president said, "given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. That is why I have called for a 'reset' in relations between the United States and Russia."
This implies an equivalency between Russia and the U.S. that simply doesn't exist. Russia comes up short on any measure of civilizational success you might want to use. Indeed, we have elevated a country that has invaded a neighbor, uses energy as a weapon against our democratic allies and refuses to help in our effort to halt Iran's dangerous nuclear program.
Russia is not a "great" power. It's a Third World nation with First World nuclear weapons. It's in a downward spiral due to its collapsing population, shortening life-spans and shrinking economy. It might not even survive this century as a nation.
This has been the U.S.' biggest mistake: to give Russia respect it hasn't really earned. Maybe, as it turns out, Putin, a former top KGB operative, is more clever than Gorbachev. He knows our president needs a foreign affairs success.
Before President Obama signs off on anything, he'd do well to review the presidential history of dealings with the Soviets. He can learn from both Kennedy and Reagan.
Russia's nondemocratic rulers over the years have shown an uncanny knack for detecting weakness in their foes. Russia's Vladimir Putin is continuing the tradition.
President Obama no doubt believes he was dealing with honest brokers when he agreed with Russia's leaders to cut U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads to about 1,600 each. For the U.S., that's a cut of about a third.
But please read the fine print. This is a "preliminary" agreement. In order for it to go into effect, Russian leaders say they want the U.S. to give up its plans for a missile defense system.
To do so would, in effect, be a unilateral disarmament by the U.S. against the most feared weapons on earth — nuclear missiles. It's an abandonment of our allies, including Poland and the Czech Republic. It's not an acceptable bargaining chip.
It's reminiscent of the time in 1961 when President Kennedy — like Obama, youthful, attractive, intelligent, well-spoken — met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. During that meeting, Khrushchev quickly sized up Kennedy as a foreign-policy lightweight.
Within months, he tested Kennedy's mettle — erecting the Berlin Wall, and, the following year, sending missiles to Cuba to challenge the U.S. just 90 miles off its own coast.
In public, Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev; behind the scenes, he caved, trading our missiles in Turkey for the ones in Cuba. Kennedy, in interviews, later regretted his own callowness.
Compare that with President Reagan's 1986 showdown with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland. That came on the heels of a U.S. deployment of missiles in Europe, Reagan's refusal to sign a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and his 1983 "Star Wars" speech. He was negotiating from strength — the only thing Russians get.
In 1985, Reagan had told Gorbachev bluntly during Geneva arms talks: "We won't stand by and let you maintain weapon superiority over us. We can agree to reduce arms, or we can continue the arms race, which I think you know you can't win."
In Reykjavik, with the world's media egging him on to make a deal, any deal, on nuclear arms with the USSR, Reagan said, "Nyet." Why? He wouldn't give up U.S. missile defense. With that stand, the Soviet Union's demise was assured.
By contrast, Obama on Tuesday called Russia, a country that's falling apart, a "great power" and reassured the nondemocratic Putin he'll keep Russia's interests in mind while crafting U.S. policy.
"As I said in Cairo," the president said, "given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. That is why I have called for a 'reset' in relations between the United States and Russia."
This implies an equivalency between Russia and the U.S. that simply doesn't exist. Russia comes up short on any measure of civilizational success you might want to use. Indeed, we have elevated a country that has invaded a neighbor, uses energy as a weapon against our democratic allies and refuses to help in our effort to halt Iran's dangerous nuclear program.
Russia is not a "great" power. It's a Third World nation with First World nuclear weapons. It's in a downward spiral due to its collapsing population, shortening life-spans and shrinking economy. It might not even survive this century as a nation.
This has been the U.S.' biggest mistake: to give Russia respect it hasn't really earned. Maybe, as it turns out, Putin, a former top KGB operative, is more clever than Gorbachev. He knows our president needs a foreign affairs success.
Before President Obama signs off on anything, he'd do well to review the presidential history of dealings with the Soviets. He can learn from both Kennedy and Reagan.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Only in Obama's America- PART 1
Seventh Grade Accepts Bonus; Government Demands Return
CUPERTINO, Calif. - Brady Cooperman, a resourceful 13-year-old student at Christopher Columbus Junior High School in the heart of Silicon Valley, is facing some stiff penalties from the federal government for taking unprecedented bonuses in light of the dire economic situation.
Foe a year now, Cooperman has been working to earn enough money to buy an Xbox. He mows his elderly neighbors lawns weekly, runs errands, and helps with household chores. Last week one of his neighbors, Mr. Peter Rossdale, 82, gave him a $20 bonus on top of his weekly salary of $15.
"It's clear that Brady is accepting a big bonus," said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was given millions of dollars in bonuses himself when he was an investment banker. "We just can't allow fat cats like him to feast on the economy this way. Less than an hour's drive away from Mr. Cooperman's hometown, on the streets of San Francisco, are thousands of homeless people who have just as much right to that money."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents the city of San Francisco in Congress, also expressed her disdain at Brady's bonus.
"Do this boy's parents have no shame, teaching their own child to be so greedy?" Pelosi fumed at a press conference outside the Capitol. "This is the culture we have had to live in, ever since the disgraceful President Reagan had the audacity to suggest that some people deserve more just because they work harder or are more highly skilled at what they do! It's an outrage! Two words- NO MORE!"
Nonethless, family and friends close to Cooperman swiftly defended his bonus.
"He's a good boy," Mr. Rossdale said. "I don't know what I'd do without him. Ever since I broke my hip, I can't get up and around like I used to. I pay him $15 every week or so for helping me around the house with heavy liftng and whatnot. I know times are tough, so I slipped him an extra twenty dollars because he's been good to me and he's been saving up. I've known him since he was three."
Several other events are planned later in the week due to public outcry over the bonus. Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin says that her organization will come down from nearby Berkeley on Wednesday evening to hold a protest and candlelight vigil in front of Rossdale's home to express their objections to his decision to pay the bonus. On Saturday, the Oakland chapter of the NAACP will sponsor a bus tour to Rossdale's home, as well as the homes of many other elderly Cupertino residents whom Cooperman has done various odd jobs for.
It is clear that ever since the backlash at AIG when executives accepted lavish bonuses after requestng a federal bailout, the government isn't taking any chances when it comes to other business people, regardless of age, accepting bonuses, starting at a grassroots level.
Furthermore, should Brady Cooperman fail to return his bonus, he might face harsh charges on a state and federal level. And he'll never get that Xbox, either.
CUPERTINO, Calif. - Brady Cooperman, a resourceful 13-year-old student at Christopher Columbus Junior High School in the heart of Silicon Valley, is facing some stiff penalties from the federal government for taking unprecedented bonuses in light of the dire economic situation.
Foe a year now, Cooperman has been working to earn enough money to buy an Xbox. He mows his elderly neighbors lawns weekly, runs errands, and helps with household chores. Last week one of his neighbors, Mr. Peter Rossdale, 82, gave him a $20 bonus on top of his weekly salary of $15.
"It's clear that Brady is accepting a big bonus," said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was given millions of dollars in bonuses himself when he was an investment banker. "We just can't allow fat cats like him to feast on the economy this way. Less than an hour's drive away from Mr. Cooperman's hometown, on the streets of San Francisco, are thousands of homeless people who have just as much right to that money."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents the city of San Francisco in Congress, also expressed her disdain at Brady's bonus.
"Do this boy's parents have no shame, teaching their own child to be so greedy?" Pelosi fumed at a press conference outside the Capitol. "This is the culture we have had to live in, ever since the disgraceful President Reagan had the audacity to suggest that some people deserve more just because they work harder or are more highly skilled at what they do! It's an outrage! Two words- NO MORE!"
Nonethless, family and friends close to Cooperman swiftly defended his bonus.
"He's a good boy," Mr. Rossdale said. "I don't know what I'd do without him. Ever since I broke my hip, I can't get up and around like I used to. I pay him $15 every week or so for helping me around the house with heavy liftng and whatnot. I know times are tough, so I slipped him an extra twenty dollars because he's been good to me and he's been saving up. I've known him since he was three."
Several other events are planned later in the week due to public outcry over the bonus. Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin says that her organization will come down from nearby Berkeley on Wednesday evening to hold a protest and candlelight vigil in front of Rossdale's home to express their objections to his decision to pay the bonus. On Saturday, the Oakland chapter of the NAACP will sponsor a bus tour to Rossdale's home, as well as the homes of many other elderly Cupertino residents whom Cooperman has done various odd jobs for.
It is clear that ever since the backlash at AIG when executives accepted lavish bonuses after requestng a federal bailout, the government isn't taking any chances when it comes to other business people, regardless of age, accepting bonuses, starting at a grassroots level.
Furthermore, should Brady Cooperman fail to return his bonus, he might face harsh charges on a state and federal level. And he'll never get that Xbox, either.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
OBAMA ECONOMIC POLICY: Pouring Dirt On Dirt
Not too long ago, there was a United States president whose policies supercharged our economy and led to a prolonged period of job growth, massive stock market gains, and overall economic prosperity. This president slashed the capital gains taxes (thus providing more incentive for Americans to invest) and signed sweeping welfare reform into law, forcing many of the idle to enter the workforce for the first time, instead of allowing them to continue to be a severe economic burden to our society and the working taxpayers.
Most of you, without even thinking, assume I am speaking of Ronald Reagan. However, the president I just described, believe it or not, was BILL CLINTON. Despite being staunchly liberal on social issues, and despite his embarassing moral failures, he fortunately strayed far from the liberal mainstream on fiscal and economic issues, instead opting to expand even further the policies of the Reagan years that may very well have saved our economy from complete collapse. People's eyes started popping out of their heads when Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, declared that, "the era of big government is over."
It was the policies of the Reagan administration that got America back on the right track, and brought great prosperity to people of ALL economic classes (not only the rich, as his critics contend). In fact, the poorest Americans, who had seen their incomes fall 5% in the 1970's, then saw them rise 6% in the 1980's.
Reagan ended energy price controls once and for all early in his presidency, and slashed income taxes all the way across the income scale. By the end of his eight years in the White House, Reagan had lowered interest rates, slashed inflation, cut unemployment, and boosted economic growth in a way that no one thought possible. In fact, many of today's great companies came into existence during the "boom" years of the 1980's.
In fact, the plunge in interest rates during the 1980's is especially remarkable. In 1981, rates had soared to 21% (talk about a credit crunch). By 1990, the rates were down to 7%. This stood in complete contradiction to claims by the pseudo-intellectual "elite" that growing budget deficits in the 80's would cause interest rates to skyrocket.
Under President Bush the first, the U.S. slid into a nasty recession, which ultimately doomed his chances for reelection. However, Bush left the economy in such bad shape because he strayed away from the fiscal policies that his predecessor had put into place. In addition to breaking his "read my lips" pledge for no new taxes, Bush's administration presided over a record rise in government regulation.
The most disastrous example was the Financial Institions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. The intent of this legislation was to save the Savings & Loan industry from collapse. However, it was FIRREA that ultimately doomed the S & L's by requiring them to take HUGE writedowns on certain assets on their books, most notably high-yielding corporate bonds. This caused numerous S & L's to become insolvent and ultimately fail, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, since customer deposits were FDIC insured. You can blame all the Michael Milkens and Charlie Keatings you want for the S & L collapse in the late 80's and early 90's, but it was ultimately meddlesome government regulation that led to the entire fiasco (Although for the record, I'll be the first to admit that Keating was simply a crook who looted his own customers' deposits. Miliken, on the other hand, was the government's scapegoat who in reality is one of the greatest financial innovators of all time).
In the 1990's, President Clinton got our economy back on track not through enacting liberal econmic policies, but by breaking ranks and building upon the fiscal conservatism of the Reagan years. His first Treasury Secretary was long-time Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (the 1988 Democratic VP candidate), a conservative Democrat who was one of the last great bastians of the once great Democratic party of FDR and Harry Truman. Clinton probably also remembered the disastrous administration of President Jimmy Carter, which proved that liberal economic policy is the LAST thing the country needs when we are already in an economically precarious situation. Believe it or not, I greatly admire Clinton for putting partisan ideology aside and focusing instead on what was best for our economy.
Originally, President Clinton broke his campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut and raised taxes by a record amount. That brought upon one of the most sluggish recoveries from economic recession in history. However, things began to change after the mid-term elections of 1994, when Clinton worked with the new GOP-led Congress to shrink the deficit. Instead of bristling at the "Contract With America" implemented by Newt Gingrich and the new Congress, Clinton appeared, at least in his actions, to embrace it! And it sure paid off! As the deficit fell, the Fed cut interest rates, causing the economy and stock market to soar.
In 1997, Clinton, in true Reagan-esque fashion, cut capital gains taxes, leading to another great economic boom and unprecedented expansion of wealth, especially to the middle class. In 1980, only 16% of the working-class owned stock. By 2000, the number was up to 52%.
Nonetheless, when George W. Bush assumed the presidency in early 2001, he inherited a recession after the Fed had started raising interest rates in 1999. In typical Fed fashion, they had taken away the punch bowl just as the party was starting to get really good. The terrorist attacks of September 11 cast an even darker cloud over the economy.
Then, in 2003, President G.W. Bush and the GOP Congress made several major tax cuts, setting off a huge surge in economic growth that of course, most of the mainstream media chose to ignore. Our newly elected president, Barack Obama, says that despite the positive effect these tax cuts had on the economy, he is gong to allow them to "sunset" and not renew them, despite the fact that our economy is now in just about the worst shape since the Great Depression. Unlike Bill Clinton, it seems that Obama cannot put the most imminently urgent needs of this nation and its people above his own personal ideology.
In fact, even thus far in his short presidency, Obama has presided over the greatest EXPANSION of government in history. So far, all of the supposed economic "stimulus" (mostly earmarks pandering to various special interest groups that will only stimulate the political careers of certain members of Congress) has added up to ONE-THIRD of total national output, and will probably continue to grow.
The propoed new taxes and regulations coming from this administration and the Democratic-led Congress will bring a virtually unprecedented amount of government meddling into our private lives and private businesses. There will be sweeping new taxes, on EVERYONE. Even if you get 50 bucks more in your paycheck because of a temporary cut in income taxes, it will be more than wiped out by rises in sales tax, gasoline tax, capital gains/dividend tax, etc.
Socialism, as well as the subtle slouches towards it that we are now seeing, has never brought any hope or positive change to ANY society, only more misery, poverty, and economic malaise. This should come as no surprise, as people become more hopelessly dependent on a bloated and incompetent federal government, hoping it can at least provide the bare minimum. But what about those living in poverty who want a tad more than that, like the opportunity to move out of poverty for good (as many did in the 80's and 90's)? I'm afraid those folks are out of luck, since in order for liberal economic policy to survive, people need to be kept in poverty and dependent on the government for handout, after handout, after handout, etc. etc. etc. After all, if everyone became successful and econocally prosperous due to the truly American values of hard work, independence, and freedom from the bureaucratic machine, such quasi-socialist ideas would be dumped on the ash heap where they rightfully belong.
A few weeks ago, infamous liberal pundit Bill Maher was interviewed by Larry King about the current economic crisis. Although Maher is quite intelligent, entertaining, and no doubt funny as hell, he is no doubt miguided on several issues. In the interview, he attempted to discredit Republicans by touting how Bill Clinton was our only recent president who left the economy in better shape than when he took office. Once again though, this hardly proves that liberal economic policy is the least bit effective; in fact, it demonstrates precisely the opposite. Clinton indeed did leave our economy in good shape, but it was becase rather than shun Reagan-era policies, he in many ways expanded these policies even further with the help of a Republcan-controlled Congress, after the first President Bush had unfortunately strayed away from them.
As for the Obama administration and our present Democratic-controlled Congress, all they have done thus far is pour more dirt on dirt, apparently not having learned the difficult lessons of the 70's. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile gets so high that people start choking on it. Perhaps some already have . . .
Casey
Most of you, without even thinking, assume I am speaking of Ronald Reagan. However, the president I just described, believe it or not, was BILL CLINTON. Despite being staunchly liberal on social issues, and despite his embarassing moral failures, he fortunately strayed far from the liberal mainstream on fiscal and economic issues, instead opting to expand even further the policies of the Reagan years that may very well have saved our economy from complete collapse. People's eyes started popping out of their heads when Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, declared that, "the era of big government is over."
It was the policies of the Reagan administration that got America back on the right track, and brought great prosperity to people of ALL economic classes (not only the rich, as his critics contend). In fact, the poorest Americans, who had seen their incomes fall 5% in the 1970's, then saw them rise 6% in the 1980's.
Reagan ended energy price controls once and for all early in his presidency, and slashed income taxes all the way across the income scale. By the end of his eight years in the White House, Reagan had lowered interest rates, slashed inflation, cut unemployment, and boosted economic growth in a way that no one thought possible. In fact, many of today's great companies came into existence during the "boom" years of the 1980's.
In fact, the plunge in interest rates during the 1980's is especially remarkable. In 1981, rates had soared to 21% (talk about a credit crunch). By 1990, the rates were down to 7%. This stood in complete contradiction to claims by the pseudo-intellectual "elite" that growing budget deficits in the 80's would cause interest rates to skyrocket.
Under President Bush the first, the U.S. slid into a nasty recession, which ultimately doomed his chances for reelection. However, Bush left the economy in such bad shape because he strayed away from the fiscal policies that his predecessor had put into place. In addition to breaking his "read my lips" pledge for no new taxes, Bush's administration presided over a record rise in government regulation.
The most disastrous example was the Financial Institions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. The intent of this legislation was to save the Savings & Loan industry from collapse. However, it was FIRREA that ultimately doomed the S & L's by requiring them to take HUGE writedowns on certain assets on their books, most notably high-yielding corporate bonds. This caused numerous S & L's to become insolvent and ultimately fail, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, since customer deposits were FDIC insured. You can blame all the Michael Milkens and Charlie Keatings you want for the S & L collapse in the late 80's and early 90's, but it was ultimately meddlesome government regulation that led to the entire fiasco (Although for the record, I'll be the first to admit that Keating was simply a crook who looted his own customers' deposits. Miliken, on the other hand, was the government's scapegoat who in reality is one of the greatest financial innovators of all time).
In the 1990's, President Clinton got our economy back on track not through enacting liberal econmic policies, but by breaking ranks and building upon the fiscal conservatism of the Reagan years. His first Treasury Secretary was long-time Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen (the 1988 Democratic VP candidate), a conservative Democrat who was one of the last great bastians of the once great Democratic party of FDR and Harry Truman. Clinton probably also remembered the disastrous administration of President Jimmy Carter, which proved that liberal economic policy is the LAST thing the country needs when we are already in an economically precarious situation. Believe it or not, I greatly admire Clinton for putting partisan ideology aside and focusing instead on what was best for our economy.
Originally, President Clinton broke his campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut and raised taxes by a record amount. That brought upon one of the most sluggish recoveries from economic recession in history. However, things began to change after the mid-term elections of 1994, when Clinton worked with the new GOP-led Congress to shrink the deficit. Instead of bristling at the "Contract With America" implemented by Newt Gingrich and the new Congress, Clinton appeared, at least in his actions, to embrace it! And it sure paid off! As the deficit fell, the Fed cut interest rates, causing the economy and stock market to soar.
In 1997, Clinton, in true Reagan-esque fashion, cut capital gains taxes, leading to another great economic boom and unprecedented expansion of wealth, especially to the middle class. In 1980, only 16% of the working-class owned stock. By 2000, the number was up to 52%.
Nonetheless, when George W. Bush assumed the presidency in early 2001, he inherited a recession after the Fed had started raising interest rates in 1999. In typical Fed fashion, they had taken away the punch bowl just as the party was starting to get really good. The terrorist attacks of September 11 cast an even darker cloud over the economy.
Then, in 2003, President G.W. Bush and the GOP Congress made several major tax cuts, setting off a huge surge in economic growth that of course, most of the mainstream media chose to ignore. Our newly elected president, Barack Obama, says that despite the positive effect these tax cuts had on the economy, he is gong to allow them to "sunset" and not renew them, despite the fact that our economy is now in just about the worst shape since the Great Depression. Unlike Bill Clinton, it seems that Obama cannot put the most imminently urgent needs of this nation and its people above his own personal ideology.
In fact, even thus far in his short presidency, Obama has presided over the greatest EXPANSION of government in history. So far, all of the supposed economic "stimulus" (mostly earmarks pandering to various special interest groups that will only stimulate the political careers of certain members of Congress) has added up to ONE-THIRD of total national output, and will probably continue to grow.
The propoed new taxes and regulations coming from this administration and the Democratic-led Congress will bring a virtually unprecedented amount of government meddling into our private lives and private businesses. There will be sweeping new taxes, on EVERYONE. Even if you get 50 bucks more in your paycheck because of a temporary cut in income taxes, it will be more than wiped out by rises in sales tax, gasoline tax, capital gains/dividend tax, etc.
Socialism, as well as the subtle slouches towards it that we are now seeing, has never brought any hope or positive change to ANY society, only more misery, poverty, and economic malaise. This should come as no surprise, as people become more hopelessly dependent on a bloated and incompetent federal government, hoping it can at least provide the bare minimum. But what about those living in poverty who want a tad more than that, like the opportunity to move out of poverty for good (as many did in the 80's and 90's)? I'm afraid those folks are out of luck, since in order for liberal economic policy to survive, people need to be kept in poverty and dependent on the government for handout, after handout, after handout, etc. etc. etc. After all, if everyone became successful and econocally prosperous due to the truly American values of hard work, independence, and freedom from the bureaucratic machine, such quasi-socialist ideas would be dumped on the ash heap where they rightfully belong.
A few weeks ago, infamous liberal pundit Bill Maher was interviewed by Larry King about the current economic crisis. Although Maher is quite intelligent, entertaining, and no doubt funny as hell, he is no doubt miguided on several issues. In the interview, he attempted to discredit Republicans by touting how Bill Clinton was our only recent president who left the economy in better shape than when he took office. Once again though, this hardly proves that liberal economic policy is the least bit effective; in fact, it demonstrates precisely the opposite. Clinton indeed did leave our economy in good shape, but it was becase rather than shun Reagan-era policies, he in many ways expanded these policies even further with the help of a Republcan-controlled Congress, after the first President Bush had unfortunately strayed away from them.
As for the Obama administration and our present Democratic-controlled Congress, all they have done thus far is pour more dirt on dirt, apparently not having learned the difficult lessons of the 70's. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile gets so high that people start choking on it. Perhaps some already have . . .
Casey
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Modern Day Little Red Hen (Treatise in Economics)
Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said, “If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?”
“Not I,” said the cow.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Not I,” said the pig.
“Not I,” said the goose.
“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.
The wheat grew tall, and ripened into gold and grain.
“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Out of my classification,” said the pig.
“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.
“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.
At last, it came time to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake bread?” asked the little red hen.
“Well that would be overtime for me, said the cow.
“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.
“I’m a dropout, and never learned how,” said the pig.
“Well if I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination!” exclaimed the goose.
“Then I will,” said the little red hen. She baked five loaves, and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some, and in fact demanded a share.
But the little red hen said, “No- I can eat the five loaves myself.”
“Excess profits!” cried the cow.
“Capitalist greed!” yelled the duck.
“I demand equal rights!” screamed the goose.
And the pig just grunted . . .
Then they all painted picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”
“But I earned the bread,” protested the little red hen.
“Exactly,” said the agent. “That’s the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle.”
So they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and robotically clucked, “I am grateful . . . I am grateful.”
But her neighbors couldn’t help but wonder why she never again baked any more bread.
I guess that lately, a lot of us have been wondering something like that . . .
“Not I,” said the cow.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Not I,” said the pig.
“Not I,” said the goose.
“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.
The wheat grew tall, and ripened into gold and grain.
“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Out of my classification,” said the pig.
“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.
“Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did.
At last, it came time to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake bread?” asked the little red hen.
“Well that would be overtime for me, said the cow.
“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.
“I’m a dropout, and never learned how,” said the pig.
“Well if I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination!” exclaimed the goose.
“Then I will,” said the little red hen. She baked five loaves, and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some, and in fact demanded a share.
But the little red hen said, “No- I can eat the five loaves myself.”
“Excess profits!” cried the cow.
“Capitalist greed!” yelled the duck.
“I demand equal rights!” screamed the goose.
And the pig just grunted . . .
Then they all painted picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”
“But I earned the bread,” protested the little red hen.
“Exactly,” said the agent. “That’s the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle.”
So they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and robotically clucked, “I am grateful . . . I am grateful.”
But her neighbors couldn’t help but wonder why she never again baked any more bread.
I guess that lately, a lot of us have been wondering something like that . . .
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Want the Interest Rate of Your Dreams? Just Stop Paying Your Mortgage!!!
That's the message coming across loud and clear in the Obama administration's plans to help "distressed" homeowners. Ideally, people who have defaulted on their home mortgages and are close to foreclosure will be given the opportuinity to refinance through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (sheesh . . . do we ever learn?) at interest rates UNDER 5%. This is sure music to the ears of those who bought more home than they could reasonably afford, and are now on their knees pleading with Messiah Obama for help, but as you can imagine, it has many others stark raving mad. On one national newscast tonight, a woman was interviewed who just finished paying off the mortgage on her home for good, and at an interest rate that was, let's say, a TAD higher than 5%. She was understandably upset because although she was responsible (i.e. made her payments on time, purchased a home within her price range, made sure her credit was good so she could get a fixed rate rather than subprime), it's the irresponsible ones who are set to be rewarded. At a time when this woman should be celebrating and feel that a load has been taken off of her shoulders by paying off her mortgage in full, she feels cheated, and understandlably so.
Unfortunately, there's more to it than that. Let's consider Man/Wife #1 who are in good shape financially and are current on their house payments. Their mortgage rate is 6.5% or so fixed. Because they are current on the payments, they would not qualify as "distressed" homeowners and would therefore be ineligible to refinance at the lower rate through our good pals Fannie and Freddie (who by the way, have both been lining Obama's pockets quite generously since his 2006 Senate run). Just down the street from our first couple lives Man/Wife #2. They earn far less income and have rotten credit, so they were given a no down payment, subprime mortgage. The subprime period ended a few months ago, their monthly housing payment skyrocketed, and they are now seriously in arrears, with the bank about to commence foreclosure on their home. However, it's none other than Fannie and Freddie coming to their rescue, refinancing them at a fixed rate even far lower than rates offered to those with a six-figure income and spotless credit. At first, Man/Wife #1 are furious, but then they figure that instead of raging at the system, they might as well play along and use it to their advantage.
Do you see where I am going here? Man/Wife #1 simply need to stop making their mortgage payments. After a few months past due, the bank will start threatening foreclosure. Once that happens, voila! Man/Wife #1 are now "distressed" homeowners and can get the Fannie/Freddie refininancing at a much lower rate than if they had continued making their payments on time.
Many "well to do" people throughout the nation are already poised to take full advantage of this "distressed" homeowner assistance program. Even two months ago, shortly after Obama's election, I read a column in Kiplinger's where the author reported that he had recently attended a dinner party with mainly A-list people who were hardly in a financially precarious situation. The main topic of conversation among many of the guests was that once Obama unraveled his plan, they would purposely stop paying their mortgage so they could get their handout like everyone else. The topic then shifted to things they could do with the money they "save" from not paying their mortgage, such as a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus and the dream vacation to Europe they've always wanted to take.
This is a classic illustration of exactly why conservatives and libertarians staunchly oppose all of these government assistance and social welfare programs. It's not because we have a cold, uncaring attitude towards the poor and downtrodden, but rather because in reality, such utopian programs always backfire. There will always be plenty of ingenious, self-serving people who take advantage of such programs for their own benefit, often at the expense of those who the programs were originally intended to help.
But wait a minute- isn't that precisely why we have a subprime mortgage crisis in the first place, along with the accompanying economic meltdown? Who really benefitted from the politically correct (yet economically unsound) idea that home ownership is a right, and that we should thus force banks to lend to groups who are "underrepresented" in home ownership? Those from the underrepresented demographic themselves? No, they've lost their homes to foreclosure and have learned, in the most painful way possible, that if something sounds too good to be true, there's probably a good reason why. The ones who REALLY benefitted were the mortgage brokers, the predatory lenders, the credit default swap holders and underwriters, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet that some of those exact same people are among the ones foaming at the mouth right now at the propect of another opportunity to use the system to handsomely enrich themselves, this time by purposely defaulting on their mortgage in order to get the refi rate of their dreams.
So far, everything this new administration has proposed for restoring the economy amounts to nothing more than pouring dirt on dirt. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile becomes so huge that we all suffocate on it. As much as I am looking forward to 2012 and the end of this entire Obama farce, I am simultaneously frightened at how much further harm will have been done by then.
Unfortunately, there's more to it than that. Let's consider Man/Wife #1 who are in good shape financially and are current on their house payments. Their mortgage rate is 6.5% or so fixed. Because they are current on the payments, they would not qualify as "distressed" homeowners and would therefore be ineligible to refinance at the lower rate through our good pals Fannie and Freddie (who by the way, have both been lining Obama's pockets quite generously since his 2006 Senate run). Just down the street from our first couple lives Man/Wife #2. They earn far less income and have rotten credit, so they were given a no down payment, subprime mortgage. The subprime period ended a few months ago, their monthly housing payment skyrocketed, and they are now seriously in arrears, with the bank about to commence foreclosure on their home. However, it's none other than Fannie and Freddie coming to their rescue, refinancing them at a fixed rate even far lower than rates offered to those with a six-figure income and spotless credit. At first, Man/Wife #1 are furious, but then they figure that instead of raging at the system, they might as well play along and use it to their advantage.
Do you see where I am going here? Man/Wife #1 simply need to stop making their mortgage payments. After a few months past due, the bank will start threatening foreclosure. Once that happens, voila! Man/Wife #1 are now "distressed" homeowners and can get the Fannie/Freddie refininancing at a much lower rate than if they had continued making their payments on time.
Many "well to do" people throughout the nation are already poised to take full advantage of this "distressed" homeowner assistance program. Even two months ago, shortly after Obama's election, I read a column in Kiplinger's where the author reported that he had recently attended a dinner party with mainly A-list people who were hardly in a financially precarious situation. The main topic of conversation among many of the guests was that once Obama unraveled his plan, they would purposely stop paying their mortgage so they could get their handout like everyone else. The topic then shifted to things they could do with the money they "save" from not paying their mortgage, such as a shopping spree at Neiman Marcus and the dream vacation to Europe they've always wanted to take.
This is a classic illustration of exactly why conservatives and libertarians staunchly oppose all of these government assistance and social welfare programs. It's not because we have a cold, uncaring attitude towards the poor and downtrodden, but rather because in reality, such utopian programs always backfire. There will always be plenty of ingenious, self-serving people who take advantage of such programs for their own benefit, often at the expense of those who the programs were originally intended to help.
But wait a minute- isn't that precisely why we have a subprime mortgage crisis in the first place, along with the accompanying economic meltdown? Who really benefitted from the politically correct (yet economically unsound) idea that home ownership is a right, and that we should thus force banks to lend to groups who are "underrepresented" in home ownership? Those from the underrepresented demographic themselves? No, they've lost their homes to foreclosure and have learned, in the most painful way possible, that if something sounds too good to be true, there's probably a good reason why. The ones who REALLY benefitted were the mortgage brokers, the predatory lenders, the credit default swap holders and underwriters, etc. In fact, I'm willing to bet that some of those exact same people are among the ones foaming at the mouth right now at the propect of another opportunity to use the system to handsomely enrich themselves, this time by purposely defaulting on their mortgage in order to get the refi rate of their dreams.
So far, everything this new administration has proposed for restoring the economy amounts to nothing more than pouring dirt on dirt. The problem is that eventually, the dirt pile becomes so huge that we all suffocate on it. As much as I am looking forward to 2012 and the end of this entire Obama farce, I am simultaneously frightened at how much further harm will have been done by then.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Robert Reich = ROGUE Economist
These were the ACTUAL words of Obama economic advisor Robert Reich during recent testimony to help Congress decide how economic stimulus money should be spent:
”I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well.”
Oh yes, Mr. Reich, heaven forbid that we would want SKILLED people performing a job!
All I have heard so far from Obama's administration about "job creation" only refers to blue-collar jobs, as if those types of workers are the only ones unemployed right now. Any meaningful "job creation" means creating jobs for ALL!!! How will America prosper again if it keeps its best and brightest on the sidelines? Not everyone is cut out to be a construction worker, and besides, those who provide intellectual capital (which experts insist is extremely important in today's global business market) should not be forced to choose between menial work or no work at all.
”I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well.”
Oh yes, Mr. Reich, heaven forbid that we would want SKILLED people performing a job!
All I have heard so far from Obama's administration about "job creation" only refers to blue-collar jobs, as if those types of workers are the only ones unemployed right now. Any meaningful "job creation" means creating jobs for ALL!!! How will America prosper again if it keeps its best and brightest on the sidelines? Not everyone is cut out to be a construction worker, and besides, those who provide intellectual capital (which experts insist is extremely important in today's global business market) should not be forced to choose between menial work or no work at all.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Black Ministers ALREADY Upset With Obama
WOW! I predicted this, but even I couldn't have foreseen it happening this soon . . .
(Jan. 23) - Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obama’s religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said. Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.
But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"
Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers.
Parshall noted that atheists were celebrating the unexpected mention, and indeed they were: "In his inaugural address … President Barack Obama did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of America as part of the nation's great strength, and including 'nonbelievers'’ in that mix,’" said Ed Buckner of American Atheists.
"His mother would have been proud,"’ Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama’s mother was not a church-goer. "And so are we."
Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.’" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’
With all the focus on Obama as the first African-American president, the succession of black callers to Janet Parshall's show was a reminder that the "community"’ is not a monolith, and that many socially conservative black Americans are at odds with Obama's views, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Nor do they all define civil rights in the same way.
The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"’ period.
But his even bigger beef with the president, he said, is that a disproportionate number of "black kids are dying each day through abortion. President Obama is supportive of abortion, and that's a genocide on black folks. Nobody wants to talk about that as a civil rights issue."
(Jan. 23) - Not everyone was happy with President Barack Obama's nod to nonbelievers and non-Christians in his inaugural address. And some of the stiff criticism about Obama’s religious inclusiveness is coming from African-American Christians who maintain that no, all faiths were actually not created equal.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," the new president said. "We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth," he also said. Nothing too controversial, proclaiming that America's strength lies in its diversity.
But between those two statements, the new president got specific: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.
With that one line, the president "seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian," said’ Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’"
Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers.
Parshall noted that atheists were celebrating the unexpected mention, and indeed they were: "In his inaugural address … President Barack Obama did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of America as part of the nation's great strength, and including 'nonbelievers'’ in that mix,’" said Ed Buckner of American Atheists.
"His mother would have been proud,"’ Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama’s mother was not a church-goer. "And so are we."
Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that "this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.’" Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: "He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, 'We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.'"
Not so, Jackson says: "Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."’
With all the focus on Obama as the first African-American president, the succession of black callers to Janet Parshall's show was a reminder that the "community"’ is not a monolith, and that many socially conservative black Americans are at odds with Obama's views, particularly on abortion and gay rights. Nor do they all define civil rights in the same way.
The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"’ period.
But his even bigger beef with the president, he said, is that a disproportionate number of "black kids are dying each day through abortion. President Obama is supportive of abortion, and that's a genocide on black folks. Nobody wants to talk about that as a civil rights issue."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Probably NOT What MLK Had in Mind
A friend of mine posted this earlier today . . . Very insightful I must say:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
With the election of our first black president, some would say that King's Dream has been realized, but when you look at the exit poll number from the election you have to wonder if the opposite of King’s dream has been realized - the victory of race over content, competence and character.
According to exit polls, over 95% of African Americans cast ballots for Barack Obama. A look at the military election results demonstrates this disproportionate relation.
Candidate: McCain -- Obama
Overall: 68% -- 23%
Black/African-American: 12% -- 79%
Electing a black President goes a long way to proving that we have indeed fulfilled Martin Luther King’s vision of America as a place of true equality. That doesn’t make me a fan of Barack Obama, mind you, because I’m much more concerned over policy than skin color — and that’s also a fulfillment of Dr.King’s vision. It just makes me a fan of America.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
With the election of our first black president, some would say that King's Dream has been realized, but when you look at the exit poll number from the election you have to wonder if the opposite of King’s dream has been realized - the victory of race over content, competence and character.
According to exit polls, over 95% of African Americans cast ballots for Barack Obama. A look at the military election results demonstrates this disproportionate relation.
Candidate: McCain -- Obama
Overall: 68% -- 23%
Black/African-American: 12% -- 79%
Electing a black President goes a long way to proving that we have indeed fulfilled Martin Luther King’s vision of America as a place of true equality. That doesn’t make me a fan of Barack Obama, mind you, because I’m much more concerned over policy than skin color — and that’s also a fulfillment of Dr.King’s vision. It just makes me a fan of America.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Proof of How Shameful Our Media Has Become
Winning Isn't News By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq . London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders inWashington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering. We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy. Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.
Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended. Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside. Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved ¡satisfactory' progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.' Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page st ories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.' The war in Iraq has been turned around180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.
Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican-initiated response to 9/11. Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in order to give him credit.
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq . London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders inWashington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering. We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy. Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.
Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended. Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside. Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved ¡satisfactory' progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.' Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page st ories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.' The war in Iraq has been turned around180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.
Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican-initiated response to 9/11. Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in order to give him credit.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Reagan Bashers, Listen Up!!!
Natan Sharansky is a devout Jew and former Soviet dissident who was imprisoned by the KGB for several years. He has authored a brilliant book titled "The Case For Democracy" in which he, among other things, recalls his days as a Soviet political prisoner. He states very plainly the vital role that Ronald Reagan played in the collapse of communism. Believe me, I'd take Mr. Sharansky's word over that of any of today's elitist liberals who label Reagan as "overrated" and who yearn for our great country to slouch towards socialism, appease state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, and allow the government to gain even more control over people's lives than it already has (i.e. mandatory community service, socialized medicine, spreading the wealth, etc., etc.):
"Today, it is fashionable to believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of who sat in the White House or which policies were adopted in Washington. In this view, Reagan was simply lucky, a man in the right place at the right time who benefited from an inexorable historical process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Had Reagan chosen to cooperate with the Soviet regime rather than compete with it, accommodate it rather than confront it, the hundreds of millions of people he helped free would still be living under tyranny."
"Instead of lending a hand to a sick society, as advocates of detente were calling for, Reagan was determined to increase the pressure. The U.S. president instinctively understood . . . A fear society is no match for a free society that can unleash the creative genius of its own people."
"The U.S. president's faith in freedom's eventual triumph was matched by a deep distrust of totalitarian regimes. When he justified his decision to build an eleborate strategic missile defense system as a means of safeguarding America against the belligerent intentions of a non-Democratic regime, he was essentially telling the world . . . A country that does not respect the rights of its own citizens will not respect the rights of its neighbors."
*Don't we see some parallels in today's society? Specifically in Iran, as well as the Gaza Strip under Hamas rule (which appears thankfully to be close to its end)?
"Reagan's challlenge to the Soviets was as much moral as it was economic, which is why the impact of his policies on the lives of Soviet dissidents was no less dramatic. One day, my Soviet jailors gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda (state-controlled newspaper in the former USSR). Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an `evil empire.' Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's `provocation' quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth- a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us . . . there had been much criticism of Reagan's decision to cast the struggle between the superpowers as a battle between good and evil. Well, Reagan was right, and his critics were wrong."
-Natan Sharansky
"The Case for Democracy"
"Today, it is fashionable to believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of who sat in the White House or which policies were adopted in Washington. In this view, Reagan was simply lucky, a man in the right place at the right time who benefited from an inexorable historical process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Had Reagan chosen to cooperate with the Soviet regime rather than compete with it, accommodate it rather than confront it, the hundreds of millions of people he helped free would still be living under tyranny."
"Instead of lending a hand to a sick society, as advocates of detente were calling for, Reagan was determined to increase the pressure. The U.S. president instinctively understood . . . A fear society is no match for a free society that can unleash the creative genius of its own people."
"The U.S. president's faith in freedom's eventual triumph was matched by a deep distrust of totalitarian regimes. When he justified his decision to build an eleborate strategic missile defense system as a means of safeguarding America against the belligerent intentions of a non-Democratic regime, he was essentially telling the world . . . A country that does not respect the rights of its own citizens will not respect the rights of its neighbors."
*Don't we see some parallels in today's society? Specifically in Iran, as well as the Gaza Strip under Hamas rule (which appears thankfully to be close to its end)?
"Reagan's challlenge to the Soviets was as much moral as it was economic, which is why the impact of his policies on the lives of Soviet dissidents was no less dramatic. One day, my Soviet jailors gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda (state-controlled newspaper in the former USSR). Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an `evil empire.' Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's `provocation' quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth- a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us . . . there had been much criticism of Reagan's decision to cast the struggle between the superpowers as a battle between good and evil. Well, Reagan was right, and his critics were wrong."
-Natan Sharansky
"The Case for Democracy"
Supreme Court Gets It Right!
I have been closely following this case ever since the 9th Circuit's terrible ruling, and am so happy that our nation's highest court struck the ruling down. To me, it's not so much an abortion issue as a first amendment issue. The 9th Circuit pretty much ignored CBR's constitutional rights, even though the group never drove onto or set foot onto school property. It was judicial activism at its worst, and I am glad we have a Supreme Court that still understands that our nation is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a police state. Had the lower court's ruling been allowed to stand, it would have set a precedent of absolutely disastrous proportions.
Columbus, OH – January 15, 2009 – The U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld the rights of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform to display graphic abortion photos in California.
In July 2008, a panel of California judges ruled that pro-life activists could not show their graphic signs depicting aborted babies in a location adjacent to a middle school. The case involved a 75-minute police detention of two members CBR. CBR members had been driving a box bodied truck that displayed large photos of first-term aborted babies on its sides.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, brought the case on behalf of CBR.
“This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and the pro-life movement,” said Robert Musie, trial counsel for CBR’s case.
Columbus, OH – January 15, 2009 – The U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld the rights of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform to display graphic abortion photos in California.
In July 2008, a panel of California judges ruled that pro-life activists could not show their graphic signs depicting aborted babies in a location adjacent to a middle school. The case involved a 75-minute police detention of two members CBR. CBR members had been driving a box bodied truck that displayed large photos of first-term aborted babies on its sides.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, brought the case on behalf of CBR.
“This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and the pro-life movement,” said Robert Musie, trial counsel for CBR’s case.
Casey Blog is Back!!!
I know you all missed me . . . my deepest apologies! It was a pretty busy holiday season, and I also just moved back to my native Arizona. I am sure you all know how much of a big pain moving can be. Anyways, I sure have plenty to blog about, so here is an upcoming preview of what you can expect in the coming weeks:
1.) Policing the Credit Card Companies, Dick Morris Style
2.) Hamas's Human Shields and anti-Israel Propoganda
3.) Open Letter to Sarah Palin
4.) Note to Obama: If You Believe in Public Education, Why Do You Send Your Own Daughters to Private School?
5.) Hilary Clinton's Qualifications for Secretary of State (A Blank One For Now)
6.) Appeasing Iran: Jeopardizing Our National Security With the Ultimate Exercise in Futility
7.) The ULTIMATE Double Standard: Sarah Palin vs. Caroline Kennedy
8.) The Employee "Free Choice" Act: A Misnomer on Its Face
9.) We're Spreading Enough Wealth Already!
10.) Advice to GOP: Lay Off the Culture War Rhetoric
11.) Why Blacks Will End Up Hating Obama
12.) Where's the "Bailout" for Madoff's Victims?
13.) What GM Really Needs: Bankruptcy, Not Bailout
14.) Raising Capital Gains Taxes: The Final Economic "Nail In the Coffin"
15.) The Failure of Universal Health Insurance: Lessons From the State Level
I've Also Read Several Books Lately, New Books and Timeless Classics, and Plan on Posting Reviews on My Blog. A Few of Those Books Include:
-The Subprime Solution, by Robert J. Shiller
-The Conscience of a Liberal (Yes I'm Trying to Keep a Straight Face), by Krugman
-Eat the Rich, by P.J. O'Rourke
-The Eighties: America In the Age of Reagan, by John Ehrman
-Fleeced, by Dick Morris
-Do The Right Thing, by Mike Huckabee
-Hot, Flat, and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman
-Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell
-My Grandfather's Son, by Clarence Thomas
-The Tyranny of Good Intentions, by Roberts and Stratton
-Liberal Facism, by Jonah Goldberg
-They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, by Jacob Heilrunn
-The Devil We Know: Dealing With the New Iranian Superpower, by Robert Baer
-The Dirty Dozen, by Levy and Mellor
-The Politics of Freedom, by David Boaz
-Fall From Grace: The Untold Story of Michael Milken, by Fenton Bailey
-The Case Against Barack Obama, by David Freddoso
-The Case For Democracy, by Natan Sharansky
-The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, by Alan Dershowitz
*Obviously, I have a LOT of blogging to do, but I'm looking forward to it! The next four years are going to be a field day for me, and I invite you all to partake in the festivities! Also, starting next week, look for "Obama Gaffe" of the day =)
Respecfully and of Course Conservatively,
Casey
1.) Policing the Credit Card Companies, Dick Morris Style
2.) Hamas's Human Shields and anti-Israel Propoganda
3.) Open Letter to Sarah Palin
4.) Note to Obama: If You Believe in Public Education, Why Do You Send Your Own Daughters to Private School?
5.) Hilary Clinton's Qualifications for Secretary of State (A Blank One For Now)
6.) Appeasing Iran: Jeopardizing Our National Security With the Ultimate Exercise in Futility
7.) The ULTIMATE Double Standard: Sarah Palin vs. Caroline Kennedy
8.) The Employee "Free Choice" Act: A Misnomer on Its Face
9.) We're Spreading Enough Wealth Already!
10.) Advice to GOP: Lay Off the Culture War Rhetoric
11.) Why Blacks Will End Up Hating Obama
12.) Where's the "Bailout" for Madoff's Victims?
13.) What GM Really Needs: Bankruptcy, Not Bailout
14.) Raising Capital Gains Taxes: The Final Economic "Nail In the Coffin"
15.) The Failure of Universal Health Insurance: Lessons From the State Level
I've Also Read Several Books Lately, New Books and Timeless Classics, and Plan on Posting Reviews on My Blog. A Few of Those Books Include:
-The Subprime Solution, by Robert J. Shiller
-The Conscience of a Liberal (Yes I'm Trying to Keep a Straight Face), by Krugman
-Eat the Rich, by P.J. O'Rourke
-The Eighties: America In the Age of Reagan, by John Ehrman
-Fleeced, by Dick Morris
-Do The Right Thing, by Mike Huckabee
-Hot, Flat, and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman
-Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell
-My Grandfather's Son, by Clarence Thomas
-The Tyranny of Good Intentions, by Roberts and Stratton
-Liberal Facism, by Jonah Goldberg
-They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, by Jacob Heilrunn
-The Devil We Know: Dealing With the New Iranian Superpower, by Robert Baer
-The Dirty Dozen, by Levy and Mellor
-The Politics of Freedom, by David Boaz
-Fall From Grace: The Untold Story of Michael Milken, by Fenton Bailey
-The Case Against Barack Obama, by David Freddoso
-The Case For Democracy, by Natan Sharansky
-The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, by Alan Dershowitz
*Obviously, I have a LOT of blogging to do, but I'm looking forward to it! The next four years are going to be a field day for me, and I invite you all to partake in the festivities! Also, starting next week, look for "Obama Gaffe" of the day =)
Respecfully and of Course Conservatively,
Casey
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Obama Already Showing His Corrupt Side?
What's most ironic is the source of these facts . . . not Fox News, not Ann Coulter, but the YOUNG TURKS, normally big time liberal Obama cheerleaders. Better now than never they learn that Obama is no Messiah, but a typical politician, now espousing the same behaviors that he at least pretended to condemn during the campaign:
-The single largest contributor to Obama's "inauguration fund" is none other than CITIGROUP!!! This is the same troubled financial institution that, to date, has received $45 billion in government bailouts. They have so far given $113,000 to the inauguration fund. Could this possibly have anything to do with President Bush's decision earlier this week to grant Obama's request to release the second half of the bailout monies?
-Another troubled financial institution, Goldman Sachs, has contributed almost $45,000 to the same fund. JP Morgan Chase has contributed over $30,000.
-As a matter of fact, Goldman Sachs was the second largest contributor to Obama's presidential campaign, to the tune of $884,000. JP Morgan Chase gave $600,000. Morgan Stanley gave just over $400,000.
Let's just wait and see how these banks' good deeds get rewarded when it comes time for Obama and his administration to decide who gets the biggest handout from the federal government coffers (a.k.a. our tax dollars). This would have been the perfect opportunity for Obama to prove, even before he assumes the presidency, that things would change under his watch. He could have refused the donations, and return those he already took, to send the clear message that he works for the PEOPLE (imagine that) and is not for sale. But has he done this? Of course not.
However, we shouldn't be that surprised. After all, this is the same Barack Obama who took a big contribution to his Senate campaign two years ago from Fannie Mae. In return, he, along with other Democrats in Congress who accepted compaign contributions from the mortgage giant, kept the regulators away. We now see where that has gotten us. I just can't help but feel sorry for all of the people, particularly minorities and the poor, who still don't know what a big disappointment they are in for.
FURTHER FOOD FOR THOUGHT: If the government can afford to cough up all of this money to rescue financial institutions, many who were guilty of gross mismanagement and downright incomptence, how come they can''t come up with a measly $20 billion dollars to pay back all of the people and charity organizations who were swindled by that crook Bernie Madoff, people who did nothing wrong at all?
-The single largest contributor to Obama's "inauguration fund" is none other than CITIGROUP!!! This is the same troubled financial institution that, to date, has received $45 billion in government bailouts. They have so far given $113,000 to the inauguration fund. Could this possibly have anything to do with President Bush's decision earlier this week to grant Obama's request to release the second half of the bailout monies?
-Another troubled financial institution, Goldman Sachs, has contributed almost $45,000 to the same fund. JP Morgan Chase has contributed over $30,000.
-As a matter of fact, Goldman Sachs was the second largest contributor to Obama's presidential campaign, to the tune of $884,000. JP Morgan Chase gave $600,000. Morgan Stanley gave just over $400,000.
Let's just wait and see how these banks' good deeds get rewarded when it comes time for Obama and his administration to decide who gets the biggest handout from the federal government coffers (a.k.a. our tax dollars). This would have been the perfect opportunity for Obama to prove, even before he assumes the presidency, that things would change under his watch. He could have refused the donations, and return those he already took, to send the clear message that he works for the PEOPLE (imagine that) and is not for sale. But has he done this? Of course not.
However, we shouldn't be that surprised. After all, this is the same Barack Obama who took a big contribution to his Senate campaign two years ago from Fannie Mae. In return, he, along with other Democrats in Congress who accepted compaign contributions from the mortgage giant, kept the regulators away. We now see where that has gotten us. I just can't help but feel sorry for all of the people, particularly minorities and the poor, who still don't know what a big disappointment they are in for.
FURTHER FOOD FOR THOUGHT: If the government can afford to cough up all of this money to rescue financial institutions, many who were guilty of gross mismanagement and downright incomptence, how come they can''t come up with a measly $20 billion dollars to pay back all of the people and charity organizations who were swindled by that crook Bernie Madoff, people who did nothing wrong at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)