Libya Speech: Obama explains it all to you



Where is the word Victory?

 Obama’s fundamentally dishonest speech

President Obama gave an impassioned, sometimes eloquent, defense of his policies in Libya tonight. But when it came to justifying the limited goals of the military mission, HIS SPEECH WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.  OBAMA PRESENTED HIMSELF AS STANDING BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES — those on the one hand, who want to do nothing in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe, and those on the other who want to invade Libya the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq…..

… This is a straw man, and the president knows it. No serious person is arguing that we should “repeat in Libya” what we did in Iraq….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-fundamentally-dishonest-speech/2011/03/28/AFC0NfrB_blog.html


This appears to be the technique Obama loves using. He is always setting up a straw man argument so he can knock it down.

Obama Still Murky on Libya

PRESIDENT OBAMA JUST GAVE A WEIRD SPEECH. Part George W. Bush, part trademark Obama — filled with his characteristic split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes.

His support for those “yearning for freedom all around the world” was the sort of interventionist foreign policy that a Senator Obama — if his past reaction to the removal of Saddam Hussein is any indication — WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF SENDING BOMBERS OVER AN ARAB MUSLIM OIL-EXPORTING COUNTRY. Since SADDAM WAS A FAR GREATER MONSTER (gassing thousands is far worse than turning off the water to neighborhoods) than the monsters that Obama now wishes to slay, I think he has confused rather than enlightened his audience.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE CONGRESS. Is he going to ever ask its approval? And if not, why the repeated emphasis on asking others such as the Arab League or the UN for their approval — given that their representatives, unlike ours, are largely not elected?

IN A SPEECH DEDICATED TO CLARIFYING OUR POLICY, IT LEFT IT EVEN MORE MURKY. WHAT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE, AND WHAT IS IT NOW? Obama asserted that “We have stopped his deadly advance.” But is that the aim — the status quo, and a sort of permanent safe zone for rebels in accordance with UN directives? Or are we going beyond that to eliminate Qaddafi, who is the source of the problem? THE PRESIDENT NOW SAYS HE WON’T OVERTHROW QADDAFI BY FORCE, BUT THAT IS WHAT HE HOPES, IN FACT, WILL HAPPEN as a result of our military presence:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263273/obama-still-murky-libya-victor-davis-hanson

Honesty doesn’t seem to be Obama’s strong suit.



Obama’s Libya speech

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPEECH OFFERED MORE FOR NEO-CONSERVATIVES TO CHEER THAN IT DID FOR LIBERALS. But at the heart of his speech and of his Libya policy is a fundamental and UNRESOLVED CONTRADICTION….

…. THAT LAST SENTENCE IS THE PERFECT ENCAPSULATION OF BUSH’S FREEDOM AGENDA. But Obama then runs into trouble. Obama can’t bring himself to embrace the view of those conservatives, you know the ones who pushed to liberate Iraq. (“Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”) Moreover, he won’t, he told us in no uncertain terms — despite all the interests he outlined — use our military to remove Moammar Gaddafi. And THIS IS WHERE HE BECAME, FRANKLY, INCOHERENT. Why aren’t we using our military? Ah, the price of multilateralism…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-libya-speech/2011/03/04/AFOOTDrB_blog.html

Actually for all his anti-Bush rhetoric and his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama seems to be more of a warrior than Bush was. No wonder his message was incoherent.


In fact, if you dissect Obama’s argument, we find that removing Saddam was too costly and removing Milosevic took too long, but I, Barack Hussein Obama, will get rid of this dictator wholesale!!!



White House says Libya decision based on 'best interests'

NO SENSE OF PRECEDENT GUIDED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S DECISION TO INTERVENE IN LIBYA, administration officials said Monday.

"We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "WE MAKE THEM BASED ON HOW WE CAN BEST ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS IN THE REGION."

McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region

Makes you wonder if we are trading blood for oil. Nah, that couldn’t be the case since Obama is in office.



His lips were moving, but nothing was really said

….IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME. In his last remarks before hostilities commenced, Obama announced that he was sending Secretary Clinton to Geneva for consultations with our allies. Tonight Obama announced: "Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations."

OBAMA IDENTIFIED NO AMERICAN INTEREST AT ISSUE IN OUR LIBYAN VENTURE. Obama did say that it was not in the American national interest to permit Qaddafi's intended massacre of Libyans in Benghazi ("It was not in our national interest to let that happen"), but one could just as well say that it was not in the American national interest to prevent it either. HIS ASSERTION IS A VACUOUS VERBAL FORMULATION. He's moving his lips, but he's not saying anything. There may be an American national interest involved, even if not a vital one, as Secretary Gates asserts, BUT IT PLAYS NO ROLE IN OBAMA'S STATED RATIONALE…

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028704.php

While attacking Libya may be the “right and humanitarian” thing to do, it certainly isn’t the “smart” thing to do or even the “logical” thing to do.

Obama vs Bush

“We believe that people across the Middle East and across the world are weary of poverty, weary of oppression, and YEARN TO BE FREE. And all who know that hope, all who will work and sacrifice for freedom, HAVE A FRIEND IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” – George W. Bush in 2006

“We welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because WHEREVER PEOPLE LONG TO BE FREE, THEY WILL FIND A FRIEND IN THE UNITED STATES.” – Obama 3/28/2011.

Perhaps we should change Barack Obama’s name to Barack W. Obama.



Reid vows to stop any tinkering with Social Security

ANY LAWMAKER WHO SO MUCH AS THINKS ABOUT TINKERING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY ANYTIME IN THE NEXT DECADE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH HARRY REID (AND A FEW OF HIS FRIENDS) FIRST.

A handful of liberal Democratic senators pushed back against calls from Republicans and even fellow Democrats to reform the national pension system during a rally on Capitol Hill Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada joined Sens. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, and Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, at a “Hands Off Social Security” rally where all of them insisted that Social Security — THE NATION’S LARGEST PROGRAM THAT COSTS ABOUT $700 BILLION A YEAR — adds nothing to the deficit or debt.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/29/reid-vows-to-stand-in-the-way-of-any-efforts-to-reform-social-security/#ixzz1HzEbtJeN

Reid has shown that he and the democrats aren’t serious about deficit reform and that they plan to use this issue politically. It might work, but it might not as well. The democrats are playing a dangerous game of “chicken” with our country.



Obama votes “Present” on deficit

There’s a well-worn aphorism in politics that getting U.S. senators to agree on anything is as easy as herding cats. In today’s bitterly partisan atmosphere, that maxim is especially apt. So when 64 SENATORS SIGNED A LETTER RECENTLY THAT URGED PRESIDENT OBAMA TO GET INVOLVED ON DEVELOPING A “COMPREHENSIVE” DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE, IT APPEARED TO BE A BIG DEAL.

But even though Obama has expressed grave concern about the country’s ocean of red ink, HE HAS REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE SENATORS’ LETTER, HIS FISCAL COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR $4 TRILLION OF DEFICIT REDUCTION IN THE COMING DECADE, OR EMBRACE ANY OTHER APPROACH.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/03/29/Senators-Toss-Budget-Ball-to-Obama-Who-Fumbles.aspx

If anyone has any sense of Presidential leadership, this should help dispel them. We must address the deficit and it appears Obama, Reid, and Pelosi (the democratic leadership) refuse to.



NPR Ekes Out A Surplus and Hosts Make Out Like Bandits

NPR, which has been under attack after video footage from James O’Keefe showed a now former network executive saying that NPR would be just fine without federal funding, is going to run a surplus or “modest margin,” this year.

Daily Finance reports on the network’s financial turnaround:

AS A WHOLE, NPR — AS IS COMMON FOR A NONPROFIT — USUALLY RUNS A DEFICIT. According to audited financial statements, NPR’s revenue ran a $8.3 million deficit in the 2010 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30. Revenues rose to $184.3 million from $148.7 million a year earlier, while expenses jumped to $192.5 last year from $166.6 million in 2009. But after cutting staff and scaling back benefits in 2008, NPR EXPECTS TO MAKE A “MODEST MARGIN” THIS YEAR, ACCORDING TO SPOKESWOMAN DANA DAVIS REHM.

This would normally be good news, except that NPR IS LOCKED IN A BATTLE OVER FUTURE GOVERNMENT FUNDING, RUNNING A SURPLUS SHOWS GOOD FISCAL MANAGEMENT BUT MAY ALSO LEND CREDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT THEY DON’T NEED MORE TAXPAYER MONEY.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/npr-ekes-out-a-surplus-and-hosts-make-out-like-bandits/


Makes sense to me. In an age of Obama sized deficits, NPR must be allowed to fend for itself.



Voting With Their Feet

The latest published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, PEOPLE ARE VOTING WITH THEIR FEET AGAINST PLACES WHERE THE LIBERAL, WELFARE-STATE POLICIES FAVORED BY THE INTELLIGENTSIA ARE MOST DEEPLY ENTRENCHED.

When you break it down by race and ethnicity, it is all too painfully clear what is happening. BOTH WHITES AND BLACKS ARE LEAVING CALIFORNIA, THE POSTER STATE FOR THE LIBERAL, WELFARE-STATE AND NANNY-STATE PHILOSOPHY….

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/29/voting_with_their_feet_109369.html

This phenomenon has mixed messages. The red states they are fleeing to are picking up congressional seats, but will they bring the liberal policies they are fleeing with them? Will they “Californicate” Texas, etc?

AT&T merger could swell ranks of union that backs Democrats

The merger of AT&T and T-Mobile COULD SWELL THE RANKS OF A UNION WITH CLOSE TIES TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Analysts predict that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to try to block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. But in certain districts, the merger could carry political costs for GOP candidates.

That's because thousands of T-Mobile USA's employees — who are not unionized — will become part of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) if AT&T is permitted to buy up the company. CWA almost uniformly endorses Democrats.

"CWA IS VERY INFLUENTIAL IN CERTAIN STATES, AND THIS MIGHT INCREASE THEIR POLITICAL MUSCLE IN CERTAIN PLACES WHERE THEY ARE POWERFUL, LIKE NEW JERSEY," said Daniel DiSalvo, a political science professor at the City College of New York.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/152221-atat-merger-could-hurt-republican-candidates

It easy to see this merger should get quick approval by a Democrat administration. I guess all corporations are equal in Obama’s eyes, but some are more equal than others.

Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout

Rex Weyler announces to Patrick Moore that he is about to come out publicly with a critique of Patrick’s new book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.

RW: You portray yourself as “sensible” and disparage all non-corporate environmentalists, but you don’t act scientific. You employ rhetorical devices such as: “There is no alarm about climate change,” since “the climate is always changing….”

PM: I hardly think Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, is a corporate environmentalist, more of a loveable hippie with a big brain. Do you think Bjorn Lomborg is “corporate”. I DON’T AGREE WITH EITHER BRAND OR LOMBORG ON EVERYTHING BUT AT LEAST THEY CAUSE ME TO THINK RATHER THAN PEOPLE WHO REPEAT A MEMORIZED PARTY-LINE. I also admire James Lovelock even though I find him enigmatic. All three of these environmentalists that I admire are non-corporate. Which “corporate environmentalists” am I allegedly admiring?

I believe I am sensible and have been all my life, as in common sense. But I suppose that is a matter of opinion….

http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/moore-weyler-exchange/

An interesting conversation (debate?) that highlights the differences between the environalarmists and those who take a more sensible approach.

Energy, Libya, and the real world

Awash in energy yet we won’t use it

AMERICA’S COMBINED ENERGY RESOURCES ARE, ACCORDING TO A NEW REPORT FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (CSR), THE LARGEST ON EARTH. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined – and that’s WITHOUT INCLUDING AMERICA’S SHALE OIL DEPOSITS and, in the future, the potentially astronomic impact of methane hydrates….

…The CRS estimates US RECOVERABLE COAL RESERVES AT AROUND 262 BILLION TONS (not including further massive, difficult to access, Alaskan reserves). Given the US consumes around 1.2 billion tons a year, that’s A COUPLE OF CENTURIES OF COAL USE, at least….

…. In 2009 the CRS upped its 2006 estimate of America’s enormous natural gas deposits by 25 percent to around 2,047 trillion cubic feet, a conservative figure given the expanding shale gas revolution. AT CURRENT RATES OF USE THAT’S ENOUGH FOR AROUND 100 YEARS. Then there is still the, as yet largely publicly untold, story of methane hydrates to consider, a resource which the CRS reports alludes to as “immense…possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels….”

…. While the US is often depicted as having only a tiny minority of the world’s oil reserves at around 28 billion barrels (based on the somewhat misleading figure of ‘proven reserves’) ACCORDING TO THE CRS IN REALITY IT HAS AROUND 163 BILLION BARRELS. As Inhofe’s EPW press release comments, “THAT’S ENOUGH OIL TO MAINTAIN AMERICA’S CURRENT RATES OF PRODUCTION AND REPLACE IMPORTS FROM THE PERSIAN GULF FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS….”

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/26/us-most-energy-resources-in-the-world-and-most-incoherent-energy-policy/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952


Next time someone talks about “peak” oil or how we are running out of fossil fuels, remember what you’ve read here. America is the most energy independent country on earth, if only the left would let us exploit it.



Obama’s Energy Policies and George Soros

ARE BARACK OBAMA'S ENERGY POLICIES INFLUENCED BY HEDGE FUND BILLIONAIRE AND POLITICAL PATRON, GEORGE SOROS?

Abby Wisse Schacter, in the New York Post, notes that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS CLAMPING DOWN ON OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA (BOTH ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE) but is hell-bent on helping other nation's tap their resources and points out that such help is being showered specifically in New Guinea, of all places.

IT IS STARTING TO LOOK OBVIOUS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T WANT OIL EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION AT HOME WHILE IT IS PROMOTING THE SAME EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION ELSEWHERE -- specifically Brazil and New Guinea. "The Bureau of Ocean Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) has assigned only six drilling engineers to process all permit applications pending in the Gulf of Mexico. While Michael Bromwich bemoans a lack of the staff necessary to speed up the process, he's sending his staffers to Papua New Guinea to advise its officials on ways to develop the country's offshore drilling infrastructure. A significant portion of the agency's budget is covered by fees, royalties, taxes, and rents from energy production, so curtailing drilling closes off cash flow too.

Others have commented on Obama's generosity regarding Brazil's oil wealth and how those actions might help George Soros.

BUT FOCUS SHOULD NOW TURN TOWARDS THE EXOTIC LAND OF NEW GUINEA…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/soros_wins_under_obamas_energy.html

This dovetails nicely with the story right before it. We need to be exploiting our own energy reserves.



How Long Will U.S. Forces be Involved in Libya? White House Says Nobody Knows

The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for almost ten years, at war in Iraq for almost eight years and AT WAR IN LIBYA FOR NINE DAYS.

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates HOW MUCH LONGER WE MIGHT BE THERE.

“Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we'll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THAT,” GATES SAID.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/how-long-will-us-forces-be-involved-in-libya-white-house-says-nobody-knows.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Honest answers are hard to come by because they can be so unsatisfying.



Is NPR unbiased?

....ADVOCACY BEGINS WITH THE CHOICE OF STORIES TO COVER. When you cover the "controversial" Arizona immigration law with great attention and give very little attention to stories that reflect badly on immigrants, you exhibit bias even though no clear advocacy has been shown. OF COURSE, THE MEDIA WILL ARGUE THAT THEY COVER THE "NEWSWORTHY" STORIES. THIS IS CONVENIENT COVER WHEN YOU GET TO DECIDE YOURSELF WHAT IS AND ISN'T NEWSWORTHY.

Advocacy continues with the sources used in covering a story. YOU CAN STACK THE DECK BY CITING ONLY SOURCES THAT AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. That level of bias is rather obvious and, frankly, not NPR's modus operandi. NPR tends to be quite scrupulous in including multiple sides of a story. When they run a story on gay marriage, for example, they will typically interview both advocates and strong opponents of the practice. At times they will tilt in one direction on their source list, but other times they will tilt in the other direction. Does this mean that NPR does not use a source list to advocate? Not so fast.

HOW MUCH DOES EACH SOURCE GET TO SAY? WHAT MATTERS IS EACH SOURCE ASKED TO SPEAK UPON? IN WHAT ORDER ARE THE SOURCES CITED? Is the source heard in his or her own voice, quoted in the reporter's voice, or paraphrased? All of these are questions that demonstrate ways to inject the "objective" reporter's position into the story. Several years ago, FAIR did a source-counting report in which they proclaimed NPR's news to be largely unbiased. Such a simplistic view of communication either reflects poorly on FAIR's abilities or their honesty.

SELECTION, EDITING, AND REPORTER TRANSITIONS PROVIDE A POINT FOR ADVOCACY TO ENTER A STORY. Without seeing the entire available information from which a reporter assembled a story, we cannot make a firm claim of fairness or bias, but neither can Bill Moyers.

ONE ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE OF ADVOCACY COMES IN THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF SOURCES….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_bias_they_cant_see_the_npr.html

A good evaluation of NPR and how bias can get into news stories. In fact, the major problem the left has with Fox News is their choice of stories.  Fox covers something the left would rather they not and force the other news sources to cover it as well.



Transparency?

Ahead of a congressional hearing this week on whether senior political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security have blocked the release of some documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, A SERIES OF NEWLY UNCENSORED EMAILS INDICATE THAT SOME STAFFERS COMPLAINED FOR MONTHS OF INTERNAL "MEDDLING" BY OBAMA-APPOINTED OFFICIALS.

Obtained by The Associated Press under a FOIA request, THE EMAILS DESCRIBE "CRAZY" AND "BANANAS!" POLITICAL REVIEWS OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS, AND "CONSTANT STONEWALLING" AS FILES WENT TO HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JANET NAPOLITANO'S POLITICAL STAFF AS PART OF THE PRE-RELEASE VETTING process.

President Barack Obama has said that federal workers should "act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation" to fulfill FOIA requests, and Attorney General Eric Holder has stressed that "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles have no place in the new era of open government." But critics say that the administration has been bogged down by political interests in fulfilling document requests from journalists, watchdog groups and ordinary citizens.

In one recent instance cited by the AP…..

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52033.html#ixzz1HtlvD3jB

So much for the most Transparent Government in history…



Transparency (part 2)?

The Obama administration failed to set up an "effective" communications system during last year's BP oil spill and THREATENED ITS OWN CREDIBILITY BY "SEVERELY RESTRICTING" THE RELEASE OF "TIMELY, ACCURATE INFORMATION," ACCORDING TO A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE U.S. COAST GUARD.

Quietly posted on the Coast Guard's website two weeks ago, the report offers the first major assessment of the federal government's communications efforts during the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

"Several layers of review and approval by the White House and (Department of Homeland Security) prevented timely and effective crisis communications and HINDERED THE COAST GUARD'S ABILITY TO ... (KEEP) STAKEHOLDERS INFORMED ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE RESPONSE," THE REPORT READS, adding that "accurate and timely messaging from the response organization improves transparency with the public."

Information centers in Houma, La., and Mobile, Ala. -- established by the Coast Guard in accordance with pre-set plans for major disasters -- WERE "EFFECTIVELY MUTED," THE REPORT READS….

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/slowing-bp-oil-spill-administration-slowed-flow-information-claims-coast-guard/

Rather than one of the most Transparent Government in history, it appears this is one of the least transparent governments in recent years.



Senate Dems, White House to offer $20B more in cuts; tensions rise

Senate Democrats and the White House on Monday were working to finalize a new counteroffer to the GOP on 2011 spending cuts.

The counteroffer would cut an additional $20 billion from 2011 spending on top of the $10 billion already cut by two short-term continuing resolutions enacted this month, sources close to the talks said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/152131-senate-dems-white-house-to-offer-20b-in-spending-cuts


Considering this is .45% of the budget this isn’t much of an offer. If you are spending $50,000 per year and you are borrowing $16,000 of that amount and the bank told you that you have to cut your spending, this is the equivalent of offering to cut your spending by $222 per year. That probably wouldn’t impress your banker.

Who damaged the environment the most in human history?

Here’s a funny look at this question.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/03/the-worlds-worst-environmental-villan.html

Wisconsin moves on Collective bargaining and other Democrat Disasters

G.O.P. Tactic Ends Stalemate in Wisconsin Union Fight

The bitter political standoff in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker’s bid to sharply curtail collective bargaining for public-sector workers ended abruptly Wednesday night as Republican colleagues in the State Senate successfully maneuvered to adopt a bill doing just that.

After a three-week stalemate, REPUBLICAN SENATORS PUSHED THE MEASURE THROUGH IN LESS THAN HALF AN HOUR EVEN AS THE SENATE’S DEMOCRATS REMAINED MANY MILES AWAY, trying to block the vote. Democrats in the State Assembly complained bitterly, and protesters, who had spent many days at the Capitol, continued their chants and jeers.

The Republicans control the Senate but had been blocked from voting on the issue after Senate Democrats left the state last month to prevent a quorum. INSTEAD, THE REPUBLICANS USED A PROCEDURAL MANEUVER WEDNESDAY TO FORCE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MEASURE THROUGH: they removed elements of Governor Walker’s bill that were technically related to appropriating funds, thus lifting a requirement that 20 senators be present for a vote. In the end, the Senate’s 19 Republicans approved the measure, 18 to 1, without any debate on the floor or a single Democrat in the room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10wisconsin.html?_r=1


Only in the liberal media would the Republican move be called a procedural maneuver while the Democrats fled the state. If anything this was a counter maneuver.



More on the Wisconsin vote and aftermath

Wisconsin Democrats got just what they deserved and what they should have seen coming, but NEVERTHELESS THEY ARE GOING INSANE. Ann Althouse reports that Democrat Party THUGS HAVE STORMED THE STATE CAPITOL, OUTNUMBERED OR OVERPOWERED SECURITY, AND HANDCUFFED THE DOORS SHUT FROM THE INSIDE. They apparently are barricading themselves inside the Capitol to keep police out.

Let's hope that the authorities have finally had enough, and the Democrats and union thugs are arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028556.php


I thought that the left was always civil. I thought it was the TEA Party that was the trouble makers when they don’t get their way. I guess I should listen to the left wing press.



Votes backfire on Senate Dems

SENATE DEMOCRATS SUFFERED A WAVE OF DEFECTIONS WEDNESDAY AS THEIR PROPOSAL TO CUT JUST OVER $6 BILLION FROM FEDERAL SPENDING THIS YEAR WENT DOWN TO DEFEAT.

The Democratic bill attracted two fewer votes than the rival GOP measure that would cut spending by another $57 billion this year. The 11 defections will give Republican leaders ammunition in subsequent talks, as they were able to keep their caucus more unified.

The GOP measure lost by a vote of 44 to 56, while the Democratic bill was rejected, 42-58.

“ELEVEN SENATE DEMOCRATS JUST VOTED AGAINST THEIR LEADERSHIP’S PROPOSAL,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “The bill supported by Sen. Reid ... proved less popular than the ‘draconian’ House Republican proposal in the Democrat-controlled Senate.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/148577-votes-backfire-on-dems


With 23 Democratic Senate seats up for reelection this coming year and 95% of likely voters rating the deficit as a problem, it’s surprising any Democrat would vote for a bill that only cuts 6 billion out of a $1.65 trillion deficit. The Democrats lost 11 Democratic Senators and the Republican lost 3 of theirs for the same reason: they thought the cuts were too small. But with only 9 days to go on the Continuing Resolution, something has to give and it appears it will have to be Reid.



$862 Billion Over 10 years

THAT’S HOW MUCH THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN PLAN TO CUT $61 BILLION IN NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING OVER THE NEXT SEVEN MONTHS WOULD ACTUALLY REDUCE THE DEFICIT. By lowering the initial spending baseline (however slightly), and thus reducing the need to keep borrowing — and paying interest on — money from China, et al., the savings would eventually add up to quite a substantial sum.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) says: “[Republicans'] fervor for spending cuts is not grounded in deficit reduction at all. INSTEAD THE FAR RIGHT WING HAS DELIBERATELY CONFUSED TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. They’ve conflated reducing the deficit — which is not their true priority — WITH CUTTING GOVERNMENT — WHICH IS.”

Sen. Jeff Session (R., Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, explains why he’s wrong:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261805/862-billion-over-10-years-andrew-stiles


I don’t agree with Schumer very often, but he is right that the Republicans want to cut government. And the problem is????? This looks like a win/win to me.



O’Keefe: More NPR Material ‘Coming Out Very Soon,’ Could Make Story Even ‘Bigger’

For NPR, the public relations nightmare may have just begun: JAMES O’KEEFE IS PLANNING TO RELEASE MORE OF THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HIS GROUP, PROJECT VERITAS, AND NPR EMPLOYEES.

“We’ve got more material coming out very soon that will shine more light on things,” O’Keefe tells National Review Online. “It’s going to cover after the lunch as well [as before the lunch].”

O’Keefe says he doesn’t know if the current video will result in a loss of federal funding for NPR. “It’s unclear. WE HAVE MORE MATERIAL. IT MIGHT EVEN MAKE IT [THE STORY] BIGGER.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261789/o-keefe-more-npr-material-coming-out-very-soon-could-make-story-even-bigger-katrina-tr


As you can see, things are not going well for the left. And here's an update.  Patterico questioned a tweet sent out the NPR's ombudsman.  Seems like the left has a difficult time checking their facts even when it was laid out for them.  Just another reason to defund NPR. 

http://patterico.com/2011/03/10/reckless-disregard-for-the-truth-my-incredible-interchange-with-the-npr-ombudsman/



Is O’Keefe’s Next Video of PBS?

PBS CONFIRMED WEDNESDAY THAT LIKE NPR, ONE OF ITS EXECUTIVES ATTENDED A LUNCH WITH PEOPLE WHO POSED AS MEMBERS OF THE MUSLIM EDUCATION ACTION CENTER TRUST, a fictional group. When those people had lunch with NPR executives, they falsely claimed that they wanted to donate up to $5 million to public media. The NPR executives were secretly videotaped at the lunch.

Anne Bentley, a PBS spokeswoman, said PBS’ senior vice president for development, BRIAN REDDINGTON, ATTENDED A LUNCH WITH THE FAKE DONORS IN FEBRUARY. She said she had “no sense at all” of whether Mr. Reddington was taped during that lunch; WHEN ASKED IF PBS WAS CONCERNED ABOUT A POSSIBLE TAPE SURFACING, SHE DECLINED TO COMMENT

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261791/o-keefe-s-next-video-pbs-katrina-trinko


Hmmm, I wonder what he has to say about the TEA Party. This is getting interesting.

Obama: Get off the bench


By A.B. Stoddard

Even before a member of his own party scolded him on the floor of the U.S. Senate for failing to lead, IT WAS ALREADY PAST TIME FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TO GET INTO THE GAME ON BUDGET REFORM that tackles entitlements and the tax code. HE IGNORED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF HIS OWN DEBT COMMISSION, gave lip service to the burden of mandatory spending in his State of the Union address, and THEN INTRODUCED A BUDGET THAT CONFIRMED HE WOULD INDEED DODGE THE HARD STUFF. Yet while Obama willfully completed his third strike in another round of politics-as-usual, the unthinkable has happened. All around him, Republicans and Democrats are gripping the third rail, delving openly into a discussion of entitlement reform. WILL OBAMA SHOW THE SAME GUTS?

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ab-stoddard/148529-obama-get-off-the-bench


If anyone thinks Obama is a leader, please say "Present" to signify it.


Meanwhile Britain faces the problems with Public Employee benefits

SWITCHING PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS FROM A ‘FINAL SALARY’ TO ‘CAREER AVERAGE’ BASIS MAY SOUND LIKE A TECHNICAL POINT BUT COULD CUT PAYOUTS BY 40PC, ACTUARIES CALCULATE.

The professional mathematicians who advise pension funds say YOUNG PEOPLE AND HIGH FLYERS WILL BE HIT HARDEST by the changes recommended in Lord Hutton’s report.

John Wright, head of public sector pensions, at Hymans Robertson said public sector workers who achieve promotion during their career and currently retire with final salary pensions worth £60,000 might expect this to fall to just over £35,000 under the new career average pension proposals…..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100009742/hutton-cuts-public-sector-pensions-by-40pc-mps-must-lead-by-example/


Reality is reality around the world. When are the Democratic leaders going to finally face reality?


Bachman right: $105 billion in spending in Obamacare bill

Today former Congressman Ernest Istook testified before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee about the $105 billion slush fund in advance appropriations liberals tucked inside Obamacare. THE $105 BILLION BYPASSES THE TRADITIONAL YEARLY BUDGETING PROCESS AND IS SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE 2,700 PAGE LEGISLATION. It took the Congressional Research Service (CRS) seven months to identify all the disparate funds and it was not until February (11 months after the bill passed) that all of the funds could be totaled up.

REP. MICHELLE BACHMANN (R-MN) HAS BEEN BEATING THE DRUM to raise awareness of this unprecedented level of advance spending. But the liberal media has been attacking her for calling it “hidden” funding. In reality, Rep. Bachmann said that “practically no Member of Congress even knew that $105 billion of funding was” in the bill. FACTCHECK SAYS THAT THIS FUNDING WAS KNOWN TO “THOSE WHO READ THE BILL … including members of Congress.” But does FactCheck really believe that any member of Congress read all 2,700 pages of the bill? Do they have any evidence at all that any member of Congress knew about the $105 billion figure before CRS published their report this February?

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/09/politifact-factcheck-and-wapo-all-confirm-the-105-billion-obamacare-slush-fund-exists/#more-54283


Has any previous bill in history ever had such a deceitful passage? Pelosi appears to be right. We needed to pass the bill to find out what’s in it and then it took 11 months to get this little ditty.

Everything new is old again

Hoyer Says Federal Budget May Not Be Balanced for 20 Years

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that it may take as many as 20 years to balance the federal budget after years of deficit spending in Washington.






At Hoyer's weekly press briefing on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com noted that PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LATEST BUDGET PROPOSAL DOES NOT BALANCE AT ANY TIME IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS and asked Hoyer, "Do you plan on introducing anything that balances within that 10-year timeframe, or is that possible?"






“I DON’T THINK YOU CAN GET THERE IN TEN YEARS. I think it’s going to take a longer time [because] we’ve dug such a deep hole. We turned a $5.6 trillion [projected] surplus into $5 trillion in additional debt.”.....

The Democrats aren’t serious and shouldn’t be taken seriously.




Where do the Democrats stand on Deficit Reduction

With that in mind, here’s a look at where Democrats stand heading into these votes.

INTRANSIGENT LEADERSHIP:

• Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat, thinks anything more than the Democrats’ $6.5 billion in cuts over seven months would be literally impossible. “I THINK WE’VE PUSHED THIS TO THE LIMIT” he said on Fox News Sunday. “I’m willing to see more deficit reduction, but not out of domestic discretionary spending.”

• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), as you may recall, BERATED THE GOP’S INITIAL PLAN TO CUT JUST $32 BILLION OVER THE SAME PERIOD — roughly half way between where the two sides are currently — AS “DRACONIAN” AND A “NON-STARTER.”

Tax more, spend more:

• SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D., N.J.) told reporters last week that Senate Democrats were “close to believing” that they had a plan for further spending cuts. Oh, but he did have one idea: “SHOW ME THE MONEY, SHOW ME THE REVENUE!”

• Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) concurred: “I’m greatly disappointed so far in what [the White House has] been advocating, which is basically sort of buying into ‘we’ve got to cut everything out of discretionary.’ The White House is wrong on that… TO TAKE REVENUES OFF THE TABLE IS UNACCEPTABLE.”

• House Minority Leader NANCY PELOSI (D., CALIF) HAS AN EQUALLY INGENIOUS PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT — KEEP ON SPENDING: “NOTHING BRINGS MORE TO THE TREASURY THAN INVESTING IN EDUCATION,” SHE TOLD REPORTERS LAST WEEK.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261540/where-do-democrats-stand-budget-andrew-stiles

A recent poll showed that 95% of Americans think something needs to be done about the deficit. It appears the other five percent are elected Democrat officials and their families.


Here’s more


Budget Votes on Hold

BREAKING: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has accused Senate Republicans of reneging on an agreement made during last week’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden to HOLD VOTES TODAY ON TWO COMPETING SPENDING PROPOSALS — THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN PLAN ($61 BILLION IN SPENDING CUTS) AND THE SENATE DEMOCRATIC ($4.7 BILLION).

“There’s no question that was the agreement made,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “I’m disappointed now that Republicans refuse to keep their word.”

REID ARGUED THAT SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE AFRAID TO VOTE ON THE HOUSE PLAN (H.R. 1) — he called it the “Tea Party plan” — because they have finally realized how “reckless” and “irresponsible” it is.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261588/budget-votes-hold-andrew-stiles

Actually if I were a democrat I would be embarrassed to vote for a plan that decreases the deficit by 4.7 Billion out of a $1.65 Trillion deficit. The Republican plan decreases spending by 1.7% while the democrat plan decreases it by .13%. That’s not even a rounding error.

Freshman Democrat Joe Manchin: Obama has 'failed to lead' on budget

WEST VIRGINIA SEN. JOE MANCHIN RIPPED PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA ON HIS BUDGET PROPOSALS IN A SENATE FLOOR SPEECH TUESDAY, a rare rebuke from a freshman Democrat who clearly is worried about the politics of deficit spending as he faces a tough reelection in 2012.

MANCHIN CHARGED THE PRESIDENT WITH FAILING TO LEAD THE WAY IN REDUCING SPENDING, while also criticizing Republicans for offering “partisan” and “unrealistic” budget proposals.

Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations — our president — has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for?”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50857.html#ixzz1G2511OfB

This is a bit early, but expect a lot more of it from Democrats. A year from now I’ll rerun the article about the Democrats offering 4.7 billion in cuts with anything more being described as Draconian and well see what’s going on then.




NPR and the TEA Party
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/npr-executives-caught-on-tape-bashing-conservatives-and-tea-party-touting-liberals/#ixzz1G1Fiog6l

 It's interesting to see what people really say when they don't think anyone to hear it.  And it is interesting that they don't have problems with a Muslim group that is obviously anti-Semitic. 
 
Running on the Race Track

….This in a way disturbs me about Barack Obama more than anything else. WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT A NEW BREED OF POLITICIAN HE IS THAT IT DRIVES HOME THE REALITY OF HIS DREARY OLDNESS. Beneath the dashing façade, the insouciant wink, the casual wave, beats the heart of the dreariest old political hack imaginable. HE IS A CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE CLICHÉ CLIQUE, the bromide brigade, the platitude attitude and the banal cabal. Uggh!

Case in point, his latest contribution to the national conversation, quoted in a new book by Kenneth Walsh. OBAMA SAYS THAT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS INSPIRED BY RACE, by a sense that minorities are getting all these goodies from Washington. They are motivated, the President thinks, by "a subterranean agenda."

This is such a piece of hackery and flackery, of puffery and guffery, of foolery and fakery. POLITICS AT ITS RANKEST MASQUERADING AS ANALYSIS AT ITS FRANKEST. There is so much dirty laundry being aired here that I simply had to make a list. Every trick in the old, old playbook is on display…..

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/07/running-on-the-race-track


In fact, what the left accuses the TEA Party of is exactly the behavior they are engaged in. They are denigrating the TEA Party based on their prejudice rather than any substantive proof. I believe the term is projection.


The most transparent Administration in history

The Obama administration, which famously pledged to be the most transparent in American history, is pursuing AN UNEXPECTEDLY AGGRESSIVE LEGAL OFFENSIVE AGAINST FEDERAL WORKERS who leak secret information to expose wrongdoing, highlight national security threats or pursue a personal agenda.

IN JUST OVER TWO YEARS SINCE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA TOOK OFFICE, PROSECUTORS HAVE FILED CRIMINAL CHARGES IN FIVE SEPARATE CASES involving unauthorized distribution of classified national security information to the media. And the government is now mulling what would be the most high-profile case of them all - prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
That’s a sharp break from recent history, when the U.S. government BROUGHT SUCH CASES ON THREE OCCASIONS IN ROUGHLY 40 YEARS

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50761.html#ixzz1FweICczt


They told me if I voted for John McCain, the government would go overboard trying to silence national security leaks, and they were right!



THE HILL POLL: US future depends on cutting debt, voters say

LIKELY VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY BELIEVE DEFICIT REDUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO AMERICA’S FUTURE, BUT GENERALLY OPPOSE RAISING REVENUE THROUGH TAX REFORM TO CUT THOSE DEFICITS, a new poll conducted for The Hill found.

A FULL 95 PERCENT OF LIKELY VOTERS BELIEVE THAT LOWERING THE DEBT IS EITHER VERY OR SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, the poll found, with only 2 percent finding the issue not at all or not very important.

Not surprisingly, respondents had a more nuanced take on tax reform, with LIKELY VOTERS SAYING THEY PREFER SPENDING CUTS TO TAX INCREASES TO SHOULDER THE BRUNT OF LOWERING THE COUNTRY’S DEBT.

Still, a plurality endorsed the general idea of lowering tax rates while eliminating many tax credits and deductions. Respondents were split, however, on whether they would be willing to give up their long-held deduction for mortgage interest, a tax expenditure that has received backing of powerful supporters like President Reagan during past pushes to overhaul the tax code

http://thehill.com/polls/147727-the-hill-poll-voters-say-us-future-depends-on-cutting-debt


This is not the survey the Democrats wanted to see. The Democrats were hoping to increase spending and have the voters get used to the services and then raise their taxes to pay for it. They increased spending but the TEA Party was not fooled and started to march against the spending right away. And the Democrats increase the spending too fast and now they have an electorate who is angry and not in the mood to increase taxes.



The Truth About Wisconsin

The fundamental issue in Wisconsin -- and states considering similar budget cuts -- is not whether government employees should contribute more (in Wisconsin's case, more being merely something) to their health or pension plans -- though that is important. Rather, it is whether workers should have the right to say no.

If passed, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's emergency budget will allow workers to opt out of joining a union and still keep their jobs. It would allow workers to vote every year on whether they want to keep their union. And it would take away the unions' ability to automatically deduct dues from workers' paychecks. All of these threaten organized labor's power by giving workers more choice.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/08/the-truth-about-wisconsin


Libs tend to be for choice except if it means school choice, union choice, or even what kind of a toilet you can have in your home. Then choice is a bad thing.



The Falmouth Experience: Life Under The Blades

Standing on his home’s porch, Neil Anderson points through the thicket of trees in his front yard and across Blacksmith Shop Road towards one of his closest neighbors: A wind turbine.

“RIGHT NOW WE ARE 1,320 FEET, WHICH IS ONE-QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF WIND ONE, WHICH IS FALMOUTH’S FIRST WIND TURBINE. IT’S BEEN ONLINE SINCE APRIL. AND WE’VE BEEN TRYING TO GET IT STOPPED SINCE APRIL,” Anderson says....

....“IT IS DANGEROUS. HEADACHES. LOSS OF SLEEP. AND THE RINGING IN MY EARS NEVER GOES AWAY. I COULD LOOK AT IT ALL DAY, AND IT DOES NOT BOTHER ME. IT’S QUITE MAJESTIC — BUT IT’S WAY TOO CLOSE,” Anderson said.....

....One looming concern of neighbors is a second turbine, one of the same size and make that has gone up not far from the first. Falmouth’s Wind Two is scheduled to be turned on sometime this spring.

http://climatide.wgbh.org/2011/03/the-falmouth-experience-life-under-the-blades/

This is the future liberal dream of FOR US.

A man who appears to be a National Public Radio senior executive, RON SCHILLER, has been captured on camera savaging conservatives and the Tea Party movement.

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is FANATICALLY INVOLVED  in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian – I wouldn’t even call it Christian. It’s this weird evangelical kind of move,” declared Schiller, who runs NPR’s foundation.

 In a new video released Tuesday morning by conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe, Schiller and Betsy Liley, NPR’s director of institutional giving, are seen meeting with two men who, unbeknownst to the NPR executives, are POSING AS MEMBERS OF A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FRONT GROUP. The men, who identified themselves as Ibrahim Kasaam and Amir Malik from the fictitious Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) Trust, met with Schiller and Liley at Café Milano, a well-known Georgetown restaurant, and explained their desire to give up to $5 million to NPR because, “the Zionist coverage is quite substantial elsewhere.”


On the tapes, SCHILLER WASTES LITTLE TIME BEFORE ATTACKING CONSERVATIVES. The Republican Party, Schiller says, has been “hijacked by this group.” The man posing as Malik finishes the sentence by adding, “the radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people.” Schiller agrees and intensifies the criticism, saying that the Tea Party people aren’t “just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary.  THEY'RE SERIOUSLY RACIST, RACIST PEOPLE."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hoyer-says-federal-budget-may-not-be-bal

More on the budget



1/10 of 1 percent

 NPR STATEMENT ON THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2012 BUDGET

Public broadcasting received a vote of confidence today from the Obama Administration. THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2012 BUDGET SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS INCLUDED $451 MILLION FOR THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (CPB) for the two year advance appropriation for FY 2014, an increase of $6 million over FY 2013 funding.

NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller said, "We are grateful to the Obama Administration for RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC RADIO to the life of communities across the nation. Every day, over 900 public radio stations present fact-based local, national and international news, as well as local arts, music and cultural programming that can't be found anywhere else."

She concluded, "At a time when our country is confronting many difficult challenges, PUBLIC BROADCASTING IS PROVIDING AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE BY INFORMING AND EDUCATING 170 MILLION AMERICANS EVERY MONTH. This mission is more relevant than ever."

http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/021411.NPRStatementOnThePresidentsFY2012Budget.html


In an age with the record deficits that we have, this is one appropriation that should be ended. If there ever was an example of welfare for the rich this is one.



President Obama issues a veto threat

President Obama issued a veto threat Tuesday afternoon against the House GOP “continuing resolution” that would fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, SAYING THE CUTS IN THE BILL WOULD “UNDERMINE OUR ABILITY TO OUT-EDUCATE, OUT-BUILD, AND OUT-INNOVATE THE REST OF THE WORLD” AS WELL AS UNDERMINE “CORE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS and investments key to economic growth and job creation, and would reduce funding for the Department of Defense to a level that would leave the Department without the resources and flexibility needed to meet vital military requirements.”

Democrats in Congress criticize the GOP cuts, which they say would kick more than 200,000 children out of Head Start, cut $800 per student in the maximum Pell Grant award, eliminate $1.4 billion in funding for science and energy research, and cut $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects, among other changes.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/hours-after-saying-come-let-us-reason-together-president-obama-issues-veto-threat.html


It appears President Obama and the Democrats are playing by the Bill Clinton script. Unfortunately for them this is not the 1990s and they don’t have the American people’s good will. In a budget with over a trillion in deficits, it appears they can’t find a bit of spending that can be cut. That won’t play well in Peoria.



Obama says he'd stop adding to debt, but that's not true

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S CLAIM TUESDAY THAT HIS PROPOSED BUDGET WOULD STOP ADDING TO THE NATIONAL DEBT is wrong — and is proved wrong in his own budget.

"We will not be adding more to the national debt," he said flatly Tuesday at a news conference. "To use a sort of an analogy that families are familiar with, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE RUNNING UP THE CREDIT CARD ANYMORE. THAT'S IMPORTANT, AND THAT'S HARD TO DO. BUT IT'S NECESSARY TO DO."

However, his budget shows that the gross NATIONAL DEBT WOULD CONTINUE TO RISE EVERY YEAR UNDER HIS PROPOSAL, ALMOST DOUBLING FROM $13.5 TRILLION LAST YEAR TO $26.3 TRILLION IN FISCAL 2021.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/15/108796/obama-says-hed-stop-adding-to.html#ixzz1E7ILs8Pv


In the internet age, it is absolutely amazing that politicians will say things that are so patently false and expect to get away with it. I guess the Democrats are channeling Dr. Goebbels.



It's the Deficits That Are Draconian, Not Their Cuts

After the riots in Athens, the Greek authorities decided to enact new laws to deal with their obvious problems. The new laws, which treat rich and poor alike for the first time, have been seen as harsh. THE NAME OF THE LEGISLATOR WHO WROTE THE LAWS IS A MAN CALLED DRACO. The date is believed to be 621 B.C. And more than 2,600 years later, the adjectival form of his name -- draconian -- is still tossed around here in Washington anytime someone proposes real budget cuts.

Of course, most of the Washington hands who hurl the "draconian" charge around probably do not know that Draco's laws were considered "just" according to Aristotle. For the first time in Athenian law, the codes were written down so that even poor people could know what was legal and what was illegal -- thus they could avoid inadvertently breaking the law…..

THE ONLY "DRACONIAN" PART OF DRACO'S LAWS WAS THE PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR VIOLATION, WHICH HE SET AS DEATH FOR ALL VIOLATIONS, whether petty theft or murder.….

So, as we enter budget season in Washington this week, unless the Republican proposals include a death sentence for their violation, NO ONE SHOULD GET AWAY WITH HURLING THE CHARGE OF "DRACONIAN CUTS." THE CHARGE IS BOTH PREFABRICATED AND HISTORICALLY ILLITERATE.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/16/its_the_deficits_that_are_draconian_not_their_cuts_108910.html


A bit of history for you so when you hear the charge of draconian cuts you will know the person saying it doesn’t know what they are talking about. A must read if you want to learn a bit of history.

How much does Obama’s budget cut in 2012?

So to assess the administration’s proposal, one very crucial figure to look at is the effect their budget, if adopted, would have on the deficit in the year for which it would actually be the budget—that is, in 2012. You can find that figure on page 172 of the budget (table S-2, here). IT SHOWS THAT BY THE ADMINISTRATION’S OWN CALCULATIONS, THE EFFECT ITS OWN BUDGET WOULD HAVE IN 2012 WOULD BE TO INCREASE THE DEFICIT BY $11 BILLION. In other words, the Obama budget says that if we pass the Obama budget then the deficit for 2012 will be $1.1 trillion but if we don’t pass it then the deficit would be $1.09 trillion

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259769/year-year-yuval-levin


When you read something like this, you have to figure that President Obama is the most out of touch President since Jimmy Carter.


Obama's Spending Promises, Then and Now

In its 2010 budget, the Obama administration projected that in FY 2012, total federal outlays would add up to $3,662,000,000,000. In its actual FY 2012 budget, the administration is asking for total outlays of $3,729,000,000,000. THAT'S RIGHT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS RESPONDED TO SKYROCKETING DEFICITS AND HEIGHTENED CONCERN ABOUT FEDERAL DEBT BY INCREASING THE AMOUNT IT IS REQUESTING FOR NEXT YEAR, compared to its projections of just two years ago, by $67 billion. Only in Washington is this a "cut."

As regards the deficit:

Moreover, in its 2010 budget, the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROJECTED THAT IN FY 2012, IT WOULD RUN A DEFICIT OF $581 BILLION, OR 3.5% OF GDP. Now, the administration tells us that its FY 2012 budget will run a deficit of $1.1 trillion, or 7% of GDP, nearly double what it had projected.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028361.php


Does nothing ever go down in Obamaland? Well outside of the number of Democrats in office.


Hundreds protest Wis. plan to cut worker rights

Hundreds of Wisconsin's public employees clogged a hearing for hours and camped out in the state Capitol OVERNIGHT IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO DELAY ACTION ON REPUBLICAN GOV. SCOTT WALKER'S PLAN TO STRIP AWAY MOST OF THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS.

The Legislature's finance committee is preparing to vote on the measure, which would end collective bargaining for all state, county and local workers except for police, firefighters and the state patrol. THE MOVE MARKS THE BOLDEST STEP BY A NEW REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO SOLVE BUDGET PROBLEMS BY CONFRONTING ORGANIZED LABOR.

Opponents seized on the finance committee's public hearing on the bill on Tuesday to launch what Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, called a "citizen filibuster" that tied up the hearing for hours. A vote by the committee would set up final votes in the state Senate and Assembly later this week.

VOS, THE CO-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, FINALLY ENDED THE HEARING AT 3 A.M. Wednesday, 17 hours after it started. Democrats said they would continue to listen to workers who still wanted to speak. Republicans planned to reconvene later in the day to vote on the measure.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7429435.html


Expect to see more of this. Public payrolls have gotten completely out of hand and they must be rolled back.




What is the new GOP Congress doing to help military voters?

Today the House Administration Committee held hearings on military voting issues in the 2010 election and the lack of Justice Department enforcement. A PJM preview of that hearing and ERIC HOLDER’S APPROVAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL BALLOTS TO SERVICEMEMBERS WHICH OMITTED SOME CONTESTS (SUCH AS GOVERNOR) is here. The hearing did not go well for the Department of Justice, and by the end, the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez looked less than credible.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/02/15/what-is-the-new-gop-congress-doing-to-help-military-voters/


We always hear Democrat decry the use of photo IDs as discouraging voter turnout. It appears that all voters are created equal but some voters are more equal (those that are likely Democrat supporters) than others according to this Administration’s Justice Department.



Japan Just Wasted $78 Billion On 'Fruitless' Projects To Solve Global Warming

Japan spent an impressive $78 billion on global warming research in the past six years. However, NONE OF 214 PROJECTS PRODUCED EFFECTIVE RESULTS, according to an official report featured in Japan Times.

THIS "FRUITLESS" SPENDING IS UNDER SCRUTINY AS THE GOVERNMENT SUFFERS UNDER A HEAVY DEBT BURDEN.

Here's an example of a failed project:

The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry spent about ¥1.6 billion on a project to produce livestock feedstuff from unsold boxed lunches from convenience stores. The project was abandoned after its management firm collapsed, the report says.

So yes, you can be glad for now that the U.S. spends so little on science

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-global-warming-2011-2#ixzz1E7YQ3Gk2


Actually, Obama wants to spend $56 billion on high speed rail. As foolish as that project is, it still appears to be a better on than the Japanese were working on.