The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change

The Rise and Fall of Hope and Change

Alexis de Toqueville

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville

The United States Capitol Building

The United States Capitol Building

The Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention

The Continental Congress

The Continental Congress

George Washington at Valley Forge

George Washington at Valley Forge

Thursday, June 30, 2011

The New Desperation Of Team Obama

From Town Hall:




Lurita Doan





The New Desperation of Team Obama



6/27/2011
Email Lurita Doan
Columnist's Archive









































Share













0digg







Sign-Up







Team Obama is looking more desperate these days. The signs of desperation are clearly visible—Obama playing to a half-packed house in Miami, Obama using increasingly shrill arguments that his job creation efforts are working, Geithner’s threats regarding the debt ceiling and the Democrat-influenced mainstream media’s increasing criticisms of the Republican slate of presidential primary candidates. If Obama’s policies are so successful and if the country is doing so well, why do Americans see this growing desperation in Team Obama?



Team Obama’s desperation seems to stem from a fear of the unknown—how will it be possible for them to win congressional seats and keep the Presidency in 2012 when many Americans are seeing through the Obama Administration’s promises and the illusions of “hope and change”.



The five hundred promises made by Obama during his first presidential campaign have not been implemented. The economic philosophies of Democrat-led states, that high taxes and increased government spending will create prosperity, have proven to be a failure. Just look at states such as California, Michigan and Illinois. And, the state that most clearly implemented a Republican, capitalist, free market approach to governing, Texas, is thriving and growing.



Yet, even this failure of ideology is not what is creating the growing desperation among Democrats. These ideological failures are just emblematic of much larger issues, and the root cause of Team Obama’s growing desperation.



It may well be that Democrats are growing more desperate because they no longer have ACORN to ensure success at the polls in November 2012.



Think about it. In recent elections, Democrat party success has depended, in a large part, upon an uninformed electorate and an entitlement-heavy electorate showing up at the polls to vote. Any, but the most die-hard sycophants now realize that Obama’s ideological policies have been failures, so Democrats need to ensure that the message of failure doesn’t reach voters and that more and more of those beholden to the entitlement-rich policies of Obama show up to vote.



In the past, ACORN seems to have performed a valuable function for the Democrat party. They helped to swell the ranks with anyone willing to vote for Democrat candidates. ACORN was hugely successful too and was able to register millions of new voters, some living, some not. Moreover, when even ACORN ran short of new voters to register, it seems they made up fictitious names (the starting line-up for the Dallas Cowboys for example) to further pad the voting rolls for loyal Democrat votes.



But that jig is up and the question now is where will Democrats go to recruit, or invent, a new crop voters?



Clearly, modern economic demographics give Democrats a huge edge. A 2009 and 2010 “Index of Dependence Government” survey of voters that voted in the last presidential election shows that almost 50% were dependent upon the federal, state or local government. In addition, studies have now show that almost 50% of Americans do not pay taxes, so they have no incentive to vote to lower taxes and every incentive to vote for candidates promising increased entitlements. Not too surprisingly, these folks make up the core of support for Obama. The obvious problem here is the folks actually paying for the government are now outnumbered by the folks that do not.



Democrats have thus learned that the trick to eternal electoral success in congress is to keep promising more entitlements and expansion of government services, safe in the knowledge that fewer and fewer of their supporters will ever be required to pay the added taxes that an expanding welfare state requires. And that is why ACORN served Democrats so faithfully by expanding the rolls even more to include more and more “voters” that are dependent upon the continued expansion of government.



With ACORN exposed, Democrats and Team Obama are going to have a more difficult time cobbling together an electoral mass. It is obvious to nearly everyone (save the ACORN Voters) that Obama’s economic policies are making the nation less competitive, more indebted, and less prosperous.



But the stakes are high so expect Democrats to find innovative ways to push as many ill-informed and dodgy voters to the polls as possible, even without ACORN. After all, federal, state and local government are big business—accounting for almost $7 trillion dollars spent annually. With a GDP just a bit over $14 Trillion, it is clear that the government controls or indirectly influences almost 50% of the nation’s economy, either directly, through its spending or its regulatory overreach.



ACORN was an easy vehicle to which Democrats could funnel funds that could be distributed as get-out-the-vote money and other incentives to advance the Democrat agenda. Now that ACORN is gone, the void is vast, the stakes are high, and Democrats have no guarantee that they can induce an uninformed electorate to vote in November 2012.



What Democrats have fallen back on is paltry in comparison—the three Ds—decry, demagogue and divert.



First, Democrats decry—using the blame game (blaming George Bush for all ills) despite Obama’s 29 months in office. Second, Democrats resort to demagoguery—portraying honest efforts at reining in out-of-control spending, such as Paul Ryan’s budget cutting proposal, as insensitive and un-American. Third, Democrats divert attention from their failed policies by fear-mongering among an uninformed electorate—whether the end of the world unless “green policies and jobs” are implemented or whether it’s the end of the nation unless the debt ceiling is raised and entitlement spending is increased, or whether it is scaring elderly citizens about Medicare/Medicaid entitlements.



Decrying GOP efforts, demagoguing GOP efforts and diverting attention via fear-mongering is designed to divert attention away from the failure of the Obama Administration to grow the economy, their failure to create the jobs promised and the Administration’s failure to bring the hope and change promised.



FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself, which is why Republicans need to be very careful about what Democrat-led desperation will resort to next.















Tags: 2012 Election , Jobs and Economy , Barack Obama









Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Obama Gingerly Weighs-In On NLRB Attack On Boeing Jobs

From Red State:

Obama ‘Gingerly’ Weighs In On NLRB Attack On Boeing Jobs












Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)



Wednesday, June 29th at 4:30PM EDT

13 Comments



Ever since his union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board launched an attack on the Boeing Company and its creating thousands of jobs in South Carolina, the ‘independent’ union agency has found itself the subject of much derision and President Obama has been challenged to ‘step up‘ and tell the NLRB to back off.



On Wednesday, according to the Hill, Obama finally “weighed in” on the NLRB fracas…gingerly:





President Obama weighed in on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) legal complaint against airplane manufacturer Boeing for the first time Wednesday, saying he hoped the company and union officials could resolve their differences.



[snip]



….Obama addressed the case gingerly Wednesday, saying he didn’t have all the facts.



But the president said he hoped it could be resolved quickly.



[snip]



“It’s an independent agency and it’s going before a judge, so I don’t want to get into all the details of the case,” he said during a news conference. “We can’t afford to have labor and management fighting all the time at a time when we’re competing against China and Germany and other countries who want to sell goods all around the world.



“The airplane industry is an area where we still have a huge advantage … I want to make sure that we keep it,” he added.



It does seem that the President wants the NLRB issue to go away as quickly as possible. If he is truly serious about creating jobs in America, his union appointees at both the NLRB and the Department of Labor–with their continued assaults on job creators making investing in American jobs even less likely–are doing him no favors. As a result, heading into 2012, the NLRB attack on Boeing is likely to remain a 787-sized albatross around his neck and, as the case lingers on, a continual headache for the Obama campaign.

Political Cartoons

from Town Hall:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Obama's Real Revenue Problem: Tax Receipts Are Low Because Of The Mediocre Economic Recovery

From The Wall Street Journal:

JUNE 30, 2011.Obama's Real Revenue Problem


Tax receipts are low because of the mediocre economic recovery..


President Obama was right about his audacity, if not always the hope. Six months after he agreed to a bipartisan extension of current tax rates, he is now insisting on tax increases as part of the debt-ceiling talks. At his press conference yesterday he repeated this demand, as well as his recent talking point that taxes are lower than they've been in generations. Let's examine that claim because it explains Washington's real revenue problem—slow economic growth.



Mr. Obama has a point that tax receipts are near historic lows, but the cause isn't tax rates that are too low. As the nearby table shows, as recently as 2007 the current tax structure raised 18.5% of GDP in revenue, which is slightly above the modern historical average. Even in 2008, when the economy grew not at all, federal tax receipts still came in at 17.5% of the economy.



Today's revenue problem is the result of the mediocre economic recovery. Tax collections in 2009 fell below 15% of GDP, the lowest level since 1950. But remarkably, tax receipts stayed that low even in the recovery year of 2010. So far this fiscal year tax receipts are growing at a healthy 10% clip, so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) January estimate of 14.8% of GDP is probably low. We suspect revenues will be closer to 16%, but even that would be the weakest revenue rebound from any recession in 50 years, and far below the average tax take since 1970 of 18.2%.



1revenues

...

But what about the liberal claim, repeated constantly, that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused today's deficits? CBO has shown this to be demonstrably false. On May 12, the budget arm of Congress examined the changes in its baseline projections from 2001 through 2011. In 2001, it had predicted a surplus in 2011 of $889 billion. Instead, it expects a deficit of $1.4 trillion.



What explains that $2.29 trillion budget reversal? Well, the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. And keep in mind that even this low figure is based on a static revenue model that assumes almost no gains from faster economic growth.



After the Bush investment tax cuts of 2003, tax revenues were $786 billion higher in 2007 ($2.568 trillion) than they were in 2003 ($1.782 trillion), the biggest four-year increase in U.S. history. So as flawed as it is, the current tax code with a top personal income tax rate of 35% is clearly capable of generating big revenue gains.



CBO's data show that by far the biggest change in its deficit forecast is the spending bonanza, with outlays in 2011 that are $1.135 trillion higher than the budget office estimated a decade ago. One-third of that is higher interest payments on the national debt, notwithstanding record low interest rates. But $523 billion is due to domestic spending increases, including defense, education, Medicaid and the Obama stimulus. Mr. Bush's Medicare drug plan accounts for $53 billion of this unanticipated spending in 2011.



The other big revenue reductions come from the "temporary" tax changes of the Obama stimulus and 2010 bipartisan tax deal. CBO says the December tax deal—which includes the one-year payroll tax cut and the annual fix on the alternative minimum tax—will reduce revenues by $196 billion this year. The temporary speedup in business expensing will cost another $55 billion.



Related Video



Editorial Board Member Steve Moore on the president's press conference.

..

The payroll tax cut was sold in the name of stimulating growth and hiring, yet the economy has grown more slowly this year than in last year's fourth quarter. As we've long argued, the "temporary, targeted and timely" tax cuts favored by Keynesians and the White House don't do much for growth because they don't permanently change incentives to save and invest. Mr. Obama was hawking more of those yesterday, even as he wants to raise taxes overall.



Republicans—notably George W. Bush in 2001 and 2008—have sometimes fallen for this same tax cut gimmickry. But perhaps they're learning their lesson. Republicans have reacted with little enthusiasm to the White House trial balloon to extend the payroll tax cuts for another year. The lesson is that when it comes to growth, not all tax cuts are created equal. The tax cuts with the biggest bang for the buck are permanent, take effect immediately, and hit at the next dollar of marginal income.



All of which makes the White House debt-ceiling strategy a policy contradiction. On the one hand, Mr. Obama is saying Republicans must agree to raise taxes on business and high incomes, though he knows even many Democrats won't vote for that. On the other hand, Mr. Obama says he wants another payroll tax cut because he is worried about slow growth.



Even orthodox Keynesian policy doesn't recommend a tax increase with growth under 2% and the jobless rate at 9.1%. The White House game here can only be an attempt to see if he can use the prospect of a debt-limit financial panic to scare Republicans into voting to raise taxes. We doubt the GOP is this dumb.



Republicans should stick to their plan of insisting on spending cuts in return for a debt-ceiling vote. Every dollar in lower spending means one less dollar taken from the private economy in borrowing or future tax increases. As for revenues, they will increase when the economy shakes its lethargy caused by Mr. Obama's policies. A tax increase won't help growth—or revenues.



And this, related, from Human Events:
 



We Need Growth, Not Higher Taxes



Let’s beat the "tax cuts caused the deficit" lie into the ground, pronto.



by John Hayward





06/30/2011















The Wall Street Journal, irked by President Obama’s unseemly insistence on higher taxes as part of deficit reduction negotiations yesterday, has published an important editorial today. It’s packed with nutritious information that should be spread far and wide, to kill off the lie that President Bush’s tax cuts caused the deficit to explode.



This is a major component of Democrat Party rhetoric. Aside from naked class warfare, it’s the stated reason for their absolute intransigence on tax increases. They refuse to even discuss fiscal restraint until they receive assurances they can raise taxes on the Evil Rich, because supposedly the Bush reduction in the top marginal rate caused government revenue to fall, and exploded the deficit.



This is not true, and the Journal has the numbers to prove it. The Bush tax structure pulled in 17.5% of GDP as federal revenue in 2008, but then Obamanomics kicked in. Only 14.9% of GDP was taken by the federal government in 2009 and 2010, and the Congressional Budget Office projects comparable receipts for 2011, although the Journal thinks this estimate is a bit low.



“What about the liberal claim, repeated constantly, that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused today's deficits?” ask the editors. “CBO has shown this to be demonstrably false. On May 12, the budget arm of Congress examined the changes in its baseline projections from 2001 through 2011. In 2001, it had predicted a surplus in 2011 of $889 billion. Instead, it expects a deficit of $1.4 trillion.”



So where did our titanic federal deficit come from? “CBO's data show that by far the biggest change in its deficit forecast is the spending bonanza, with outlays in 2011 that are $1.135 trillion higher than the budget office estimated a decade ago. One-third of that is higher interest payments on the national debt, notwithstanding record low interest rates. But $523 billion is due to domestic spending increases, including defense, education, Medicaid and the Obama stimulus. Mr. Bush's Medicare drug plan accounts for $53 billion of this unanticipated spending in 2011.”



There is one tax cut that actually did reduce federal revenue significantly: Obama’s vaunted payroll tax cut, which will cut $196 billion from Uncle Sam’s take this year. Of course, it did not stimulate employment at all. The doom of Keynesianism lies in its refusal to understand that short-term stimulus does not promote greater interest in making long-term commitments. Only a growing private sector economy will lead business owners to increase employment commitments that ideally last for years, after months of training, and the relatively low initial productivity of most new employees.



Virtually every action of the Obama Administration, from increasing the burden cost of labor to wiping out and nationalizing industries, has made the private sector smaller. This, in turn, reduces the amount of revenue the government can extract from a dwindling economy. Increase tax rates, and the economy will shrink faster, giving the government a larger piece of a rotting pie. No Democrat should be allowed to babble about tax increases without facing the demonstrable fact of the economic black hole they have created.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

AmeriCorps' Favorite Scandal-Plagued Mayor

From Town Hall:




Michelle Malkin





AmeriCorps' Favorite Scandal-Plagued Mayor



6/29/2011
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive









































Share













4digg







Sign-Up







A prominent Democratic politician who was banned from receiving federal aid three years ago over fraud charges is once again raking in government funds from the very same program he abused. It pays to be a FOTO -- Friend of the Obamas.



Our publicly subsidized con artist is Sacramento mayor and former NBA star Kevin Johnson. He donated the maximum individual amount to Obama for America, campaigned across the country for Obama in 2008, and bragged to California media during his mayoral run about his friendship and access to both Barack and Michelle Obama. The Obama administration's Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) recently bestowed Johnson's city with an AmeriCorps grant worth more than $650,000.



The money will flow into Sacramento's "Get Fit Now! Initiative," which will hire 124 AmeriCorps members "to teach fitness and nutrition education to children and offer adult fitness classes for their parents. They will also set up school-based gardens where children will learn how to grow fresh vegetables."



That's a lot of fertilizer-shovelers employed in the name of "public service." If the award smells funny, it should. For Johnson, AmeriCorps has indeed been all about service -- self-service, that is.



In 2008, the independent Inspector General overseeing AmeriCorps, Gerald Walpin, concluded that Johnson and aide Dana Gonzalez had squandered hundreds of thousands of a nearly million-dollar grant earmarked for his nonprofit youth organization, St. HOPE. Based on Walpin's investigation, AmeriCorps' parent organization (the aforementioned CNCS) suspended Johnson and Gonzalez's access to federal funds. Here's a refresher on their fraud and abuse that led to the ban:





-- Using AmeriCorps members to "recruit students for St. HOPE Academy."



-- Using AmeriCorps members for political activities in connection with the "Sacramento Board of Education election."



-- Assigning grant-funded AmeriCorps members to perform services for Johnson such as "driving (him) to personal appointments, washing (his) car, and running personal errands."



-- Improperly using AmeriCorps "members to perform non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services" that "were outside the scope of the grant and therefore were impermissible" for "the benefit of St. HOPE."





Johnson didn't get jail time. Instead, the Democratic U.S. Attorney in Sacramento cut a cozy settlement deal so Johnson could avoid criminal prosecution. The deal also allowed Johnson to repay just a fraction of the money he siphoned from AmeriCorps coffers for personal gain -- and it freed Johnson to receive federal Obama stimulus money for Sacramento. (My most recent check of the Recovery.gov website shows the city has taken in at least $32 million in stimulus cash.)



In keeping with this administration's brutal war on whistleblowers, Walpin was unceremoniously fired and smeared by Team Obama. The White House baselessly questioned the veteran watchdog's mental health and accused him of political interference. The first lady then installed her former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, in AmeriCorps' top management to ensure -- in Mrs. Obama's own words -- that they remained the program's "No. 1 cheerleaders."



Even more troubling, Johnson continues to reap government tax dollars for youth programs while he remains dogged by questions about his predatory behavior with teenage girls. A little-noticed section of the joint November 2009 report by GOP Sen. Charles Grassley and GOP Rep. Darrell Issa on Walpin's firing revealed that the AmeriCorps inspector general's investigator "became aware of allegations of inappropriate contact between Johnson and three female St. HOPE students." Their stories mirror a similar incident involving Johnson (then 29 and playing for the Phoenix Suns) and a 16-year-old girl dating back to 1995.



Johnson's attorney, Kevin Hiestand, approached at least one of the St. HOPE students describing himself only as "'a friend of Johnson's,'" and "basically asked me to keep quiet," according to the student. She had complained to St. HOPE officials that Johnson groped her sexually after instructing her to grade papers with him in her apartment. The report also highlighted what clearly looks like a hush-money and witness-tampering attempt: "According to her interview with OIG investigators, about one week later, Kevin Johnson offered her $1,000 a month until the end of the program, which she refused to accept."



Erik Jones, a teacher at St. HOPE, reported to the police that one of his students told him Johnson "started massaging her shoulders and then reached over and touched her breasts." Jones quit his job in protest over the seeming cover-up of Johnson's harassment and wrote in his resignation letter that "St. HOPE sought to intimidate the student through an illegal interrogation and even had the audacity to ask me to change my story."



Another student recounted for investigators how Johnson "kissed her cheek, brushed up against her" and touched her thigh on various occasions -- as well as flipping up her skirt on a St. HOPE-sponsored trip to Harlem. She didn't report the incidents to AmeriCorps officials at the time because she "feared she would be terminated."



Another St. HOPE official, Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez, also left Johnson's nonprofit over the whitewash. Michelle Rhee, Johnson's fiancee and former D.C. schools chief, was a St. HOPE board member at the time. The Grassley-Issa report noted, "According to Wong-Hernandez, Rhee learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing 'damage control'" and vouching for Johnson's character.



He's a "good guy," Rhee told Walpin. Taxpayers -- and especially parents of teenage girls and AmeriCorps workers in Sacramento schools -- should beg to differ.















Tags: Budget and Government , Corruption , Obama Administration









Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010).

Political Cartoons

From Town Hall:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Glenn Beck And Family Vs. New York Mob

From Human Events:




Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob



by Ann Coulter





06/29/2011











Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and his family in New York's Bryant Park last Monday night, one element stands out. "No, it won't be like that, Dad," his daughter said when Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in a New York park.



People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: "Oh, it will be fine. Don't worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn't like that."



Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn't play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.



I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck's tormentors, and I wasn't there.



Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to attend.



Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.



A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger's face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.



They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people's manners. I know I'll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.



These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it's a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can't fight back for reasons of law or decorum.



Liberals don't get that when you're outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you're not brave.



But they're not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn't I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn't I awesome?



This is a liberal's idea of raw physical courage.



When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody murder. I've seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless invertebrate.



People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such individuals are capable of. Sometimes -- a lot more often than you've heard about -- liberals do engage in physical violence against conservatives ... and then bravely run away.



That's why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice outdoor gathering.



No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)



Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren't are the conservative's bodyguards -- and they can't do anything without risking a lawsuit or an arrest.



My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman disguised in a wig.



But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces no charges -- she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, "Well, you provoked him."



Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul's assailant).



Maybe they wouldn't be such good little rules-followers if they ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck's own daughter can't imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can't be expected to, either.



Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins' New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20 percent chance of being assaulted.



Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America -- and not just because Obama decided to address it. It's because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON'T FIGHT!



There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.



Maybe it's time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of dollars he's earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.



These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.



They need to have their behavior corrected. It's a shame this job wasn't done by their parents. It won't be done by the police.



As long as liberals can't be normal and prosecutors can't be reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a stranger in public? Then we'll see how brave these lactose-intolerant mama's boys are.



Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Slander, Treason, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Godless, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America, and the forthcoming Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Political Cartoons

From Town Hall:

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Obama Faces Angst On The Left

From Dick Morris:

OBAMA FACES ANGST ON THE LEFT




By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN



Published on DickMorris.com on June 28, 2011



Printer-Friendly Version



President Obama's decision to begin to withdraw from Afghanistan reflects a deepening rift between his Administration and his former sycophants on the left. On a score of issues, the liberal community has begun to tire of their president.



Indeed, at the Netroots Conference, liberal activists convened a panel on "What To Do If The President Is Just Not That Into You." And liberals are getting the feeling that he is not.



From Al Gore comes the criticism that Obama has not informed the nation about the scientific evidence which he sees as proving that man-induced climate change is upon us and for not taking bold enough steps to address the issue.



From Democratic Senators comes the warning not to cut too deeply into government spending in the debt limit negotiations and a demand that he listen to their appeals for even more spending.



From the gay community comes anger at Obama's refusal to endorse gay marriage despite his ongoing, self-confessed "evolution" on the subject.



From ultra-liberal Congressman Dennis Kucinich comes the charge that his intervention in Libya is outside the permitted scope of the war powers act.



From former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt comes an attack on Obama's land use policies, accusing him of too easily allowing access and development on public land.



From the far left comes consternation at Obama's refusal to close Gitmo and even criticism over shooting an "unarmed" bin Laden.



And from the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) comes anger at Obama's refusal to attend their annual convention for the third year in a row despite his campaign vow to come back after he won the election. Beneath their pique is, of course, real discontent over his failure to push for immigration reform even when he had sixty votes in the Senate and his stepped up "silent raids" on employers of illegal immigrants.



Obama needs the strong and enthusiastic support of a solidly united left. He needs the turnout and he requires that they remain loyal even as he moves to the center to appease conservative and moderate voters. But he is not getting it.



Nor is his decision to withdraw so slowly from Afghanistan likely to do much to endear him to the liberals. While he makes a big show of withdrawing more rapidly than his generals wanted, that's a straw man. In reality, he is going to keep the surge troops in Afghanistan until Election Day as he pulls them out slowly between now and then. His announcement of a pullout of ten thousand troops - out of a hundred thousand - by the end of the summer will not impress the left.

Behind the discontent of the liberals is, of course, disappointment and frustration with the economy. The continuing high levels of unemployment and the president's seeming cluelessness in the face of a coming double dip recession - accompanied by inflation this time - erode his image as an income redistributor. Liberals realize that under Obama there has not only been no closure of the gap between the rich and the poor but the recession has brought a further widening.




Obama's victory was clinched by a virtual doubling in the turnout of young people in 2008. Unless he comes near that level this time, he is in for great difficulty.



And the soundings from the Latino and left communities indicate that he's got a long, long way to go

Friday, June 24, 2011

Tossing Grandma Off A Cliff And Other Democrat Lies

From Personal Liberty Digest:

Tossing Grandma Off The Cliff And Other Democratic Lies






June 24, 2011 by Chip Wood





NYDAILYNEWS.COM

Tossing Grandma Off The Cliff And Other Democratic Lies

A "Mediscare" ad has been credited with defeating a Republican in a Congressional race in New York.



The hysterics and hyperbole over raising the Federal debt ceiling are becoming absolutely absurd. If you were to believe Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geitner, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee and other Administration spokesmen, you would think we are about to face financial Armageddon.



Of course, if you believe Geitner, Goolsbee, et al, you’re a fool.



I can’t remember when the big spenders in Washington have conspired to tell a bigger pack of lies than they have about the dire consequences that will take place if Uncle Sam isn’t allowed to continue borrowing money. I wrote an entire column about Barack Obama’s Lying Liars in January; click here if you missed that one.



Among the deliberate misstatements are the threat that “we won’t be able to pay our troops who are fighting in Afghanistan.” That, of course, is a total fabrication. Our military personnel are considered “essential personal.” They would be paid every penny they are due even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. So, unfortunately, would our Senators and Representatives. Yes, even the despicable Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are considered “essential personnel.” Who on Earth drafted such a law? Oh, right. Congress.



Remember, even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, money will continue to pour into Washington by the bucketful. Do you think your withholding taxes are going to go away? That they won’t continue to collect every penny due for Medicare, Social Security and the million-and-one taxes that are imposed on businesses? Dream on, brother.



Here’s the shocking truth — shocking to anyone who believes the mainstream media, that is: The Federal government will continue to take in plenty of money to pay our troops, pay the interest on the national debt and pay almost everything else you and I would consider necessary.



What it won’t be able to do is to pay for all the socialistic boondoggles Barack Obama and his buddies want. Boo hoo. Too bad. What the guys and gals in Washington need to do is what every responsible family in America has already done. That is, reduce expenditures to match income. Live within your means. Don’t borrow money to finance a bunch of stuff you can’t afford.



Funny thing is, a lot of our leaders used to say the same thing. Let me call to the witness stand an obscure but ambitious senator from Illinois. Here’s what Obama said five years ago, during a similar debate over raising the debt: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure… Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”



Today, of course, Obama is willing to pile a ton more debt on “our children and grandchildren.” I hope you won’t let him get away with it.



Another Vicious Lie



Did you see the Democratic commercial that’s been credited for defeating a Republican in what was supposed to be a “safe” district in upstate New York? It’s part of the left’s “Mediscare” campaign. In it, a conservatively dressed white businessman pushes a wheelchair holding an agitated grandma to the edge of a cliff — then promptly dumps her over the edge.



The video suggests that this is what Republicans want to do to every senior citizen — and will do if the budget plan devised by Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is allowed to pass.



If you believe the mainstream media, the fear campaign was so successful that the Republicans lost a special election for Congress that “everyone” expected them to win. But here’s what the lying media didn’t tell you.



It’s true that Kathy Hochul, the Democratic candidate, got 47 percent of the vote and was declared the winner. The Republican candidate, Jane Corwin, received 43 percent of the vote and lost.



What few accounts bothered to mention is that there was a spoiler in the race. A political opportunist named Jack Davis ran as a self-proclaimed “Tea Party” candidate. He spent a reported $3 million of his own money on the race and received 9 percent of the vote — enough to prevent a victory for the Republican.



Here’s the kicker: Davis had previously run for the same seat three times — as a Democrat. Moreover, he was actively opposed by the real Tea Party leadership. I don’t know what sort of reward he will receive for his actions, but don’t be surprised if it makes his $3 million “investment” seem worth it.



Will the “Mediscare” smear work next year? You can bet your bottom dollar that the Democratic leadership hopes so.



When Is A War Not A War?



The answer, I guess, is whenever the Democrats say so.



Under the terms of the War Powers Resolution, whenever the President commits American troops to battle anywhere in the world, he then has 60 days to tell Congress what he is doing and win approval for the engagement, and then 30 days after that to recall the troops if approval is not given.



But now, that 90-day deadline has come and gone. Is anyone interested in upholding the law here? Not in Barack Obama’s Administration. In fact, the No. 1 law enforcement officer in the country — Attorney General Eric Holder — has argued that the War Powers Resolution doesn’t apply here… because what’s happening in Libya is so inconsequential, it doesn’t amount to a “war.”



In the Alice-in-Wonderland world that our leaders inhabit, it doesn’t matter how many air strikes we’ve ordered or how many combatants have been killed — or innocent civilians, for that matter. If they say it’s not a war, then the rules of war — and the laws of Congress — don’t apply.



I could go on and on with other examples of the deliberate obfuscation our President and his cronies have been practicing. How about the whopper that “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it?” The latest estimates are that under Obamacare, some 80 to 120 million Americans will lose the independent health insurance they and their employers have been paying for.



Unless you’re a friend of the Administration, that is. In that case, you will probably be granted a waiver that exempts you from the law. It seems that just about everyone in Nancy Pelosi’s district has gotten one; how about you?



Yes, the rules are definitely different now. And they’re getting more different every day. That’s what happens when liars and lawbreakers are put in charge.



Hopefully, all of this will change dramatically 17 months from now.



Until next time, keep some powder dry.



–Chip Wood

President Obama Abuses The Nation's Oil Reserves

From The Heritage Foundation:

President Obama Abuses Nation's Oil Reserves


When it comes to making bad energy policy decisions, President Obama is a pro. Yesterday was no exception when the Obama Administration announced it would release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This is part of an agreement with the International Energy Agency (IEA) to put a total of 60 million barrels on the market in the next 30 days. Another 27 nations will make up the other half of the oil needed.



President Obama and the IEA first explained this irresponsible action by noting a supply disruption as a result of the war in Libya. However, this disruption does not justify the depletion of the SPR, and the Administration doesn't have the legal rationale, either. The White House slightly changed its tune late yesterday when Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters it was meant as protection against increasing gas prices over the summer driving season.



Clearly, President Obama is putting politics and polls ahead of responsible governance and a smart energy policy. Even The Washington Post's editorial board agrees. This morning, in a scathing editorial entitled "The wrong reason for depleting the strategic oil reserve," the Post argues the White House is likely more focused on a "political emergency" and "the government should not tap the reserve absent a genuine crisis."



So what is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? The SPR is a national security inventory designed to protect the U.S. against a "severe energy supply disruption." In order to use it, three conditions must be met:

An emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration;




A severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and



Such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.





These conditions have not been met.



Let's also put the release of 30 million barrels in perspective. The entire global market uses more than 84 million barrels a day, and this action would supply only two million of those for 30 days. The President's own Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. production in the Gulf has declined by 220,000 barrels a day since Obama's moratorium (which still persists) began.



The SPR has more than 726 million barrels of oil in reserve. It holds roughly 30 days'worth of total U.S. daily consumption, and the private sector holds another 30 days. According to international agreements, the U.S. is obligated to have in reserve 90 days' worth of imported crude. Current public/private reserves make up roughly 115 days of import protection.



Due to these obligations, the U.S. must replace any oil it releases, and according to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it must do so expeditiously. Releasing the oil requires a strategy for replacing it as well.



Libya—supposedly the source of the problem—produces roughly 1.5 million barrels a day, and most of that oil is delivered to Europe. Libyan production has been offline for almost three months without having a significant effect on already high oil prices. And most observers do not expect the Libyan crisis to end in 30 days. So is there a significant reduction in supply as a result of Libya? No.




Congressman Ed Markey (D–MA), no stranger to irresponsible and costly energy policy, hailed the President's decision, saying: "This is the one tool America has at her disposal to immediately help drive down prices at the pump." Nothing could be further from the truth.



The SPR is not a "tool." The SPR is a national security asset that should remain protected against short-term political manipulation. President Obama has the ability to offer relief at the pump without sacrificing energy security.



As Heritage energy expert Nick Loris points out:



Releasing reserves now simply allows the Administration to avoid addressing the underlying problems with U.S. energy policy that exacerbate the market impact of global supply disruptions. The problem is that the Obama Administration is artificially constraining supply to the market by denying Americans access to domestic oil.
 
In the past two years, President Obama shut down drilling in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The EIA estimates that oil production will decline significantly in 2011 and 2012. His Administration was so negligent in issuing drilling permits that the Department of Interior was held in contempt of federal court. The Environmental Protection Agency has imposed costly regulations on refiners, and the Administration has rejected agreements with Canada to open up less expensive crude supplies.




If President Obama simply stopped being a roadblock, the U.S. would increase its energy supply, oil prices would decrease, and taxpayers would stop losing royalty revenue. The Gulf economy would rebound, and jobs would be created (or recreated). If Obama simply got out of the way.



With gas prices soaring, unemployment remaining high, and a government spending crisis looming, President Obama is under pressure to turn one of these economic indicators positive. Stealing some political goodwill from the SPR will have that desired effect in the short term—and Administration officials hinted yesterday they may do it again. Unfortunately for the President, bad poll numbers are not one of the conditions necessary for a drawdown.



Political Cartoons

From Town Hall:

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

NCLR Funding Skyrockets After Obama Hires Its VP

From Judicial Watch:


NCLR Funding Skyrockets After Obama Hires Its VP

View

Discussion

.



Last Updated: Mon, 06/20/2011 - 12:54pm

A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.



The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.



Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special “ethics waiver” to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.



She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos. Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.



This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.



Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former California congresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations with Guatemala and Nicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.



The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.



Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’ appointment.



A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn’t receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won’t be reported to authorities.

Liberal Jewish American Suckers

From The Jerusalem Post:


Liberal American Jewish suckers

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

06/24/2011 16:10





Column One: Just before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its Jewish supporters.

Talkbacks (25)





This week we have been witness to two transparent attempts to sell liberal American Jews a bill of goods. And from the looks of things, both were successful.



The first instance of liberal American Jewish credulity this week unfolded Monday night in Washington. At a five-star hotel, eighty Jewish donors shelled out between $25,000-35,800 to attend a fundraiser with US President Barack Obama.



RELATED:

Yale University launches new program on anti-Semitism

Jews decry Yale closing anti-Semitism study center



As has become his habit, Obama opened his remarks by talking about his commitment to Israel’s security. And as has become his habit, Obama went on to say that it is his job to force Israelis to bow to his demands because he knows what is best for Israel.



Speaking of his ongoing efforts to force Israel to concede its right to defensible borders before entering into negotiations with the Hamas-Fatah unity government, Obama said, “There are going to be moments over the course of the next six months or the next 12 months or the next 24 months in which there may be tactical disagreements [between the US and Israel] in terms of how we approach these difficult problems.”





Obama went on to say that he expects his American Jewish supporters to take his side in his attacks on Israel.



As he put it, the quest for peace between Israel and the Hamas-Fatah government is “going to require that not only this administration employs all of its creative powers to try to bring about peace in the region, but it’s also going to require all of you as engaged citizens of the United States who are friends of Israel making sure…that you’re helping to shape how both Americans and Israelis think about the opportunities and challenges.”



And how did the Jewish donors respond to Obama’s presentation? They loved it. They were, in the words of Obama donor Marilyn Victor, “reassured.”



Speaking with Politico, New York businessman Jack Bendheim said, “I think he nailed and renailed his commitment to the security of the State of Israel.” Other attendees interviewed in the article echoed his sentiments.



Imagine how they would have swooned if Obama had confessed a secret love for bagels and lox.



What does Obama have to do for these liberal American Jews to accept that he is no friend of Israel’s? Apparently the answer is that there is nothing Obama can do that will convince his many American Jewish supporters that he is not Israel’s friend.



They will never believe such a thing because doing so will require them to choose between two unacceptable options. The first option is to admit to themselves that in voting for Obama, they are voting against Israel.



The self-righteousness shared by many of Obama’s Jewish supporters makes this option unacceptable. These are people who demonstrate their goodness by embracing every politically correct liberal cause as their own. From abortion to socialized medicine to free passes for illegal immigrants, to opposition to the Iraq war, liberal American Jews are ready to go out on a limb for every cause the liberal media supports.



But ask them to support anything that in any way compromises their self-image as do gooders and liberals and they will shut you out. Consider their willingness to turn a blind eye to Obama’s 20-year association with his anti-Semitic preacher Jeremiah Wright. Just this week Wright was back in the news when he delighted a crowd of thousands of African American worshippers in Baltimore by libeling Israel saying, “The State of Israel is an illegal, genocidal … place. To equate Judaism with the State of Israel is to equate Christianity with [rapper] Flavor Flav.”



During the 2008 presidential campaign liberal American Jews attacked critics of Obama’s longstanding devotion to his Jew-hating preacher as McCarthyites who were spreading allegations of guilt by association.



And now, when Obama has made supporting Israel a socially costly thing for his supporters to do, rather than pay the price, his self-righteous American Jewish supporters refuse to admit that Obama is not pro-Israel. They attack as a liar anyone who points out that his policies are deeply hostile to Israel.



For instance, Monday National Jewish Democratic Council Chairman Marc Stanley told reporters, “Key donors are much more savvy than Republicans would have you believe and have taken a much more critical eye towards Republican attempts to lie about the president’s record.”



Aside from being morally inconvenient, the other problem with admitting that Obama is anti-Israel is that it requires his Jewish supporters who are unwilling to consciously abandon Israel to contemplate the unattractive option of voting for the Republican nominee for president. And this is something that their liberal conceit cannot abide.



The inability of many liberal American Jews to abide by the notion of supporting someone who isn’t part of their fancy liberal clique was on display in their responses to another event that occurred this week.



Just hours before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale University engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its willfully gullible Jewish supporters.



Yale University’s announcement two weeks ago that it was shutting down the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) unleashed a storm of protest. Students, faculty, alumni and major Jewish organizations all expressed anger and disappointment with Yale’s surprise move.



Yale justified its decision on the basis of two falsehoods. First it claimed that YIISA had failed to undertake sufficient top quality scholarship. Yet in the wake of the announcement dozens of leading scholars of anti-Semitism co-signed a letter authored by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld, who directs Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism, praising the YIISA as “a pioneer in advancing research on contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism.”



The second reason that Yale claimed it was closing YIISA was because there was insufficient faculty and student interest in its programs. This falsehood was ridiculous on its face since several dozen Yale faculty members served on YIISA’s various academic committees and boards of advisers.



And in the wake of the university’s announcement that it was shuttering YIISA, several faculty members and students protested the move angrily.



The main suspicion provoked by Yale’s decision to close YIISA was that it was doing so to appease Islamic critics. YIISA’s Director Prof. Charles Small focused its attention on contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. Since the most dangerous form of contemporary anti-Semitism is Islamic anti-Semitism, Small made Islamic anti-Semitism a focus of YIISA’s research activities. The concern arose that Yale closed YIISA in order to end campus research and discourse on the topic.



Monday Yale tried to quell the controversy surrounding its decision to close YIISA by announcing that it was forming a new institute called the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Yale announced that its tenured professor Maurice Samuels will serve as director of the program.



Samuels is a scholar of French literature.



In his acceptance announcement Samuels addressed Yale’s critics promising that “YPSA will discuss both contemporary anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism.”



He also said that in the coming year YPSA will hold a major conference on the topic of French anti-Semitism.



Samuels’ statement is notable for two reasons.



First, if it is true, then the only difference between YPSA and YIISA is the director. And the only thing Yale was really interested in doing was firing Small. The question is why would they want to fire him? The answer to that question appears to be found in the second notable aspect of Samuels’ announcement: his planned conference. At a time when millions in post-Mubarak Egypt assembled in Tahrir Square and cheered as the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi called for the invasion of Jerusalem, and with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the brink of nuclear weapons, why would YPSA want to place its focus on France? Following Yale’s announcement that it is launching YPSA, Small released a statement in which he said, among other things, “It appears that Yale, unlike YIISA, is not willing to engage in a comprehensive examination of the current crisis facing living Jews, but instead is comfortable with reexamining the plight of Jews who perished at the hands of anti-Semites. The role of a true scholar and intellectual is to shed light where there is darkness, which is why we at YIISA, are committed to critical engaged scholarship with a broader approach to the complex, and at times controversial context of contemporary global anti-Semitism.”



As Small hints, it appears that by forming YPSA, Yale proved its critics right. It closed YIISA because it found Small’s concentration on Muslim Jewhatred ideologically problematic. And it opened YPSA because Yale’s administrators’ trust Samuels to keep researchers and students focused on historic forms of anti-Semitism.



To offset criticism of its transparent move, Yale has been waging a whispering campaign against Small. Yale administrators have been insinuating that because the university did not hire him as a regular member of the Yale faculty that Small is not an academic, or somehow not good enough for Yale.



This campaign brought Holocaust scholar Prof Deborah Lipstadt from Emory University to pen a column in the Forward attacking Small. As she put it, “Part of Yale’s discomfort might have come from the fact that a Yale-based scholarly entity was administered by an individual who, while a successful institution builder, was not a Yale faculty member and who had no official position at the university.”



But Small was in fact on the Yale faculty. He was a lecturer in the Political Science department and ran one of Yale’s post-doctorate and graduate studies fellowship programs. Despite his intensive work building YIISA, Small taught a heavy course load.



But while its actions vindicate its critics’ greatest concerns, just as Obama was able to win over his Jewish supporters with empty platitudes so Yale’s decision to open YPSA has satisfied its most powerful critics. The ADL released a statement applauding the move. Yale’s Rabbi James Ponet emailed his colleagues and friends and urged them to email Yale’s president and provost expressing their support for the move.



Their willingness to support Yale’s bid to curtail research and discussion of Islamic Jew-hatred and allow Yale to scapegoat Small demonstrates an affliction common to liberal American Jews today. It is the same affliction that makes them unable to countenance voting for a Republican.



That affliction is class snobbery. By insinuating that Small is not up to Yale’s academic standards, Yale was able to rally the Jewish members of its larger community by appealing to their snobbery. The fact that Yale didn’t mind Small serving as a dissertation advisor to its doctoral candidates is immaterial. The facts be damned.



The same Ivy League snobbery that makes it socially unacceptable to vote for a Republican – and certainly not for a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann despite their deep-seated and consistent support for Israel – is what allowed Yale to get away with ending its study of Islamic anti-Semitism by besmirching Small’s academic achievements and good name. Remove him from the club, and you end opposition to his academically unjustifiable firing.



The great circus master P.T. Barnum said famously that there is a sucker born every minute.



Liberal American Jews aren’t born suckers. They become suckers out of their own free will.



caroline@carolineglick.com

Thursday, June 23, 2011

A Tale Of Two Elections: Historic Or Un-Important

From Lew Rockwell.com:

A Tale of Two Elections: Historic or Unimportant


by Mike Shaner











The 2012 Presidential election has the potential to be one of historic proportions. It could be the event that gives liberty back to our Republic. It has the makings of being the most significant election since Lincoln’s reign of terror began in 1860.



Abraham Lincoln set the precedent of aggressive war and transformed our republican form of government into a nationalistic democracy, by conquering the states and giving birth to the frankenstein-like federal monster we know today.



The sins of Lincoln are becoming more well known by the day but for those who still believe in the myth of Honest Abe; this link is a good place to begin educating yourself.



The purpose of this article is not to bash Lincoln nor to rehash history. The indisputable fact is we are in a mess. The question is what can we do about it? Most people reading this know the answer. We know that the best way to enact true change is by making Ron Paul the President of the United States. This begs the follow up question: Do we have the guts?



I did something today that I have been dreading, something that made me absolutely sick: I went to my local dmv and registered Republican. I am asking you to do the same. I am asking you to ask your friends to do the same and for them to ask their friends. You can do this with the solace of knowing it is for the sake of liberty.



Ron Paul can defeat Obama in 2012 with relative ease. He is the only Republican that will appeal to the President’s youthful antiwar base. The young Obama voters of 2008 are still hungry for change and can become the young Paul voter’s of 2012. In order for this to happen, he must first win the Republican nomination which he simply can’t do without the help of his supporters.



This will take a concerted effort from Libertarians, Voluntarist, Anarchist, Independents, and even Democrats who care about peace and prosperity. The fact is if you don’t switch party affiliation and vote for Ron Paul, you just may never get to vote for him at all. One can always switch back immediately after the primary, I will!



We have a chance to make 2012 the most important presidential election in over 150 years. It is within our power to fire a shot that can be heard around the world. We can tell the world that the the time has come for peaceful prosperity, individualism, and liberty to reign supreme. We can do this, or we can sit back, do nothing, and get more of the same.



If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination it will be the single most important election in modern history. If he does not win it will be as unimportant as any other. We have one choice and one chance; I hope we take it.



June 24, 2011



Mike Shaner [send him mail] is a freelance political writer, independent blogger, political science student, and owner of Shaner Marketing Content for small business.



Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell Puts Obama Crony David Axelrod In His Place

From Human Events:




Bob McDonnell Puts David Axelrod in His Place



by Jason Mattera





05/18/2011











Spinning that would make any roller coaster enthusiast proud!



That’s what David Axelrod was doing when he appeared on NBC’s low-rated “Meet the Press” with Gov. Bob McDonnell recently. Speaking to the governor, Axelrod carped, “You balanced the budget with $1.7 billion in money from the Recovery Act, you balanced your budget by borrowing $3 billion against future receipts on transportation … you borrowed money from your pension plan that you’re gonna have to return.”



There you have it: In those few sentences went the smarmy David Axelrod’s attempt to show that McDonnell and Obama are alike. A lot alike. Spending and borrowing work. Look at Virginia!



Except not really.



McDonnell responded to Axelrod’s erroneous objections in his exclusive interview with HUMAN EVENTS. Take it away, Governor:







McDonnell also acknowledged that because the Supreme Court denied to do an immediate review on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, he and other state governors must implement the health care law’s costly provisions even though it remains in limbo.



“There are people that are in the process of setting up health exchanges that’ll take a few years to do,” he told us. “We’ve had a change in health insurance regulations. All that takes staff, time, and money in order to do, which is the main reason that we wanted the expedited review, because there are a lot of things that we are spending money on that we don’t have to do if we win the ultimate case.”







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mr. Mattera is the editor of HUMAN EVENTS and the author of Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation (Simon & Schuster). He also hosts The Jason Mattera Show on News Talk Radio 77WABC. Previously, he was the Spokesman for Young America's Foundation and a TV correspondent for Michelle Malkin. Follow Jason on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Is The FBI Investigating Obama?

From Accuracy In Media and Floyd Reports:


Is the FBI Investigating Obama?



By: Cliff Kincaid
June 22, 2011
No comments
Printer Friendly





















In a front page story about a major FBI terrorism investigation, The Washington Post has reported that the targets include “Chicagoans who crossed paths with Obama when he was a young state senator and some who have been active in labor unions that supported his political rise.” The implication is that the trail could lead to the White House.



This is an unusual investigation that does not primarily involve Islamists. Instead, it is focused on elements of the old international communist networks that many people mistakenly thought had faded away with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those under investigation are suspected of providing support to foreign terrorist organizations such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the Middle East, a Marxist group. The Post called them “Colombian and Palestinian groups designated by the U.S. government as terrorists.”



The investigations came into public view last September when the FBI raided the homes of several “activists,” as the Post called them. Some lived in Chicago.



One of the targets, Tom Burke, was a union organizer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). He was so confident he would get a fair shake from the Post that he provided the paper with a photo of himself shaking hands with Barack Obama. The other apparent intention was to send a message to the President and Attorney General Eric Holder that any investigation of Burke might lead to Obama.



The Post suggested that investigations of labor union activists might jeopardize their support for Obama’s 2012 presidential run. Indeed, it could therefore threaten his re-election bid, if investigations determine that the activists did more than “cross paths” with the President.



Deep inside the article, in the 29th paragraph, we find out that some of the “activists” are associated with a group known as the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), a Marxist-Leninist organization. Burke is a member of the FRSO, which the Post admitted was “far left.”



The obvious question is why Obama, as a state senator in Illinois, would ever have “crossed paths” with such people. The answer goes beyond just union support for the candidate. The “far-left” networks that include the FRSO, the Communist Party USA, the New American Movement, and the Democratic Socialists of America backed and even spawned Obama’s political career. Don’t forget that Weather Underground leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn hosted a fundraiser for his first run for political office. The same networks also backed CIA Director Leon Panetta’s career when he was a congressman from Santa Cruz, California. This helps explain why Obama would pick Panetta, with no intelligence background, to run the intelligence agency. They are cut from the same cloth.



Nevertheless, on Tuesday, the Senate voted 100-0 in favor of Panetta’s nomination as Secretary of Defense. It was a classic case of “head in the sand” politics, ignoring not only Panetta’s long-time relationship with Communist Party member Hugh DeLacy but his record as a congressman in undercutting then-President Reagan’s pro-defense policies at every turn.



Obama and Panetta were players in the “progressive” community, which since the days of Henry Wallace, presidential candidate of the Progressive Party, has had a red tint. Obama had his own communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member under FBI investigation for 19 years, while Panetta gave DeLacy, who had traveled to China to meet with Soviet and Chinese intelligence agents, sensitive reports on U.S. military matters. Any notion that Panetta had no awareness of DeLacy’s Communist affiliation was obliterated when Panetta in 1983 inserted a tribute to DeLacy into the Congressional Record, praising his resistance to “McCarthyism.”



Former FBI agent Max Noel once told me that the Bureau used to investigate candidates for federal employment by analyzing Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty to the United States. The first letters in those words make up the acronym CARL. By the standard of “A”—Associates—Panetta flunks. But so does Obama.



Another sensitive case involves Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and wife of disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner. Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack have reported that Arab newspapers have revealed that Huma Abedin’s mother is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose goal is to subvert Western civilization. Jamie Glazov of Front Page Magazine asks Robert Spencer, “There is a remote possibility that Abedin is actually being deceptive in her marriage to Weiner to follow Muslim Brotherhood instructions and to infiltrate the U.S. government, correct?” Spencer replies, “Certainly. That is a very real possibility, and it should be investigated. But the only ones who have the means to do so are mainstream media journalists who are either clueless or complicit.”



It may also be the case that the FBI never investigated Abedin’s background.



As the FBI does not vet presidential candidates for national security purposes, we know there would have been no FBI investigation into Obama’s own background, associations, loyalty, and overall fitness for office. The FBI only probes those being considered for some federal positions under the president. They should have therefore investigated Panetta. But there is no indication that he was ever properly vetted. Now he is confirmed as Secretary of Defense because conservative Republican Senators were apparently afraid of being accused of McCarthyism for questioning his past associations.



On the other hand, the “progressives” are raising hell with Obama and want him to rein in the FBI. They want to further emasculate the agency charged with ferretting out subversives and terrorist support networks.



As the Post noted, “nine members of Congress have written letters to the administration” complaining about the FBI probe of Burke and other activists. The Post even noted that another one of the targets of the investigation, a union organizer named Tracy Molm, managed to arrange a meeting with Holder himself.



One of these congressional members is Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, the foremost critic of Rep. Peter King’s hearings into radical Islam in America. “Shortly after the raids,” Ellison said, “I made inquiries to the FBI field office for more information. FBI Special Agent Boelter confirmed that an investigation was ongoing. He informed me that due to the pending nature of the investigation, he was prohibited from sharing any further information. However he gave me assurance that the purpose of the searches and service of subpoenas was not to punish or to suppress protected First Amendment activity.”



Pro-Marxist activist Medea Benjamin has said she managed to have a few words with Holder as well to complain about the probes. She is with the Code Pink group that travels to Gaza to meet with the terrorist group Hamas. She is also a staunch ally of Adam Kokesh, the “Russia Today” TV star who openly admits that he functions as a paid Russian agent of the Vladimir Putin regime.



Holder is receptive to this kind of appeal because of his friendship with Obama and record as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration for facilitating pardons and clemency for terrorists from the Puerto Rican FALN and Weather Underground. It is this record that puts the current investigations by the FBI in serious jeopardy.



The Post article has to be seen as a signal to Holder from those around Obama that he must act quickly to close down these investigations before they get too close for comfort to the Oval Office. First, however, he has to make sure that the congressional investigations don’t get too close to Holder himself. It won’t look good for the Attorney General to be personally implicated in knowledge of the federal gunrunning schemes now under Congressional investigation that provided weapons to Mexican narco-terrorist cartels. The evidence already shows that federal authorities let guns fall into the hands of known criminals.

How About A National ObamaCare Waiver?

From The Heritage Foundation:

How about a National Obamacare Waiver?


If you knew a dangerous virus was about to hit America and that you could beg the government for a vaccine, you'd probably do it, wouldn't you? That's just what states and businesses alike are doing right now in preparation for Obamacare. But rather than seeking a vaccine, they're asking for waivers from the law's onerous requirements.



To date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved 1,372 Obamacare waivers, covering 3.1 million Americans. Yesterday, The Daily Caller reported that among HHS's most recent round of 204 Obamacare waivers, "38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district." That's right: Nearly 20 percent of exemptions from Pelosi's crowning health care achievement were doled out in her backyard.



If that's not enough irony for you, try this waiver on for size: On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Nevada—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state—received a partial statewide Obamacare waiver, too. If you're keeping score, Reid was Pelosi's counterpart in the Senate fighting to get Obamacare passed into law. Now his state will be one of three to get a waiver from the law's requirements, while the rest of America suffers.



Why did Nevada get a waiver? The Sun reports that HHS found that some of the law's implementation requirements "may lead to the destabilization of the individual market." Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) said that that's all the more reason why Obamacare should be repealed:

It is becoming increasingly clear how flawed this law really is . . . Not only did it cut a half trillion dollars from Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada’s seniors, now the law would have driven health insurers out of our state if a reprieve had not been granted . . . This is why 'Obamacare' will not work for Nevada."




But Pelosi's district and Reid's home state aren't the only ones getting waivers. There are others getting a break from the law, too—big corporations and labor unions.



All these waivers might sound like a lot to you, especially since most of the law's provisions don't take effect until 2014. But if you ask the White House, they'll tell you that it's no big deal. In a press briefing yesterday, press secretary Jay Carney downplayed the waivers and said that it's "not that many" and that "[t]he waiver is not a waiver of the law" but just a "provision of the law." Well, that's one way to spin it.



The Heritage Foundation’s Kathryn Nix explains why some of the waivers are being granted:



Obamacare forbids insurers from placing annual and lifetime limits on health plans. These "consumer protections" have endangered the limited coverage plans that some employers currently offer. Unable to provide more comprehensive coverage, those employers would be forced to drop coverage altogether if they abide by the new law. To avoid this consequence of the new law, employers are flocking to secure the waivers offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to keep their employees covered.
 
In the case of waivers for businesses, Heritage's Ed Haislmaier recently testified that the Obama Administration doesn't really have the authority to grant them in the first place. In the case of state insurance markets, Congress explicitly allows a waiver, which is an admission that they knew the legislation would be disruptive.




It makes sense that labor unions, states and companies of all sizes want to escape Obamacare's costly requirements. That's because it's clear that Obamacare already isn't working, even though the law is barely out of the gate. But granting waivers here and there merely postpones the effects of the law for a couple of years. It's not the solution America needs. A better idea would be to repeal Obamacare and grant America a permanent nationwide waiver.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The Truth About Tax Cuts

From The Heritage Foundation:

The Truth About Tax Cuts


All you are likely to hear about low tax rates from liberals and their echo chamber in the media is that they don't work—that they fail to gin up economic or job growth. Exhibit A for this preposterous proposition is the Bush tax cuts. The left wants you to accept it as conventional wisdom that the policy was a bust.



Don't believe it. The tax cuts enacted by the U.S. Congress in 2003 were an important cause of an economic expansion that roared for some 50 months and created 8.1 million jobs. The opposite philosophy—a stimulus that has crowded out private investment, plus an enormous health bill and a nightmarish financial regulatory package that are killing job creation—has only delayed recovery and left us with 9.1% unemployment.



You won't hear this from liberals. What you hear instead is a straw man argument that the tax cuts failed to pay for themselves. The Bush Administration and congressional leaders at the time went out of their way to be clear that the tax cuts were not expected to pay for themselves.



Bereft of any other apparent principle, the liberal canon now includes one and only one organizing idea: government cannot be cut; it can only grow or stay at its current gargantuan size. For that to happen, liberals must use the concerns about massive deficits pushed up by a tremendous Obama spending surge to cow the nation into accepting big tax hikes and bigger government. Unfortunately, even some otherwise conservative stalwarts are falling for it.



But rather than explicitly say "raise taxes" liberals talk about "revenue enhancements" (which somehow liberals think the American people won't get), "fairness" and "shared sacrifice."

But for that to work the American people must be made to accept that lower taxes fail to stimulate anything and that, by implication then, higher taxes won't hurt the economy. This why liberals work so hard to spin the Bush years. But here's what really happened:




President Bush signed the first wave of tax cuts in 2001, cutting rates and providing tax relief for families by, for example, doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000.



At Congress' insistence, the tax relief was initially phased in over many years, so the economy continued to lose jobs. In 2003, realizing its error, Congress made the earlier tax relief effective immediately. Congress also lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividends to encourage business investment, which had been lagging.



It was the then that the economy turned around. Within months of enactment, job growth shot up, eventually creating 8.1 million jobs through 2007. Tax revenues also increased after the Bush tax cuts, due to economic growth.



In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.



The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.



Here's what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.




The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters.



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, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.





The timing of the lower tax rates coincides almost exactly with the stark acceleration in the economy. Nor was this experience unique. The famous Clinton economic boom began when Congress passed legislation cutting spending and cutting the capital gains tax rate.



In late 2007 the economy began to cool. By 2008, it entered a recession. The housing bubble burst, precipitating a financial crisis. But after 50 months of unimpeded growth, it is ludicrous to insist that the tax cuts caused the recession, let alone the global financial meltdown. Even after the Fannie and Freddie Mac-induced bust, there were still one million net jobs created during the Bush years.

President Obama inherited a difficult economic situation but made a robust recovery less likely by embracing a failed Keynesian economic philosophy based on deficit spending. The blast of stimulus the federal government gave the economy far exceeded anything previously contemplated in the textbooks. It is shocking that there are still a few who actually insist that the stimulus failed only because it was too small and want to double down on another one.




Since tax revenues move up and down with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the economy. This should start with a commitment not to raise taxes. Beyond that commitment, pro-growth policies such as revenue-neutral tax reforms dedicated to reducing tax rates, restrained federal spending, minimal regulation and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases.



In The Heritage Foundation's plan, Saving the American Dream, issued last month, we call for tax reform. We lower tax rates to encourage economic growth but maintain tax revenues at 18.5% of GDP—their historical level. We do it by expanding the tax base by eliminating economically unjustified deductions and credits and we plow all those revenues back into keeping rates low.



Liberals want to raise your taxes because they love big government. They will tell you that lower tax rates accomplish nothing, but government spending will. Don't buy it.



You can follow Mike Gonzalez on Twitter @Gundisalvus