Deroy Murdock: McCain's tight fist
Posted: May 25, 2008
While Americans focus on the interminable Clinton-Obama celebrity death match, Sen. John McCain is using clear-headed, compellingly crafted speeches to propose surprisingly bold, free-market ideas. With one huge exception, the Arizona Republican advocates more limited, open government as his Democratic rivals promise tax hikes and an even busier state. Voters should welcome this stark contrast.
On spending, John McCain would rule with a tight fist"There will be no more subsidies for special pleaders -- no more corporate welfare -- no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas," McCain said April 15 in Pittsburgh. "I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks," McCain continued, "I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all." More impressive, McCain said, "We will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans' benefits."
Such prudence would be a welcome relief from the Bush/GOP Congress years that did for fiscal responsibility what the Playboy Mansion has done for sexual restraint.
McCain's budget discipline would make it easier to cut taxes. He wants to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent. He would slice corporate taxes from 35 to 25 percent. He also would scrap the alternative minimum tax, double the dependents' exemption from $3,500 to $7,000, "and sign into law a reform agenda to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology."
Most significantly, he would let Americans choose to file taxes under today's rules or volunteer for a simpler, flatter rate, perhaps at 25 or 15 percent.
Regarding health care, McCain warned in Tampa on April 29 that his opponents "urge universal coverage, with all the tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come along with that idea. But in the end, this will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly."
Instead, McCain believes that "the key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves." He would expand health savings accounts and, more dramatically, offer a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to help Americans purchase their own coverage, even across state lines. McCain added, "It would be yours and your family's health-care plan, and yours to keep."
McCain also calls for reining in the misguided, multitrillion-dollar Medicare drug plan. "People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers," McCain observed. "This reform alone will save billions of dollars that could be returned to taxpayers or put to better use."
There is a cautionary note among these encouraging signs: John McCain has beer-bonged the Kool-Aid on global warming.
"We need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring," McCain said May 12 at a Portland, Ore., wind-power research facility.
He desires "a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy." His specific goal is to reduce CO2 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Former Virginia state climatologist Patrick Michaels estimated in the May 16 Washington Times that this would lower per-capita emissions "to 19th-century levels."
Before relegating America's mid-21st century economy to the norms of the Grover Cleveland era, McCain should heed the expanding caucus of experts who believe so-called "global warming" is exaggerated, if it even exists.
On May 19, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition signed by 31,072 Americans scientists, including 9,021 Ph.D.s. They reject the idea that CO2 is boiling Earth. So much for climate science being "settled."
One hopes McCain will listen on this issue. Just as he recently has warmed to tax cuts, perhaps he will cool on "global warming."
Nonetheless, McCain will remain a mixed bag. Sometimes he will annoy the Right. Other times, he boldly will go where no GOP standard bearer has gone since Ronald Reagan. As a wise man said, "John McCain is not perfect. Just perfect enough."
Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
POLITICAL B.S.
Personally I don't think any of the 3 candidates belong in the White House. Two are crooks and the third is serving as a pretty face fool for the far Left/Socialists who need someone to front for them so they can pursue their agendas. Hillary, in addition to being a crook, is almost as far Left as Obama. Not only that but do we really want Smiln' Bill back in the White House???? As for McCain he lies like a wet sack of ***t.
McCain’s Media-Manufactured ‘Pastor Problem’
ABC tries to link McCain to a controversial preacher, as Newsweek did two weeks ago.
By Brian Fitzpatrick
Culture and Media Institute
May 22, 2008
First it was Rev. Jerry Falwell, then Rev. John Hagee, now Rev. Rod Parsley.
For the second time in less than a month, major media outlets have attempted to hang a Reverend Jeremiah Wright around the neck of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Before that, they were comparing Wright to the late Falwell.
Rev. Wright is the recently retired pastor of the church Democratic front runner Barack Obama has attended for nearly twenty years. Obama has credited Wright with leading him to Jesus Christ, described Wright as his mentor, and maintained a close relationship with him until last month. Obama’s presidential candidacy has been damaged severely by disclosure of Wright’s extreme political and religious views.
This morning, on ABC’s Good Morning America, anchor Diane Sawyer led the show by announcing that “pastor problems” are “plaguing” McCain as well. Sawyer introduced an “investigation” by reporter Brian Ross into McCain’s “ties to a preacher who has made controversial, fiercely anti-Islamic comments.”
According to Ross, McCain “sought and received a big endorsement” from Rod Parsley, a prominent Ohio minister. Parsley, author of the book Silent No More, has warned Americans passionately in print and in the pulpit that Islam intends to conquer the world.
“Campaign aides later positioned Parsley behind McCain for photographers, apparently unconcerned about what Parsley stands for,” said Ross. “As the senior pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, Parsley has made no secret of his feelings that Islam is the enemy.”
Ross went on to play video clips of McCain making conciliatory remarks about Muslims, alternating with clips of Parsley criticizing Islamic theology.
ABC’s Rev. Parsley endorsement story closely resembles a story in Newsweek’s May 12 issue about McCain’s endorsement by Texas pastor John Hagee, an outspoken critic of Roman Catholic theology (see CMI’s analysis, "Newsweek Helps Obama Four Different Ways"). CMI’s Kristen Fyfe wrote, “It is obvious that Newsweek is seeking to mitigate the damage Wright has done to Obama by trying to make a comparison to the Hagee-McCain relationship.”
On April 30, on ABC’s The View, Whoopi Goldberg attempted to blunt criticism of Rev. Wright by invoking the specter of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Wright said America deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because of her foreign policy. Goldberg paraphrased Falwell’s take on the 9/11 attack, that America was being judged by God for sexual sin: “We have all seen, Jerry Falwell said that the towers came down because of gay folks and, you know, the lesbians.” Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne made the same comparison in a May 2 column (see CMI analysis, "Left Wing and Wright Brained?").
Brian Fitzpatrick is senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
McCain’s Media-Manufactured ‘Pastor Problem’
ABC tries to link McCain to a controversial preacher, as Newsweek did two weeks ago.
By Brian Fitzpatrick
Culture and Media Institute
May 22, 2008
First it was Rev. Jerry Falwell, then Rev. John Hagee, now Rev. Rod Parsley.
For the second time in less than a month, major media outlets have attempted to hang a Reverend Jeremiah Wright around the neck of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Before that, they were comparing Wright to the late Falwell.
Rev. Wright is the recently retired pastor of the church Democratic front runner Barack Obama has attended for nearly twenty years. Obama has credited Wright with leading him to Jesus Christ, described Wright as his mentor, and maintained a close relationship with him until last month. Obama’s presidential candidacy has been damaged severely by disclosure of Wright’s extreme political and religious views.
This morning, on ABC’s Good Morning America, anchor Diane Sawyer led the show by announcing that “pastor problems” are “plaguing” McCain as well. Sawyer introduced an “investigation” by reporter Brian Ross into McCain’s “ties to a preacher who has made controversial, fiercely anti-Islamic comments.”
According to Ross, McCain “sought and received a big endorsement” from Rod Parsley, a prominent Ohio minister. Parsley, author of the book Silent No More, has warned Americans passionately in print and in the pulpit that Islam intends to conquer the world.
“Campaign aides later positioned Parsley behind McCain for photographers, apparently unconcerned about what Parsley stands for,” said Ross. “As the senior pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, Parsley has made no secret of his feelings that Islam is the enemy.”
Ross went on to play video clips of McCain making conciliatory remarks about Muslims, alternating with clips of Parsley criticizing Islamic theology.
ABC’s Rev. Parsley endorsement story closely resembles a story in Newsweek’s May 12 issue about McCain’s endorsement by Texas pastor John Hagee, an outspoken critic of Roman Catholic theology (see CMI’s analysis, "Newsweek Helps Obama Four Different Ways"). CMI’s Kristen Fyfe wrote, “It is obvious that Newsweek is seeking to mitigate the damage Wright has done to Obama by trying to make a comparison to the Hagee-McCain relationship.”
On April 30, on ABC’s The View, Whoopi Goldberg attempted to blunt criticism of Rev. Wright by invoking the specter of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Wright said America deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because of her foreign policy. Goldberg paraphrased Falwell’s take on the 9/11 attack, that America was being judged by God for sexual sin: “We have all seen, Jerry Falwell said that the towers came down because of gay folks and, you know, the lesbians.” Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne made the same comparison in a May 2 column (see CMI analysis, "Left Wing and Wright Brained?").
Brian Fitzpatrick is senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
Friday, May 16, 2008
TO HELL WITH THE DAMN DEMOCRATES
The plot to throw you out of work and stick you with higher taxes
Wes Vernon
Wes Vernon
May 12, 2008
Hey! You don't mind paying another 53 cents a gallon to fill up your car's tank, do you? Obviously you're feeling a little guilt-ridden at getting away with paying a measly three-to-four bucks (and climbing) for each gallon as it is. So what's another 53 cents? Especially if you're out of a job. No big deal, right?
The threat is real
Some of your brilliant lawmakers here in Washington believe that neither letting you have your cake nor letting you eat it too is a great way to get your vote. Don't laugh. They mean it.
The trial lawyers who fill the liberal campaign coffers, as well as Ivory Tower elites (who devise the intellectual pretzel-shaped rationalizations) and the mainstream media (who provide the 24/7 brainwashing), will seek to instill within you all the guilt necessary lest you entertain the quaint notion that you are best positioned to decide how to spend your hard-earned money.
Warner-Lieberman
There is pending in the United States Senate a monstrosity that gives some serious meaning to the facetious wisecrack that Americans are safer when Congress is out of session. As usual, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), is doing much of the heavy lifting in the name of down-to-earth sanity in citing the monstrosity's many flaws.
S-2191, the Lieberman-Warner "cap and trade" bill (scheduled for Senate debate shortly after Memorial Day) would require companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels by the year 2012. By 2020, those emissions are mandated to return to 1990 levels. And industrial America is expected to reduce emissions to 65% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. This is all in the name of the hoax known as "man-made global warming." That's the "cap."
Gore's mansion sets the example
The theory behind "cap and trade" is that companies cutting their emissions below their legal limit can sell their excess emissions rights to other parties. That's the "trade." Every time Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy is nailed, he replies he purchases emissions "credits" from other parties in order to operate his huge energy-hog mansion in Nashville. That's the model for this bill
The small print: the cap and trade "problem"
For starters, just by its very nature, Warner-Lieberman supplies more weight to the already horrific pressures to make your personal wallet or purse considerably lighter. The congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the bill would create $1.2 trillion in government spending over the next 10 years alone.
But while government spending goes up, household income will go down, possibly by nearly $3,000 in 2020 and more than double that amount by 2030. Senator Inhofe figures families in his state of Oklahoma will be stuck with paying $3,298 for the increased cost of gasoline and energy.
Poor families would get the worst of it. Liberal politicians — who claim their hearts bleed for the poor — apparently figure they, themselves, won't be adversely affected by the higher energy bills that will hit low income families, who already pay 5 times as much of their monthly budgets on energy (19%) as do wealthier families (4%).
And don't forget the pain at the pump. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects that gasoline prices will soar by 53 cents a gallon by the time the full effects of Lieberman-Warner kick in.
Jobs? Forget it. You will be lucky just to keep the one you have because if you lose it, you'll have a harder time getting another one. Senator Inhofe cites an Independent Energy Information Administration (IEIA) study as forecasting a 9.5% drop in manufacturing and higher energy costs under L/W, and that it will be worse unless we build 350 nuclear plants by 2030. (Note: This column has advocated building nuclear plants as a substitute for begging on our hind legs from the oil-rich countries that hate us.)
Under Lieberman/Warner, America stands to lose jobs in the millions.
The politics of it all
Here is another instance where Senator John McCain needs to be brought up to speed if he is effectively to distinguish himself from his hard-charging opponents. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee sees cap and trade as a more politically acceptable alternative to the carbon tax which the senator (correctly) believes would raise the gas tax, which McCain opposes. Someone should break it gently to the senator that cap and trade would also raise the gas tax.
Mr. McCain told Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review that cap and trade appeals to him because it does not involve channeling tax dollars to the federal government. Wrong again. The feds would still auction off the permits. Also, states could auction off credits. They would be mandated to spend the proceeds on "environmental" purposes blessed by Washington. This is just another carbon tax made to look like what it is not.
Capitol Hill games
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), current Chairman of the Senate EPW concedes that she may have to yank the Lieberman-Warner bill off the Senate floor if any "weakening amendments" are piled onto it during the June debate.
A "win-win," the chairman believes
In truth, though Senator Boxer is sure to put on a great show of fighting mightily for the measure in Senate debate, she is really not interested in passing Lieberman-Warner (S-2191) in 2008. She has been quoted as saying the media and UN climate alarmists are doing such a great job of burying the public with the myth of man-made "global warming" that she would actually rather let the issue simmer out there for a couple of election cycles — hopefully to knock off members of Congress who are willing to break up the charade by pointing out that the Goebbels-like "climate change" propagandists are the proverbial emperors with no clothes. Recall that Joseph Goebbels was the Nazi propagandist whose motto was that a lie repeated often enough becomes "truth." Such is the methodology of the "global warming" potentates.
Politics over policy
"We will hold those who weakened it accountable in November," intoned Boxer. Of course! This debate (like so much of what passes for discourse in the Washington world of fakery) is aimed at emitting hot (political) air to make electoral points at the ballot-box, while building support for a con game of picking the pockets of unsuspecting Americans.
The unserious California lightweight is no stranger to this tactic. A couple of years ago, as our brave men and women were dodging bullets and fighting the war on Islamofascism, Boxer trashed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then used war and peace as her political playpen by sending out partisan fundraising letters referencing her sense of victimization because Rice dared to contradict her.
Change?
Some analysts believe this sneaky Kyoto Redux (as it should be called) spells t-a-x h-i-k-e to the tune of $438 billion. The Kyoto Treaty is discredited? No problem. Just call it something else.
Forget about "change," dear reader. These Mickey Mouse games will go on — and on — regardless of what happens in November.
Wes Vernon
Wes Vernon
May 12, 2008
Hey! You don't mind paying another 53 cents a gallon to fill up your car's tank, do you? Obviously you're feeling a little guilt-ridden at getting away with paying a measly three-to-four bucks (and climbing) for each gallon as it is. So what's another 53 cents? Especially if you're out of a job. No big deal, right?
The threat is real
Some of your brilliant lawmakers here in Washington believe that neither letting you have your cake nor letting you eat it too is a great way to get your vote. Don't laugh. They mean it.
The trial lawyers who fill the liberal campaign coffers, as well as Ivory Tower elites (who devise the intellectual pretzel-shaped rationalizations) and the mainstream media (who provide the 24/7 brainwashing), will seek to instill within you all the guilt necessary lest you entertain the quaint notion that you are best positioned to decide how to spend your hard-earned money.
Warner-Lieberman
There is pending in the United States Senate a monstrosity that gives some serious meaning to the facetious wisecrack that Americans are safer when Congress is out of session. As usual, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), is doing much of the heavy lifting in the name of down-to-earth sanity in citing the monstrosity's many flaws.
S-2191, the Lieberman-Warner "cap and trade" bill (scheduled for Senate debate shortly after Memorial Day) would require companies to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels by the year 2012. By 2020, those emissions are mandated to return to 1990 levels. And industrial America is expected to reduce emissions to 65% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. This is all in the name of the hoax known as "man-made global warming." That's the "cap."
Gore's mansion sets the example
The theory behind "cap and trade" is that companies cutting their emissions below their legal limit can sell their excess emissions rights to other parties. That's the "trade." Every time Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy is nailed, he replies he purchases emissions "credits" from other parties in order to operate his huge energy-hog mansion in Nashville. That's the model for this bill
The small print: the cap and trade "problem"
For starters, just by its very nature, Warner-Lieberman supplies more weight to the already horrific pressures to make your personal wallet or purse considerably lighter. The congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the bill would create $1.2 trillion in government spending over the next 10 years alone.
But while government spending goes up, household income will go down, possibly by nearly $3,000 in 2020 and more than double that amount by 2030. Senator Inhofe figures families in his state of Oklahoma will be stuck with paying $3,298 for the increased cost of gasoline and energy.
Poor families would get the worst of it. Liberal politicians — who claim their hearts bleed for the poor — apparently figure they, themselves, won't be adversely affected by the higher energy bills that will hit low income families, who already pay 5 times as much of their monthly budgets on energy (19%) as do wealthier families (4%).
And don't forget the pain at the pump. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects that gasoline prices will soar by 53 cents a gallon by the time the full effects of Lieberman-Warner kick in.
Jobs? Forget it. You will be lucky just to keep the one you have because if you lose it, you'll have a harder time getting another one. Senator Inhofe cites an Independent Energy Information Administration (IEIA) study as forecasting a 9.5% drop in manufacturing and higher energy costs under L/W, and that it will be worse unless we build 350 nuclear plants by 2030. (Note: This column has advocated building nuclear plants as a substitute for begging on our hind legs from the oil-rich countries that hate us.)
Under Lieberman/Warner, America stands to lose jobs in the millions.
The politics of it all
Here is another instance where Senator John McCain needs to be brought up to speed if he is effectively to distinguish himself from his hard-charging opponents. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee sees cap and trade as a more politically acceptable alternative to the carbon tax which the senator (correctly) believes would raise the gas tax, which McCain opposes. Someone should break it gently to the senator that cap and trade would also raise the gas tax.
Mr. McCain told Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review that cap and trade appeals to him because it does not involve channeling tax dollars to the federal government. Wrong again. The feds would still auction off the permits. Also, states could auction off credits. They would be mandated to spend the proceeds on "environmental" purposes blessed by Washington. This is just another carbon tax made to look like what it is not.
Capitol Hill games
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), current Chairman of the Senate EPW concedes that she may have to yank the Lieberman-Warner bill off the Senate floor if any "weakening amendments" are piled onto it during the June debate.
A "win-win," the chairman believes
In truth, though Senator Boxer is sure to put on a great show of fighting mightily for the measure in Senate debate, she is really not interested in passing Lieberman-Warner (S-2191) in 2008. She has been quoted as saying the media and UN climate alarmists are doing such a great job of burying the public with the myth of man-made "global warming" that she would actually rather let the issue simmer out there for a couple of election cycles — hopefully to knock off members of Congress who are willing to break up the charade by pointing out that the Goebbels-like "climate change" propagandists are the proverbial emperors with no clothes. Recall that Joseph Goebbels was the Nazi propagandist whose motto was that a lie repeated often enough becomes "truth." Such is the methodology of the "global warming" potentates.
Politics over policy
"We will hold those who weakened it accountable in November," intoned Boxer. Of course! This debate (like so much of what passes for discourse in the Washington world of fakery) is aimed at emitting hot (political) air to make electoral points at the ballot-box, while building support for a con game of picking the pockets of unsuspecting Americans.
The unserious California lightweight is no stranger to this tactic. A couple of years ago, as our brave men and women were dodging bullets and fighting the war on Islamofascism, Boxer trashed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then used war and peace as her political playpen by sending out partisan fundraising letters referencing her sense of victimization because Rice dared to contradict her.
Change?
Some analysts believe this sneaky Kyoto Redux (as it should be called) spells t-a-x h-i-k-e to the tune of $438 billion. The Kyoto Treaty is discredited? No problem. Just call it something else.
Forget about "change," dear reader. These Mickey Mouse games will go on — and on — regardless of what happens in November.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
POOR MRS. O
This is from one of my favorite authors, writing about a woman who wants to be First Lady
Barack Obama's Bitter Half
By Michelle Malkin
May 7, 2008
Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. She's been likened to John F. Kennedy's wife, what with her chic suits and pearls and perfectly coiffed helmet hair. But when she opens her mouth, Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner, the constantly kvetching "Saturday Night Live" character from the early 1980s.
When last our world views collided, back in February, the other Michelle was expounding on her lack of pride in America. I gave her myriad reasons to cheer up -- from America's role in the fall of communism to our unparalleled generosity to our nation's superior economic system, cultural resilience, entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity. But since then, Mrs. Obama has dug in her $500 Jimmy Choo heels and solidified her role in the 2008 presidential campaign as Queen of the Grievance-Mongers.
In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As National Review's Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."
In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.
On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.
Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain. Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."
Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.
Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?
In Mrs. Obama, the fear-mongering pot meets the angst-stirring kettle: "Fear," she froths, "creates this veil of impossibility and it is hanging over all of our heads."
But what Mrs. Obama lacks in pride for her country and its promise she more than makes up for with bottomless pride for her husband. Her standard campaign speeches include at least a dozen references to how "proud" she is of him. And of herself. And of everyone who has overcome The Man and pierced the "veil of impossibility" to get to the polls and vote Obama. An online MSNBC report on a joint appearance by the Obamas on the "Today" show in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle included this tellingly narcissistic passage:
[Mrs. Obama]: "'I'm so proud of how he has maintained his dignity, his cool, his honor.'
"Obama gently tried to interrupt, admitting to being embarrassed by the praise.
"'But I am proud of you,' she said.
"'I know,' he replied."
We all know. So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford.
Try smiling for once. It's cheaper.
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Barack Obama's Bitter Half
By Michelle Malkin
May 7, 2008
Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. She's been likened to John F. Kennedy's wife, what with her chic suits and pearls and perfectly coiffed helmet hair. But when she opens her mouth, Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner, the constantly kvetching "Saturday Night Live" character from the early 1980s.
When last our world views collided, back in February, the other Michelle was expounding on her lack of pride in America. I gave her myriad reasons to cheer up -- from America's role in the fall of communism to our unparalleled generosity to our nation's superior economic system, cultural resilience, entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity. But since then, Mrs. Obama has dug in her $500 Jimmy Choo heels and solidified her role in the 2008 presidential campaign as Queen of the Grievance-Mongers.
In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As National Review's Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."
In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.
On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.
Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain. Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."
Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.
Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?
In Mrs. Obama, the fear-mongering pot meets the angst-stirring kettle: "Fear," she froths, "creates this veil of impossibility and it is hanging over all of our heads."
But what Mrs. Obama lacks in pride for her country and its promise she more than makes up for with bottomless pride for her husband. Her standard campaign speeches include at least a dozen references to how "proud" she is of him. And of herself. And of everyone who has overcome The Man and pierced the "veil of impossibility" to get to the polls and vote Obama. An online MSNBC report on a joint appearance by the Obamas on the "Today" show in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle included this tellingly narcissistic passage:
[Mrs. Obama]: "'I'm so proud of how he has maintained his dignity, his cool, his honor.'
"Obama gently tried to interrupt, admitting to being embarrassed by the praise.
"'But I am proud of you,' she said.
"'I know,' he replied."
We all know. So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford.
Try smiling for once. It's cheaper.
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
WHO IS SHE KIDDING?
Another Liberal going overboard. Whoopi is nothing a prostitute in a different setting and a different guise. She panders her face and words to a world of know nothings--no grasp of reality. Legalizing Prostitution does not solve the basic problem. Bust the Prostitute and the John/client. Don't let them off easy, a slap on the wrist is meaningless. Publish the names and pictures of the johns in the paper or on the Internet.
Whoopi! ABC’s Goldberg Calls for Legalizing Prostitution
The View’s hostess responds to the Spitzer scandal by arguing for decriminalizing the flesh trade, ignoring the pain of infidelity and the exploitation of vulnerable women.
By Colleen Raezler
Culture and Media Institute
March 11, 2008
It’s only natural that a political sex scandal would be discussed during the “Hot Topics” segment of ABC’s The View. But it’s not natural that a woman would become an advocate for exploiting other women.
On March 11, while discussing New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s apology for consorting with prostitutes, moderator Whoopi Goldberg plugged legalizing prostitution.
In Goldberg’s eyes, it would be safer for everyone involved:
GOLDBERG: I'm saying that this has been around since the beginning of time and it seems quite foolish now for us not to say, ok, with all the diseases out there, we need to do what they do in Nevada, which is they have a union, the ladies have a union, they're checked, they're taken care of, they're clean. You know what? Some people are in sexless marriages, as we talked about before, and if you don't have to sneak, if you can say, you know, I'm going to take care of it, there it is.
When questioned about her stance, Goldberg replied, “Some ladies make their living this way. Some women would rather do this and I’m saying I’d rather have them clean and safe so the guys are not coming home and giving [their wives] diseases.”
Legalization of prostitution may contribute to disease protection, but disease is not the only problem associated with the practice. The Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking argues that prostitution always entails “profiting from women’s poverty, childhood sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sexual exploitation.” A fact sheet from the Coalition states “Regardless of its legal status, prostitution is extremely harmful to those in it.” The Coalition points out that legalized prostitution in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Australia has led to an increase in illegal prostitution and trafficking women for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation.
In 2005, Concerned Women for America cited a LifeSiteNews.com article in which Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen said, “Almost five years after the lifting of the brothel ban, we have to acknowledge that the aims of the law have not been reached. Lately we’ve received more and more signals that abuse still continues.”
Goldberg also failed to acknowledge that “people are in sexless marriages” have better alternatives than visiting a prostitute. Why not try counseling and medical treatment rather than resorting to infidelity?
Thankfully, Barbara Walters recognized that there’s more than just the transmission of STDs at stake. She told Goldberg, “It still wouldn’t have made a difference. It may be a crime in what he did. That’s a big deal. But what he did in terms of the family, that would not have changed.”
Walters apparently understands that no amount of government regulation will help the families of men who visit prostitutes. Legalizing prostitution does nothing to protect a wife reeling from the emotional suffering that results from her husband’s unfaithfulness. It does nothing to ease the pain of discovering that the man she vowed to spend her life with has violated her trust.
Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
Whoopi! ABC’s Goldberg Calls for Legalizing Prostitution
The View’s hostess responds to the Spitzer scandal by arguing for decriminalizing the flesh trade, ignoring the pain of infidelity and the exploitation of vulnerable women.
By Colleen Raezler
Culture and Media Institute
March 11, 2008
It’s only natural that a political sex scandal would be discussed during the “Hot Topics” segment of ABC’s The View. But it’s not natural that a woman would become an advocate for exploiting other women.
On March 11, while discussing New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s apology for consorting with prostitutes, moderator Whoopi Goldberg plugged legalizing prostitution.
In Goldberg’s eyes, it would be safer for everyone involved:
GOLDBERG: I'm saying that this has been around since the beginning of time and it seems quite foolish now for us not to say, ok, with all the diseases out there, we need to do what they do in Nevada, which is they have a union, the ladies have a union, they're checked, they're taken care of, they're clean. You know what? Some people are in sexless marriages, as we talked about before, and if you don't have to sneak, if you can say, you know, I'm going to take care of it, there it is.
When questioned about her stance, Goldberg replied, “Some ladies make their living this way. Some women would rather do this and I’m saying I’d rather have them clean and safe so the guys are not coming home and giving [their wives] diseases.”
Legalization of prostitution may contribute to disease protection, but disease is not the only problem associated with the practice. The Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking argues that prostitution always entails “profiting from women’s poverty, childhood sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sexual exploitation.” A fact sheet from the Coalition states “Regardless of its legal status, prostitution is extremely harmful to those in it.” The Coalition points out that legalized prostitution in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Australia has led to an increase in illegal prostitution and trafficking women for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation.
In 2005, Concerned Women for America cited a LifeSiteNews.com article in which Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen said, “Almost five years after the lifting of the brothel ban, we have to acknowledge that the aims of the law have not been reached. Lately we’ve received more and more signals that abuse still continues.”
Goldberg also failed to acknowledge that “people are in sexless marriages” have better alternatives than visiting a prostitute. Why not try counseling and medical treatment rather than resorting to infidelity?
Thankfully, Barbara Walters recognized that there’s more than just the transmission of STDs at stake. She told Goldberg, “It still wouldn’t have made a difference. It may be a crime in what he did. That’s a big deal. But what he did in terms of the family, that would not have changed.”
Walters apparently understands that no amount of government regulation will help the families of men who visit prostitutes. Legalizing prostitution does nothing to protect a wife reeling from the emotional suffering that results from her husband’s unfaithfulness. It does nothing to ease the pain of discovering that the man she vowed to spend her life with has violated her trust.
Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
Friday, May 2, 2008
Quote of the week
AMEN!!!!
“The truth about black poverty today, as Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute has aptly put it, is that it is ‘intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.’ Consider that black households that are headed by married couples have median incomes almost 90 percent that of white households headed by married couples. The problem in the black community is that far too few black households are headed by married couples... It is not simply a moral claim, but a well-documented empirical one, that family and education are the keys to success in our free country. Black children don’t need politicians of any color who claim to hold the keys to their future. They need parents who know their names. Two of them.” —Star Parker
“The truth about black poverty today, as Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute has aptly put it, is that it is ‘intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.’ Consider that black households that are headed by married couples have median incomes almost 90 percent that of white households headed by married couples. The problem in the black community is that far too few black households are headed by married couples... It is not simply a moral claim, but a well-documented empirical one, that family and education are the keys to success in our free country. Black children don’t need politicians of any color who claim to hold the keys to their future. They need parents who know their names. Two of them.” —Star Parker
WRIGHT UNDER FIRE
Wright's Own 'Chickens Have Come Home to Roost,' Black Critics Say
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 30, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Black clergymen are among those criticizing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for saying that attacks on him are really attacks on the black church. The pastors say it is Wright's politics, not his race or religion, that has caused so much controversy.
"It appears he's made his career pandering to a certain constituency and it appears his chickens have come home to roost," said Bishop Council Nedd of the diocese of the Chesapeake, Episcopal Missionary Church in Harrisburg, Pa. "As clergymen, we have a mandate to preach the gospel from the pulpit, the good news of Jesus Christ. When you start preaching politics, it will lead to trouble."
Wright, who was Sen. Barack Obama's pastor for many years, made more inflammatory comments on Monday in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington. Among other things, he said the U.S. government is "capable" of having invented the AIDS virus as a means of committing genocide against people of color. He also accused the U.S. of supporting "state terrorism" against Palestinians and South African blacks.
Wright was responding to criticism of previous unpatriotic remarks he's made in various sermons over the years.
On Tuesday, Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, was forced once again to distance himself from his former pastor -- amid questions of how Obama could sit in a church pew for so many years and not be offended by what Wright was saying.
"The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago," said Obama in his strongest denunciation yet of his former pastor. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."
Earlier this year, Obama said he could never "disown" Wright. But on Tuesday, he appeared to do just that, admitting that Wright's comments "offend me. They rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."
Obama also said Wright's comments are "a show of disrespect for me and an insult for what I'm trying to do in this campaign."
Mychal Massie, chairman of Project 21, a conservative black think tank, said he finds Wright's remarks about the black church "vulgar."
"There is no black church," Massie told Cybercast News Service . "There is no white church. There's only the Christian church. And if it's not (a Christian church), it's an abomination to God."
Massie, who holds theological degrees, said he bases his opinion on the Bible, specifically Acts 34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
"I defy him to do a study of the word of God and produce anything that he has to say," Massie said. "It isn't in there."
Massie said Wright's message is anything but biblical. "You cannot preach division, you cannot preach hatred, you cannot preach any theology that goes against the word of God," he said.
Kenneth Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Seattle, said Wright misrepresented himself by claiming that attacks on him are attacks on the black church.
"I didn't know Reverend Jeremiah Wright was the sole representative of the black church," Hutcherson told Cybercast News Service . "He was attacked for what he said, not because he represents the black church. And if he does represent the black church, he should be attacked."
Hutcherson added that he thinks African-Americans can learn something from what Wright has said. "I don't think black people as a whole will ever be free until they truly give thanks for America, not curse it," Hutcherson said.
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 30, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Black clergymen are among those criticizing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for saying that attacks on him are really attacks on the black church. The pastors say it is Wright's politics, not his race or religion, that has caused so much controversy.
"It appears he's made his career pandering to a certain constituency and it appears his chickens have come home to roost," said Bishop Council Nedd of the diocese of the Chesapeake, Episcopal Missionary Church in Harrisburg, Pa. "As clergymen, we have a mandate to preach the gospel from the pulpit, the good news of Jesus Christ. When you start preaching politics, it will lead to trouble."
Wright, who was Sen. Barack Obama's pastor for many years, made more inflammatory comments on Monday in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington. Among other things, he said the U.S. government is "capable" of having invented the AIDS virus as a means of committing genocide against people of color. He also accused the U.S. of supporting "state terrorism" against Palestinians and South African blacks.
Wright was responding to criticism of previous unpatriotic remarks he's made in various sermons over the years.
On Tuesday, Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, was forced once again to distance himself from his former pastor -- amid questions of how Obama could sit in a church pew for so many years and not be offended by what Wright was saying.
"The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago," said Obama in his strongest denunciation yet of his former pastor. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."
Earlier this year, Obama said he could never "disown" Wright. But on Tuesday, he appeared to do just that, admitting that Wright's comments "offend me. They rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."
Obama also said Wright's comments are "a show of disrespect for me and an insult for what I'm trying to do in this campaign."
Mychal Massie, chairman of Project 21, a conservative black think tank, said he finds Wright's remarks about the black church "vulgar."
"There is no black church," Massie told Cybercast News Service . "There is no white church. There's only the Christian church. And if it's not (a Christian church), it's an abomination to God."
Massie, who holds theological degrees, said he bases his opinion on the Bible, specifically Acts 34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
"I defy him to do a study of the word of God and produce anything that he has to say," Massie said. "It isn't in there."
Massie said Wright's message is anything but biblical. "You cannot preach division, you cannot preach hatred, you cannot preach any theology that goes against the word of God," he said.
Kenneth Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Seattle, said Wright misrepresented himself by claiming that attacks on him are attacks on the black church.
"I didn't know Reverend Jeremiah Wright was the sole representative of the black church," Hutcherson told Cybercast News Service . "He was attacked for what he said, not because he represents the black church. And if he does represent the black church, he should be attacked."
Hutcherson added that he thinks African-Americans can learn something from what Wright has said. "I don't think black people as a whole will ever be free until they truly give thanks for America, not curse it," Hutcherson said.
POOR BABY. POOR POOR BABY
should have thought about this before the Senator threw his liberal hat into the Presidential Ring. Thought about it and either withdraw or start distancing himself from the Reverend. Of course not every politician out there (pink red yellow or gold) can be smart all of the time. You are right, not Wright, about this hurting the children, but then children generally do pay for the sins of their parents. To have had the same pastor for 20 years and not pick up on the racist, bigoted, hateful vibes that should, I would think, should be obvious to any unbiased mind.
Mrs. Obama: Wright Drama Bad for Kids
By Amanda Carpenter
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Michelle Obama lamented the coverage of her family’s longtime friend and pastor in a joint interview with husband Barack Obama, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president.
“This conversation doesn't help my kids, you know,” Mrs. Obama told NBC’s Meredith Viera. “It doesn't help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we're going to better fund education.”
NBC released early excerpts of the joint interview Thursday. The full interview will air Saturday.
In addition to the NBC interview, Mrs. Obama appeared on CNN Wednesday to discuss her family’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
“One of the reasons we try to do interviews like this is not to talk about Reverend Wright, but to talk about who we are beyond that caricature,” she said on CNN.” Sometimes things get bogged down.”
Mrs. Obama said, “We’re confident that the American people are ready to move to a different place. We just have to be confident and give them the benefit of the doubt, that they get all the information and we sort of come out of the muck [and] that they’ll be ready to embrace the truth.”
Earlier this week, Mr. Obama denounced Wright for accusing the U.S. government of creating and spreading AIDS among blacks, praising Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan and equating U.S. efforts in Iraq with terrorism.
Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.
Be the first to read Amanda Carpenter's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Mrs. Obama: Wright Drama Bad for Kids
By Amanda Carpenter
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Michelle Obama lamented the coverage of her family’s longtime friend and pastor in a joint interview with husband Barack Obama, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president.
“This conversation doesn't help my kids, you know,” Mrs. Obama told NBC’s Meredith Viera. “It doesn't help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we're going to better fund education.”
NBC released early excerpts of the joint interview Thursday. The full interview will air Saturday.
In addition to the NBC interview, Mrs. Obama appeared on CNN Wednesday to discuss her family’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
“One of the reasons we try to do interviews like this is not to talk about Reverend Wright, but to talk about who we are beyond that caricature,” she said on CNN.” Sometimes things get bogged down.”
Mrs. Obama said, “We’re confident that the American people are ready to move to a different place. We just have to be confident and give them the benefit of the doubt, that they get all the information and we sort of come out of the muck [and] that they’ll be ready to embrace the truth.”
Earlier this week, Mr. Obama denounced Wright for accusing the U.S. government of creating and spreading AIDS among blacks, praising Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan and equating U.S. efforts in Iraq with terrorism.
Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.
Be the first to read Amanda Carpenter's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
TWO FREEBIES
Got some more good stuff for you young pups. Read carefully--I know you can read,but can you read carefully?
If you can not come up with an intelligent rebuttal get the hell back to school.
Hugo's All-Too-Predictable Shortages
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economics: The blackout that engulfed most of Venezuela Monday was dismissed as just a technical glitch. But amid the state's takeover of the country's industries, it's not an aberration. It's a signature shortage of socialism.
________________________________________
Read More: Latin America & Caribbean
________________________________________
It happened suddenly in Caracas, and across the country at 3:59 p.m. A hydroelectric station somewhere blew out, and along with a failure of a backup system and a jungle fire, the entire electrical grid in the capital and other cities went down. It knocked out the Caracas subway, made cell phones unusable, cut traffic lights, forced hospitals to turn on emergency generators, trapped people for hours in high-rise elevators and left thousands stranded.
In Caracas, thousands waited in cars for hours. Thousands more had to trudge for hours to distant shantytowns up steep hillsides to make it home. In several cities, crime had a field day.
Such a blackout might not mean much in a place like Cuba, whose capital has been a trash heap since Castro's dictatorship began in 1959. It also might not mean much in Colombia, where a war against Marxist terrorists since 1966 has meant frequent power sabotage.
But it does mean something in Venezuela, not only because it's been a richer and better-developed country than the other two, but because it's rarely suffered outages until now. No one thinks it'll be the last.
What gives? Unlike Cuba or Colombia, Venezuela is nationalizing its industries now. Cuba has nothing left to nationalize; Colombia is privatizing.
Venezuela's strongman, Hugo Chavez, nationalized the power company, Electricidad de Caracas, in early 2007, then owned by Arlington, Va.-based AES. Chavez dictated that AES would be paid just 50 cents on every dollar it sank into the company since 2000. AES had no choice. It took the $800 million and an earnings hit.
"We're moving toward a socialist republic of Venezuela," Chavez said. "Now electricity is for all, the thing that had been out of reach."
But far from electricity for all, there are now shortages — the same kind hitting other industries Chavez has meddled in.
Businesses have been confiscated across the board in Venezuela, amounting to a nationalization of much of the economy. Chavez has taken cattle ranches, sugar farms, steel companies, cement companies, oil companies, ketchup and soda factories, apartment buildings, phone companies, and TV stations, handing many over to the control of his cronies. His government's excuses for the theft have ranged from lack of title deed, idleness, hoarding, strategic value, ownership by the wrong race (read: white) and, in the case of RCTV, the station Chavez shut down last year, "coup-plotting."
Price controls have eliminated all incentive for farms to produce more. As a result, there's little meat, milk, coffee, eggs, or salt in Venezuelan shops. Import and currency controls have kept needed goods like capital machinery and spare parts out of reach for many businesses, which are now going fallow.
That hits the entire economy. Tires, toothpaste, batteries and other necessities of modern life are getting hard to come by in Chavez's Venezuela. Don't even think about job creation.
It all amounts to state intervention in an economy, and its result is to turn once-productive private enterprises into inefficient state-run ones, answerable to no market, wasting capital, and run by state employees whose loyalties are strictly political.
Chavez blames the U.S., his state TV stations citing "yanqui sabotage" for the power outage that hit Caracas this week.
He's tried to blame food shortages in Venezuela on the U.S., saying they're due to U.S. production of ethanol. But with Venezuela taking $100 billion in oil earnings, and the shortages going well beyond food but to other things as well, it's obvious the excuses don't wash.
In reality, investment has fled and it's getting obvious. Once-sparkling Caracas now looks rundown. Farmers in central Yaracuy state tell us they've let their farms get dilapidated and their business offices get encircled with weeds to make them less attractive to the confiscating hand of the state.
In 2007, Venezuelan foreign investment fell to less than half a billion dollars. That's the impact of confiscations. Meanwhile, neighboring Colombia's foreign investment, by contrast, soared to $9 billion. The lesson in this is the more an economy opens itself to the private sector and the outside world, the more investment it gains.
Chavez's nationalizations have been a failure. They haven't spread the wealth, as promised, but instead have served up the same across-the-board shortages known in every socialist regime.
Get IBD Editorials Via Email
Email To Friend | Print
An Absolut Outrage
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The Border: A vodka maker's ad campaign in Mexico is more than a marketing faux pas that offends many Americans. There's a real movement out there that feels our Southwest is really occupied Mexico.
________________________________________
Read More: Media & Culture | Latin America & Caribbean
________________________________________
The first rule of marketing is know your customer base. So when the makers of Absolut vodka began an ad campaign in Mexico featuring what a map of North America might look like "In An Absolut World," it was well aware it might appeal to many Mexicans there and here.
The ad by the Swedish Absolut Spirits Co. features an 1830s era map where Mexico includes California, Texas, Arizona and other southwest states. The U.S. border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 and before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico ceded to the U.S.
The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of the leading Latino advertising agency in the U.S., Grupo Gallegos.
"Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land," the Argentine native said of the Absolut campaign, "so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."
This isn't the first ad campaign targeted at what some Mexican activists call the "Reconquista" movement of those who dream and work toward the day when the American Southwest will be reconquered. To them, illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border are merely returning home.
In 2005, a Los Angeles billboard advertising a Spanish-language newscast showed the Angel of Independence, a well-known monument in Mexico City, in the center of the L.A. skyline, with "CA" crossed out after "Los Angeles" and the word "Mexico" in bold red letters put in its place.
The activists working for this cause actually see themselves as "America's Palestinians" and view the Southwest as their Palestine and Los Angeles as their lost Jerusalem.
An editorial in the newspaper La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles stated: "There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States."
The editorial went on to say: "The similarities are many. The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have used military means to conquer and occupy our territories."
A key player in the "Reconquista" movement is the National Council of La Raza. Its motto: "For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing."
Few caught the significance of the warmly received words of then-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo before the Council in Chicago on July 27, 1997:
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." During a 2001 visit to the U.S., President Vincente Fox repeated this line, calling for open borders and endorsing Mexico's new dual-citizenship law.
A secondary group in the "Reconquista" movement is an Hispanic student activist group known as MEChA, for Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan).
It has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming that the American Southwest was stolen and should be returned to its rightful owners, the people of Mexico, under the name "Nation of Aztlan."
Aztlan is the mythical place where the Aztecs are said to have originated.
Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez award. Another MEChA member is former California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 annual convention.
We have an idea: Let's build the border fence and pay for it by selling ad space, even to an ideologically driven company such as the makers of Absolut vodka. We'll drink to that.
If you can not come up with an intelligent rebuttal get the hell back to school.
Hugo's All-Too-Predictable Shortages
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economics: The blackout that engulfed most of Venezuela Monday was dismissed as just a technical glitch. But amid the state's takeover of the country's industries, it's not an aberration. It's a signature shortage of socialism.
________________________________________
Read More: Latin America & Caribbean
________________________________________
It happened suddenly in Caracas, and across the country at 3:59 p.m. A hydroelectric station somewhere blew out, and along with a failure of a backup system and a jungle fire, the entire electrical grid in the capital and other cities went down. It knocked out the Caracas subway, made cell phones unusable, cut traffic lights, forced hospitals to turn on emergency generators, trapped people for hours in high-rise elevators and left thousands stranded.
In Caracas, thousands waited in cars for hours. Thousands more had to trudge for hours to distant shantytowns up steep hillsides to make it home. In several cities, crime had a field day.
Such a blackout might not mean much in a place like Cuba, whose capital has been a trash heap since Castro's dictatorship began in 1959. It also might not mean much in Colombia, where a war against Marxist terrorists since 1966 has meant frequent power sabotage.
But it does mean something in Venezuela, not only because it's been a richer and better-developed country than the other two, but because it's rarely suffered outages until now. No one thinks it'll be the last.
What gives? Unlike Cuba or Colombia, Venezuela is nationalizing its industries now. Cuba has nothing left to nationalize; Colombia is privatizing.
Venezuela's strongman, Hugo Chavez, nationalized the power company, Electricidad de Caracas, in early 2007, then owned by Arlington, Va.-based AES. Chavez dictated that AES would be paid just 50 cents on every dollar it sank into the company since 2000. AES had no choice. It took the $800 million and an earnings hit.
"We're moving toward a socialist republic of Venezuela," Chavez said. "Now electricity is for all, the thing that had been out of reach."
But far from electricity for all, there are now shortages — the same kind hitting other industries Chavez has meddled in.
Businesses have been confiscated across the board in Venezuela, amounting to a nationalization of much of the economy. Chavez has taken cattle ranches, sugar farms, steel companies, cement companies, oil companies, ketchup and soda factories, apartment buildings, phone companies, and TV stations, handing many over to the control of his cronies. His government's excuses for the theft have ranged from lack of title deed, idleness, hoarding, strategic value, ownership by the wrong race (read: white) and, in the case of RCTV, the station Chavez shut down last year, "coup-plotting."
Price controls have eliminated all incentive for farms to produce more. As a result, there's little meat, milk, coffee, eggs, or salt in Venezuelan shops. Import and currency controls have kept needed goods like capital machinery and spare parts out of reach for many businesses, which are now going fallow.
That hits the entire economy. Tires, toothpaste, batteries and other necessities of modern life are getting hard to come by in Chavez's Venezuela. Don't even think about job creation.
It all amounts to state intervention in an economy, and its result is to turn once-productive private enterprises into inefficient state-run ones, answerable to no market, wasting capital, and run by state employees whose loyalties are strictly political.
Chavez blames the U.S., his state TV stations citing "yanqui sabotage" for the power outage that hit Caracas this week.
He's tried to blame food shortages in Venezuela on the U.S., saying they're due to U.S. production of ethanol. But with Venezuela taking $100 billion in oil earnings, and the shortages going well beyond food but to other things as well, it's obvious the excuses don't wash.
In reality, investment has fled and it's getting obvious. Once-sparkling Caracas now looks rundown. Farmers in central Yaracuy state tell us they've let their farms get dilapidated and their business offices get encircled with weeds to make them less attractive to the confiscating hand of the state.
In 2007, Venezuelan foreign investment fell to less than half a billion dollars. That's the impact of confiscations. Meanwhile, neighboring Colombia's foreign investment, by contrast, soared to $9 billion. The lesson in this is the more an economy opens itself to the private sector and the outside world, the more investment it gains.
Chavez's nationalizations have been a failure. They haven't spread the wealth, as promised, but instead have served up the same across-the-board shortages known in every socialist regime.
Get IBD Editorials Via Email
Email To Friend | Print
An Absolut Outrage
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The Border: A vodka maker's ad campaign in Mexico is more than a marketing faux pas that offends many Americans. There's a real movement out there that feels our Southwest is really occupied Mexico.
________________________________________
Read More: Media & Culture | Latin America & Caribbean
________________________________________
The first rule of marketing is know your customer base. So when the makers of Absolut vodka began an ad campaign in Mexico featuring what a map of North America might look like "In An Absolut World," it was well aware it might appeal to many Mexicans there and here.
The ad by the Swedish Absolut Spirits Co. features an 1830s era map where Mexico includes California, Texas, Arizona and other southwest states. The U.S. border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 and before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico ceded to the U.S.
The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of the leading Latino advertising agency in the U.S., Grupo Gallegos.
"Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land," the Argentine native said of the Absolut campaign, "so this is their way of reclaiming it. It's very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea."
This isn't the first ad campaign targeted at what some Mexican activists call the "Reconquista" movement of those who dream and work toward the day when the American Southwest will be reconquered. To them, illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border are merely returning home.
In 2005, a Los Angeles billboard advertising a Spanish-language newscast showed the Angel of Independence, a well-known monument in Mexico City, in the center of the L.A. skyline, with "CA" crossed out after "Los Angeles" and the word "Mexico" in bold red letters put in its place.
The activists working for this cause actually see themselves as "America's Palestinians" and view the Southwest as their Palestine and Los Angeles as their lost Jerusalem.
An editorial in the newspaper La Voz de Aztlan in Los Angeles stated: "There are great similarities between the political and economic condition of the Palestinians in occupied Palestine and that of La Raza in the southwest United States."
The editorial went on to say: "The similarities are many. The primary one, of course, is the fact that both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have used military means to conquer and occupy our territories."
A key player in the "Reconquista" movement is the National Council of La Raza. Its motto: "For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing."
Few caught the significance of the warmly received words of then-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo before the Council in Chicago on July 27, 1997:
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." During a 2001 visit to the U.S., President Vincente Fox repeated this line, calling for open borders and endorsing Mexico's new dual-citizenship law.
A secondary group in the "Reconquista" movement is an Hispanic student activist group known as MEChA, for Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan).
It has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming that the American Southwest was stolen and should be returned to its rightful owners, the people of Mexico, under the name "Nation of Aztlan."
Aztlan is the mythical place where the Aztecs are said to have originated.
Former MEChA members include Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was officially endorsed by La Raza for mayor and awarded La Raza's Graciela Olivarez award. Another MEChA member is former California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who delivered the keynote address at La Raza's 2002 annual convention.
We have an idea: Let's build the border fence and pay for it by selling ad space, even to an ideologically driven company such as the makers of Absolut vodka. We'll drink to that.
CHALLENGE
Here's one for guys and gals. Who said this, when, political affiliation.
I'll give you a clue, I agree with the speaker.
What do I believe? As an American I believe in generosity, in liberty, in the rights of man. These are social and political faiths that are part of me, as they are, I suppose, part of all of us. Such beliefs are easy to express. But part of me too is my relation to all life, my religion. And this is not so easy to talk about. Religious experience is highly intimate and, for me, ready words are not at hand.
I'll give you a clue, I agree with the speaker.
What do I believe? As an American I believe in generosity, in liberty, in the rights of man. These are social and political faiths that are part of me, as they are, I suppose, part of all of us. Such beliefs are easy to express. But part of me too is my relation to all life, my religion. And this is not so easy to talk about. Religious experience is highly intimate and, for me, ready words are not at hand.
MARGIE SAID...
Margie said...
I like your spunk old guy. You're just trying to keep the mind active I guess.
And the country boy schtick is so cute. I have a grandpa who does your routine because he never got over his lack of education. He often mouthed quotes he didn't understand -- stuff he cut out of old Reader's Digest magazines. We finally had to take away his scissors. By the way, that Orwell saying is a liberal quote. In fact, I think the quote is in the book What Liberals Believe. Check it out. It's never too late for some of that fancy book learnin.
1. I know that Orwell was (died in 1950 I believe)a liberal and I agreed with the quote long before your book came out. perhaps if you kids expanded your apparently limited reading material. Orwell did write some interesting things.
2. I am an old country boy---for real. Grew up in farm country in Wisconsin so no schtick, its real.
3. As for keeping my mind active---well if I listed all the good productive things I have done in this life--and still intend to do--you would would not believe it any way.
4. Did you show as much disrespect to your grandfather as you do to me??? If so, shame on you young lady. Or doesn't your generation know about showing respect??
5. I don't know what your grandfather did for a living or what he did in his every day life, but....I would guess that he had more practical, hands on education in the game of life than most of this younger generation. If he read Reader's Digest on a regular basis he probably had a pretty good education right there.
6. As for my level of education, it is quite obvious that it is higher than yours and those two ANONYMOUS people. At least you showed me the courtesy of including your name. Thank you. My personal library includes over 500 books on a wide range of subjects. Education includes a High School diploma from a School in the Philippines;
20 years of Education in various Air Force schools; a B.S. degree in Elementary Education; a Masters Degree in Single Parenthood from the University of Life; and an honorary PhD in Life Sciences from the University of Life.
All I am looking for is honest dialog, which is something all three of you young people seem incapable of doing.
I like your spunk old guy. You're just trying to keep the mind active I guess.
And the country boy schtick is so cute. I have a grandpa who does your routine because he never got over his lack of education. He often mouthed quotes he didn't understand -- stuff he cut out of old Reader's Digest magazines. We finally had to take away his scissors. By the way, that Orwell saying is a liberal quote. In fact, I think the quote is in the book What Liberals Believe. Check it out. It's never too late for some of that fancy book learnin.
1. I know that Orwell was (died in 1950 I believe)a liberal and I agreed with the quote long before your book came out. perhaps if you kids expanded your apparently limited reading material. Orwell did write some interesting things.
2. I am an old country boy---for real. Grew up in farm country in Wisconsin so no schtick, its real.
3. As for keeping my mind active---well if I listed all the good productive things I have done in this life--and still intend to do--you would would not believe it any way.
4. Did you show as much disrespect to your grandfather as you do to me??? If so, shame on you young lady. Or doesn't your generation know about showing respect??
5. I don't know what your grandfather did for a living or what he did in his every day life, but....I would guess that he had more practical, hands on education in the game of life than most of this younger generation. If he read Reader's Digest on a regular basis he probably had a pretty good education right there.
6. As for my level of education, it is quite obvious that it is higher than yours and those two ANONYMOUS people. At least you showed me the courtesy of including your name. Thank you. My personal library includes over 500 books on a wide range of subjects. Education includes a High School diploma from a School in the Philippines;
20 years of Education in various Air Force schools; a B.S. degree in Elementary Education; a Masters Degree in Single Parenthood from the University of Life; and an honorary PhD in Life Sciences from the University of Life.
All I am looking for is honest dialog, which is something all three of you young people seem incapable of doing.
DEDICATED TO TWO ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUALS
Just where do you feel that I fit in???????
You need to give me something to hang my hat on. Something more than you two trying to shut down my freedom of speech. It does irritate me just a wee little bit that I spent 20 years of my life, in Air Force blue, defending your right to be hate filled jerks. I shall go on defending your right to be anonymous jerks until they have to pry my key board from my cold, dead, hands.
Have a great day guys/ladies
What Liberals Believe
Thousands of Quotes on Why America Needs to Be Rescued from Greedy Corporations, Homophobes, Racists, Imperialists, Xenophobes, and Religious Extremists
William Martin
You need to give me something to hang my hat on. Something more than you two trying to shut down my freedom of speech. It does irritate me just a wee little bit that I spent 20 years of my life, in Air Force blue, defending your right to be hate filled jerks. I shall go on defending your right to be anonymous jerks until they have to pry my key board from my cold, dead, hands.
Have a great day guys/ladies
What Liberals Believe
Thousands of Quotes on Why America Needs to Be Rescued from Greedy Corporations, Homophobes, Racists, Imperialists, Xenophobes, and Religious Extremists
William Martin
DEDICATED TO TWO ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUALS
I did not write these words but I do agree with them. There are just too many chowder heads out there who either ignore history, or chose to bend it to satisfy their need for instant gratification.
Libya Summons Western Envoys to Protest Security Council Walk-out
Tripoli has summoned for a diplomatic dressing-down the ambassadors (and American charge d'affaires) of those Western nations whose United Nations envoys walked out of a Security Council session after the Libyan ambassador likened Israel's behavior in the Gaza Strip to that of the Nazis during World War II. The incident took place on April 23. Following the comments made by the Libyan ambassador, representatives of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Costa Rica left the Security Council chamber. The action was considered a diplomatic rarity. The Libyan government has defended its ambassador, insisting that he was "right to express the stance of his country." But the American envoy criticized his Libyan colleague for his "historical ignorance and moral insensitivity."
Libya Summons Western Envoys to Protest Security Council Walk-out
Tripoli has summoned for a diplomatic dressing-down the ambassadors (and American charge d'affaires) of those Western nations whose United Nations envoys walked out of a Security Council session after the Libyan ambassador likened Israel's behavior in the Gaza Strip to that of the Nazis during World War II. The incident took place on April 23. Following the comments made by the Libyan ambassador, representatives of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Costa Rica left the Security Council chamber. The action was considered a diplomatic rarity. The Libyan government has defended its ambassador, insisting that he was "right to express the stance of his country." But the American envoy criticized his Libyan colleague for his "historical ignorance and moral insensitivity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)