Politico reports that "the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office dealt another blow to House Democrats on Friday night, saying their health care bill would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. The projected shortfall means Democrats would need to find additional revenue or make deeper cuts to existing programs in order to meet their goal of paying for the $1 trillion bill. But those projections don't account for a $245 billion reduction in the deficit this legislation would create, if Democrats can also approve new balanced budget rules that would permanently address an annual shortfall in Medicare payments to physicians Democrats may also defend the cost of their bill by pointing out that in the long run, under new accounting rules, the bill would generate a $6 billion surplus."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Taliban Releases Video Of Captured US Soldier
There is nothing I can do more than bring this to your attention and personally pray for this soldier. I urge every visitor of STEVELACKNER.COM to pray for him as well.
Friday, July 17, 2009
House GOP Chart Shows Complexity Of Government Health Care
Here is a link to the Fox News article about it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/republicans-warn-web-bureaucracy-democrats-health-care-plan/
Glenn Beck Loses It And Screams At Liberal Woman Who Calls His Radio Show About Health Care
It's one thing to call Glenn Beck and disagree with him on health care, but to then accuse him of not paying any attention to the bailouts or the reckless spending is just plain stupid. Anyone who has ever watched his show knows he focuses on it all the time. Anyway, listen as as Glenn Beck explodes:
Diplomats: Iran has means to test bomb in 6 months
The AFP reports that "diplomats say Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic activities and now has the means to test a weapon within six months... But one said Iran has the capacity, if not the intention, to set off a test explosion in six months. And he and a colleague said Tehran is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its uranium enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant's increased operations."
Senator Stops Treasury Bid For Humorist After Drudge Report Linked To The Want Ad
The Hill reports that "the chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee quashed an effort by the Treasury Department to hire a cartoonist after the link to the job ad was posted on the Drudge Report. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) contacted the Treasury Department to complain after Matt Drudge’s website linked to a want ad for contractors with the 'ability to create cartoons on the spot about [Bureau of the Public Debt] jobs.' The cartoonist was sought to provide presentations for the bureau's management meetings, according to the ad. 'The contractor shall conduct two, 3-hour Humor in the Workplace programs that will discuss the power of humor in the workplace [and] the close relationship between humor and stress,' the ad stated. Several conservatives on Capitol Hill found it highly amusing that the Bureau of the Public Debt found it necessary to resort to humor in order to ease the stress of management meetings at a time when the federal deficit is ballooning."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "Iran Is The One That Concerns Me The Most"
The AFP reports:
"Iran is the one that concerns me the most because there don't seem to be good options (or ascenario) where one can have any optimism that good options will be found," Gates told the Economic Club of Chicago. The threat rests not only in Iran's apparent determination to seek a nuclear weapon, but in the "inability of the international community to affect their determination to do that," Gates said. "All of the outcomes are negative," he said. "If they achieve one, the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is very, very real. "If something is done to prevent them from getting one, the consequences of that are completely unpredictable and frankly, very bad." Gates says he has struggled to convince other nations, particularly Russia, that the Iranian situation does not simply threaten the United States. "Iran's going to have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to the people in their region a lot sooner than they're going to have the capability to deliver them to us," he added.
"Iran is the one that concerns me the most because there don't seem to be good options (or ascenario) where one can have any optimism that good options will be found," Gates told the Economic Club of Chicago. The threat rests not only in Iran's apparent determination to seek a nuclear weapon, but in the "inability of the international community to affect their determination to do that," Gates said. "All of the outcomes are negative," he said. "If they achieve one, the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is very, very real. "If something is done to prevent them from getting one, the consequences of that are completely unpredictable and frankly, very bad." Gates says he has struggled to convince other nations, particularly Russia, that the Iranian situation does not simply threaten the United States. "Iran's going to have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to the people in their region a lot sooner than they're going to have the capability to deliver them to us," he added.
L.A. Times: Sotomayor "Revealed Almost Nothing About The Philosophy That Would Guide Her On The High Court"
The L.A. Times reports that the Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "revealed almost nothing about the philosophy that would guide her on the high court" during her confirmation hearings. The newspaper rightly notes that "the sad state of Supreme Court confirmation hearings is usually traced to the 1987 defeat of Judge Robert H. Bork, a scholarly conservative. To no avail, he tried to explain and defend his many legal writings that had condemned the Supreme Court as too liberal on abortion and civil rights. Four years later, Clarence Thomas won a close battle in the Senate by portraying himself as a blank slate with no views on the law. He told senators he had not discussed Roe vs. Wade or formed an opinion on the controversial abortion ruling.Ever since, Supreme Court nominees have assumed it is more dangerous to explain too much, rather than too little, when talking about what they think of the Constitution and the law." Candor and honesty is no longer a part of the confirmation process, instead the entire hearing is a charade marked by political calculating on the part of the nominee. The vicious Democrat attacks on Robert Bork over 20 years ago and his failure in being confirmed by the Senate still have an unfortunate negative impact on the process today. Bork was not confirmed despite his clear qualifications on the grounds that he was too honest in defending his actual opinions. The Democrats then painted him as a dangerous extremist and voted him down. It is a shame that Democrat politics from the 1980's has turned confirmation hearings into a total waste of time.
Sotomayor's "mantra -- 'I just follow the law, I just follow the law' -- is an insult to the intelligence of the American public," said Abigail Thernstrom, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.
UC Davis School of Law professor Vikram Amar said the hearing was "less than useless. If Judge Sotomayor won't meaningfully discuss any legal topics in front of the Senate, then what's the point of the hearings?"
"Sotomayor stayed to the Roberts script," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine School of Law.
Cato Institute senior fellow and editor of its Supreme Court Review said the following: "She filibustered well. . . . The sharper the Republicans got in their questioning, and they kept refining and working out what needed to be probed further, the more she mastered the art of saying a lot while saying very little. It seems like she was running out the clock. . . . She had a pattern of saying things that were good and should assuage people, but it was the exact opposite of what she said in previous speeches. She declined to either approve of or criticize the citing of foreign law in some death penalty cases. There was some frustration on the side of the senators that she wasn't answering."I am less favorable toward her than I was when the hearing started because of the manner in which she responded . . . to pretend to answer the question."
Sotomayor's "mantra -- 'I just follow the law, I just follow the law' -- is an insult to the intelligence of the American public," said Abigail Thernstrom, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.
UC Davis School of Law professor Vikram Amar said the hearing was "less than useless. If Judge Sotomayor won't meaningfully discuss any legal topics in front of the Senate, then what's the point of the hearings?"
"Sotomayor stayed to the Roberts script," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine School of Law.
Cato Institute senior fellow and editor of its Supreme Court Review said the following: "She filibustered well. . . . The sharper the Republicans got in their questioning, and they kept refining and working out what needed to be probed further, the more she mastered the art of saying a lot while saying very little. It seems like she was running out the clock. . . . She had a pattern of saying things that were good and should assuage people, but it was the exact opposite of what she said in previous speeches. She declined to either approve of or criticize the citing of foreign law in some death penalty cases. There was some frustration on the side of the senators that she wasn't answering."I am less favorable toward her than I was when the hearing started because of the manner in which she responded . . . to pretend to answer the question."
John Yoo: "Why We Endoresed Warrantless Wiretapping"
In a report issued last week by the inspectors general of the five leading national security agencies, John Yoo writes "they suggested that President George W. Bush might have violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by ordering the interception of international communications of terrorists without a judicial warrant."
Here is John Yoo's response in the Wall Street Journal which points out how the "report ignores history and plays politics with the law": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124770304290648701.html#mod=todays_us_opinion
Here is John Yoo's response in the Wall Street Journal which points out how the "report ignores history and plays politics with the law": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124770304290648701.html#mod=todays_us_opinion
Obama Preaches That "Government Programs Alone Won't Get Our Children To The Promised Land. We Need A New Mindset."
I don't disagree with anything he says in this clip and think it is worth posting:
Unfortunately, somehow the very same person that in that clip preaches personal responsibility and says "government programs alone won't get our children to the promised land," has in fact spent unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money on government programs and is proposing enormous amounts to spent on new "government programs" yet to come.
Unfortunately, somehow the very same person that in that clip preaches personal responsibility and says "government programs alone won't get our children to the promised land," has in fact spent unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money on government programs and is proposing enormous amounts to spent on new "government programs" yet to come.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Former CIA Officer: “It Was Little More Than A PowerPoint Presentation. Why Would We Tell Congress?”
Former CIA Officer Robert Baer writes in Time Magazine on the CIA "scandal" the Dems have been harping on about. He writes:
On June 24, CIA Director Leon Panetta made a confession. For the past eight years, the agency has been running a top-secret unit to assassinate or grab members of al-Qaeda. The program was deliberately kept from Congress — supposedly on former Vice President Dick Cheney's orders — and Panetta stopped it as soon as he heard about it.
But like many of these stories, there’s less to it than meets the eye. The unit conducted no assassinations or grabs. A former CIA officer involved in the program told me that no targets were picked, no weapons issued and no one sent overseas to carry out anything. “It was little more than a PowerPoint presentation,” he said. “Why would we tell Congress?”
That’s a good question, especially since the program was an open secret. On Oct. 28, 2001, the Washington Post ran an article with the title “CIA Weighs ‘Targeted Killing’ Missions.” And in 2006, New York Times reporter James Risen wrote a book in which he revealed the program’s secret code name, Box Top . Moreover, it is well known that on Nov. 3, 2002, the CIA launched a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone over Yemen, killing an al-Qaeda member involved in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. And who knows how many “targeted killings” there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq?
On June 24, CIA Director Leon Panetta made a confession. For the past eight years, the agency has been running a top-secret unit to assassinate or grab members of al-Qaeda. The program was deliberately kept from Congress — supposedly on former Vice President Dick Cheney's orders — and Panetta stopped it as soon as he heard about it.
But like many of these stories, there’s less to it than meets the eye. The unit conducted no assassinations or grabs. A former CIA officer involved in the program told me that no targets were picked, no weapons issued and no one sent overseas to carry out anything. “It was little more than a PowerPoint presentation,” he said. “Why would we tell Congress?”
That’s a good question, especially since the program was an open secret. On Oct. 28, 2001, the Washington Post ran an article with the title “CIA Weighs ‘Targeted Killing’ Missions.” And in 2006, New York Times reporter James Risen wrote a book in which he revealed the program’s secret code name, Box Top . Moreover, it is well known that on Nov. 3, 2002, the CIA launched a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone over Yemen, killing an al-Qaeda member involved in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. And who knows how many “targeted killings” there have been in Afghanistan and Iraq?
CBO: Dem Legislation Will Not Result In "The Sort Of Fundamental Changes That Would Be Necessary To Reduce...Federal Health Spending"
As ABC reports, "one of the main arguments made by the President and others for investing in health reform now is that it will save the federal government money in the long run by containing costs. Turns out that may not be the case, according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Answering questions from Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee today, Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress."
Here is the exchange:
CONRAD: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?
ELMENDORF: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.
CONRAD: So the cost curve in your judgement is being bent, but it is being bent the wrong way. Is that correct?
ELMENDORF: The way I would put it is that the curve is being raised, so there is a justifiable focus on growth rates because of course it is the compounding of growth rates faster than the economy that leads to these unsustainable paths. But it is very hard to look out over a very long term and say very accurate things about growth rates. So most health experts that we talk with focus particularly on what is happening over the next 10 or 20 years, still a pretty long time period for projections, but focus on the next 10 or 20 years and look at whether efforts are being made that are bringing costs down or pushing costs up over that period. As we wrote in our letter to you and Senator Gregg, the creation of a new subsidy for health insurance, which is a critical part of expanding health insurance coverage in our judgement, would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care. It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate and to offset that there has to be very substantial reductions in other parts of the federal commitment to health care, either on the tax revenue side through changes in the tax exclusion or on the spending side through reforms in Medicare and Medicaid. Certainly reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages, and we are still analyzing the reforms in the House package. Legislation was only released as you know two days ago. But changes we have looked at so far do not represent the fundamental change on the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.
CONRAD: And what about the Finance Committee package, as it stands?
ELMENDORF: I can’t speak to that Mr. Chairman. We have been working with the Finance Committee and the staff for a number of months on proposals that they have been addressing. But our consultations with them have been confidential because they have not yet released the legislation, and I don’t want to speak publicly about that.
CONRAD: All right. In terms of those things that are public from other plans, what are the things that are missing that in your judgement prevent a bending of the cost curve in the right way?
ELMENDORF: Bending the cost curve is difficult. As we said in our letter to you, there is a widespread consensus, and you quoted some of this, that a significant share of health spending is not contributing to health. But rooting out that spending without taking away spending that is beneficial to health is not straightforward. Again, the way I think experts would put it – the money is out there, but it is not going to walk in the government’s door by itself. And devising the legislative strategies and the regulatory changes that would generate these changes is not straight forward. But the directions that have widespread support among health analysts include changing the preferential tax treatment of health insurance. We have a subsidy for larger health insurance policies in our tax code, and that like other subsidies encourages more of that activity. Reducing that subsidy would reduce that. And on the other side, changing the way that Medicare pays providers in an effort to encourage a focus on cost effectiveness in health care and not encourage, as a fee for service system tends to, for the delivery of additional services because bills for that will be paid.
Here is the exchange:
CONRAD: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?
ELMENDORF: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.
CONRAD: So the cost curve in your judgement is being bent, but it is being bent the wrong way. Is that correct?
ELMENDORF: The way I would put it is that the curve is being raised, so there is a justifiable focus on growth rates because of course it is the compounding of growth rates faster than the economy that leads to these unsustainable paths. But it is very hard to look out over a very long term and say very accurate things about growth rates. So most health experts that we talk with focus particularly on what is happening over the next 10 or 20 years, still a pretty long time period for projections, but focus on the next 10 or 20 years and look at whether efforts are being made that are bringing costs down or pushing costs up over that period. As we wrote in our letter to you and Senator Gregg, the creation of a new subsidy for health insurance, which is a critical part of expanding health insurance coverage in our judgement, would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care. It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate and to offset that there has to be very substantial reductions in other parts of the federal commitment to health care, either on the tax revenue side through changes in the tax exclusion or on the spending side through reforms in Medicare and Medicaid. Certainly reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages, and we are still analyzing the reforms in the House package. Legislation was only released as you know two days ago. But changes we have looked at so far do not represent the fundamental change on the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.
CONRAD: And what about the Finance Committee package, as it stands?
ELMENDORF: I can’t speak to that Mr. Chairman. We have been working with the Finance Committee and the staff for a number of months on proposals that they have been addressing. But our consultations with them have been confidential because they have not yet released the legislation, and I don’t want to speak publicly about that.
CONRAD: All right. In terms of those things that are public from other plans, what are the things that are missing that in your judgement prevent a bending of the cost curve in the right way?
ELMENDORF: Bending the cost curve is difficult. As we said in our letter to you, there is a widespread consensus, and you quoted some of this, that a significant share of health spending is not contributing to health. But rooting out that spending without taking away spending that is beneficial to health is not straightforward. Again, the way I think experts would put it – the money is out there, but it is not going to walk in the government’s door by itself. And devising the legislative strategies and the regulatory changes that would generate these changes is not straight forward. But the directions that have widespread support among health analysts include changing the preferential tax treatment of health insurance. We have a subsidy for larger health insurance policies in our tax code, and that like other subsidies encourages more of that activity. Reducing that subsidy would reduce that. And on the other side, changing the way that Medicare pays providers in an effort to encourage a focus on cost effectiveness in health care and not encourage, as a fee for service system tends to, for the delivery of additional services because bills for that will be paid.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Obama Threatens Arizona With Stimulus Fund Cutoff After Senator Jon Kyl Says All Stimulus Should Be Cutoff Early Because It's Not Working
ABC's Jake Tapper reports that "on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said of the $787 billion stimulus package, 'the reality is it hasn’t helped yet. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent. What I proposed is, after you complete the contracts that are already committed, the things that are in the pipeline, stop it.' A day later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer received letters from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar all pointing out the billions headed to Arizona. Kyl 'publicly questioned whether the stimulus is working and stated that he wants to cancel projects that aren’t presently underway,' LaHood wrote to Brewer, a Republican. 'I believe the stimulus has been very effective in creating job opportunities throughout the country. However, if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Senator Kyl suggests, please let me know.'"
Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain respnoded to the nonsense coming from Obama's administration. The two sent the following letter:
"We were very disappointed to learn of the letters that you and other members of theCabinet sent to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer about stimulus spending and that you would allowyour good offices to be used so obviously for political purposes. Secretary LaHood’s suggestion that the Administration will 'make available' toArizonans tax dollars that they pay is patently offensive. We hope this does not characterize your dealings with the Congress in the future."
Further, Jon Kyl responded on his own by saying, "It’s unfortunate that President Obama and his administration seem unwilling to debate the merits of the stimulus bill and acknowledge its shortcomings. Instead, they have resorted to coordinated political attacks with the Democratic National Committee and the politicization of departments of government by using cabinet secretaries to issue thinly veiled threats to the Governor and the people of Arizona. Since even the President acknowledges the stimulus isn’t working as well as he hoped, the administration should instead be willing to consider whether the unallocated stimulus money could be put to better use."
Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain respnoded to the nonsense coming from Obama's administration. The two sent the following letter:
"We were very disappointed to learn of the letters that you and other members of theCabinet sent to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer about stimulus spending and that you would allowyour good offices to be used so obviously for political purposes. Secretary LaHood’s suggestion that the Administration will 'make available' toArizonans tax dollars that they pay is patently offensive. We hope this does not characterize your dealings with the Congress in the future."
Further, Jon Kyl responded on his own by saying, "It’s unfortunate that President Obama and his administration seem unwilling to debate the merits of the stimulus bill and acknowledge its shortcomings. Instead, they have resorted to coordinated political attacks with the Democratic National Committee and the politicization of departments of government by using cabinet secretaries to issue thinly veiled threats to the Governor and the people of Arizona. Since even the President acknowledges the stimulus isn’t working as well as he hoped, the administration should instead be willing to consider whether the unallocated stimulus money could be put to better use."
Al Franken Asks Sotomayor About "Perry Mason" Episodes
And here is another example of tough questioning from another Dem: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/15/sen_klobuchar_asks_sotomayor_if_she_watched_all-star_game.html
German Intelligence Analysts: Germany Believes Iran Could Have Nuclear Bomb "Within 6 Months"
Haaretz reports that "Iran is capable of assembling an atomic bomb within six months, German intelligence analysts told the German weekly newsmagazine Stern. 'If they want to, they will be able to set off a uranium bomb within six months,' an analyst with Germany's intelligence service, Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), told the magazine. German intelligence officials told Stern believe Iran has 'mastered' every stage of uranium enrichment and that they have activated enough centrifuges to produce sufficient quantities of weapons-grade uranium for at least one atomic bomb. 'Nobody would have thought this possible some years ago,' an intelligence official told Stern."
Lawsuit Filed To Block "In God We Trust" Engraving From Capitol Visitor Center
The AP reports that "the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block an architect from engraving 'In God We Trust' and the Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington. The Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in western Wisconsin, claims the taxpayer-funded engravings would be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The House and Senate passed identical resolutions this month directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave 'In God We Trust' and the pledge in prominent places at the entrance for 3 million tourists who visit the Capitol each year. The resolution came in response to critics who complained Congress spent $621 million on the new three-story underground center without paying respect to the nation's religious heritage. The center opened in December after years of construction. The foundation is seeking a court order to stop the engravings, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost less than $100,000. 'In God We Trust' has been the national motto since 1956 and has appeared on U.S. currency since 1957... The foundation also is challenging the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer in federal court."
"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."
The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves as activists attempt to expunge even the most innocuous forms of inclusive religious expression, such as expressions of belief in "God," from the public square. "In God We Trust" is our nation's motto, and the pledge is an integral part of American national identity. To imply that the Constitution prohibits these types of expresssions is the worst form of perversion of our republic's founding document. It ignores that religious expression has been a part of our government since the days of the first President and Congress.
These lawsuits should be thrown out of court faster than you can say "under God."
"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."
The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves as activists attempt to expunge even the most innocuous forms of inclusive religious expression, such as expressions of belief in "God," from the public square. "In God We Trust" is our nation's motto, and the pledge is an integral part of American national identity. To imply that the Constitution prohibits these types of expresssions is the worst form of perversion of our republic's founding document. It ignores that religious expression has been a part of our government since the days of the first President and Congress.
These lawsuits should be thrown out of court faster than you can say "under God."
Orthodox Jewish Leaders Worried About Obama's "Evenhandedness" Toward Israeli-Arab Conflict
One of the country's premiere Orthodox Jewish organizations, the Orthodox Union, says it is "deeply troubled" by President Obama's desire to play an "evenhanded" role in the Middle East.
"The Orthodox Union asks our President to recognize that there are no moral equivalencies between Israel, which has acted time and again to defend itself while actively seeking peace, and those who reject Israel’s legitimacy and make war against her," OU President Stephen Savitsky said in a statement following the White House meeting Monday in which he was one of 16 Jewish leaders to sit down with the president.
"We look to the United States to be Israel’s friend in a world of enemies and we support the view, expressed to the President in our meeting, that while allies may of course disagree on specifics, there ought not be significant 'daylight' between the United States and Israel that would give the nations’ mutual enemies comfort and encouragement."
"The Orthodox Union asks our President to recognize that there are no moral equivalencies between Israel, which has acted time and again to defend itself while actively seeking peace, and those who reject Israel’s legitimacy and make war against her," OU President Stephen Savitsky said in a statement following the White House meeting Monday in which he was one of 16 Jewish leaders to sit down with the president.
"We look to the United States to be Israel’s friend in a world of enemies and we support the view, expressed to the President in our meeting, that while allies may of course disagree on specifics, there ought not be significant 'daylight' between the United States and Israel that would give the nations’ mutual enemies comfort and encouragement."
Hamas Accuses Israel Of Distributing Libido-Increasing Gum In Gaza
Ynetnews.com reports that "a Hamas police spokesman in the Gaza Strip Islam Shahwan claimed Monday that Israeli intelligence operatives are attempting to 'destroy' the young generation by distributing such materials in the coastal enclave. Shahwan said that the police got their hands on gum that increases sexual desire that, according to him, reaches merchants in the Strip by way of the border crossings. According to him, a Palestinian drug dealer admitted that he sold products that increase sex drive. The dealer said that he received the materials from Israeli sources by way of the Karni crossing. A number of suspects have been arrested."
"The Israelis seek to destroy the Palestinians' social infrastructure with these products and to hurt the young generation by distributing drugs and sex stimulants," said Shahwan.
You know the conspiracy theories of Hamas have become unhinged when they are actually accusing Israel of trying to increase sexual activity among Palestinians.
"The Israelis seek to destroy the Palestinians' social infrastructure with these products and to hurt the young generation by distributing drugs and sex stimulants," said Shahwan.
You know the conspiracy theories of Hamas have become unhinged when they are actually accusing Israel of trying to increase sexual activity among Palestinians.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
AP Fact Checks Senator Leahy Altering Sotomayor Quote
The AP reports:
LEAHY SAID: "You said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'"
THE FACTS: If that's all Sotomayor said, the quote would barely have mattered to opponents of her nomination. The actual quote, delivered in a 2001 speech to law students at the University of California at Berkeley, was: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Leahy's revision dropped the controversial part of the phrase, the part that has attracted charges of reverse racism.
LEAHY SAID: "You said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'"
THE FACTS: If that's all Sotomayor said, the quote would barely have mattered to opponents of her nomination. The actual quote, delivered in a 2001 speech to law students at the University of California at Berkeley, was: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Leahy's revision dropped the controversial part of the phrase, the part that has attracted charges of reverse racism.
Liberal Georgetown Law Professor Is "Disgusted" By Sotomayor Who Is Either "Intellectually" Or "Morally" Unqualified
Georgetown law professor Mike Seidman writes:
I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? …
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? …
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Israeli Government Slams Human Rights Watch For Fundraising In Saudi Arabia
The Jerusalem Post reports that the Israeli "Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday slammed a recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) fundraising delegation to Saudi Arabia as evidence the organization has lost its 'moral compass.'"
"A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women's rights group asking the Taliban for a donation," Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev said Monday. "If you can fundraise in Saudi Arabia, why not move on to Somalia, Libya and North Korea? For an organization that claims to offer moral direction, it appears that Human Rights Watch has seriously lost its moral compass."
"A human rights organization raising money in Saudi Arabia is like a women's rights group asking the Taliban for a donation," Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev said Monday. "If you can fundraise in Saudi Arabia, why not move on to Somalia, Libya and North Korea? For an organization that claims to offer moral direction, it appears that Human Rights Watch has seriously lost its moral compass."
Court Grants Motion In Favor Of Student Called "Fascist Bastard" By Professor At L.A. City College For Christian Beliefs
The Alliance Defense Fund reports that "a federal court Monday granted a motion filed by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom to halt enforcement of a Los Angeles City College District policy that violates student free speech rights. The court’s order, which halts the policy while a student’s lawsuit against the district moves forward, also requires the removal of all of the policy’s language on district Web sites because the court determined that ADF attorneys are likely to succeed in their argument that the policy is unconstitutional... In February, ADF attorneys filed suit against LACCD officials after a professor censored and threatened to expel student Jonathan Lopez following a speech he gave about his Christian faith during an open-ended assignment in a public speaking class. On Nov. 24, 2008, professor John Matteson interrupted and ended Lopez’s presentation mid-speech, calling him a 'fascist bastard' in front of the class for speaking about his faith, which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez’s speech evaluation form, 'Ask God what your grade is.' One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he’d be expelled from school. The order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Lopez v. Candaele applies to the school’s speech policy that ADF attorneys argued allows similar types of abuses. "
The policy in question is the School District's Sexual Harrassment Policy which states: "Sexual harassment is defined as: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the workplace or in the educational setting, under any of the following conditions: . . .(3) The conduct has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact upon the individual’s work or academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or educational environment.” The court enjoined the school from enforcing or publicizing the purported existence of the policy during the court proceedings. The court reasoned that the policy prohibits a substantial amount of protected free speech as it prohibits speech regardless of whether the speech actually has any effect. The district court said that the policy is unconstitutional because it prohibits speech based solely on the motive of the speaker. Furthemore, the terms such as “hostile” and “offensive” are so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech. The lower court stated that the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some, such as speech concerning religion, homosexuality, marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. The school’s website indicates that sexual harassment can include “sexist statements . . . or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men," but this could prohibit protected opinions on proper gender roles.
The court indicated the student's claims are "likely to succeed on the merits."
The policy in question is the School District's Sexual Harrassment Policy which states: "Sexual harassment is defined as: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the workplace or in the educational setting, under any of the following conditions: . . .(3) The conduct has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact upon the individual’s work or academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or educational environment.” The court enjoined the school from enforcing or publicizing the purported existence of the policy during the court proceedings. The court reasoned that the policy prohibits a substantial amount of protected free speech as it prohibits speech regardless of whether the speech actually has any effect. The district court said that the policy is unconstitutional because it prohibits speech based solely on the motive of the speaker. Furthemore, the terms such as “hostile” and “offensive” are so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech. The lower court stated that the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some, such as speech concerning religion, homosexuality, marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. The school’s website indicates that sexual harassment can include “sexist statements . . . or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men," but this could prohibit protected opinions on proper gender roles.
The court indicated the student's claims are "likely to succeed on the merits."
Senator Lindsay Graham To Sonia Sotomayor: "Don't Become A Speechwriter If This Law Thing Doesn't Work Out"
Senator Graham rips her to shreds. The entire confirmation hearings is a horse and pony show. Sotomayor is qualifying her answers and being so ambiguous so that she is really not saying anything at all. As Graham told the judge, "I listened to you today, I think I’m listening to Judge Roberts.” She speaks in such generalities and refuses to directly answer simple questions. Graham is right that one could read the text of her answers to questions and just as easily think that Roberts was the one being interrogated. The answers are all attempts to take time without really saying much at all. The cross-examination from Graham is worth watching, even though it is quite long, because he takes jabs at the judge all the while never being rude, and he asks poignant and direct requestions that get meaningless responses.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Obama: Unemployment Will Continue To Rise
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
WSJ: "About that CIA 'Lie'"
The Wall Street Journal writes in an editorial that argues that "as political spectacles go, one would be hard pressed to find anything as ridiculous as the Washington Romper Room now starring Congressional Democrats and the CIA. If only the consequences weren't potentially so damaging for national security."
Monday, July 13, 2009
Dennis Prager: "If You Love Liberty, You Will Do Whatever You Can Do To Help Honduras Resist Chavez And His Allies"
Nationally syndicated radio host Dennis Prager once again writes a worthwhile column defending the small nation of Honduras that has been castigated by the world community for upholding its own legitimate laws by resisting the former president's efforts to follow the lead of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Prager writes that "the lack of context in which this ouster took place has prevented the vast majority of the world's news watchers and readers from understanding what has happened." He then goes on to explain some of the context. Prager urges those who "love liberty" to "do whatever you can do help Honduras resist Chavez and his allies, which include the United Nations and Organization of American States. There are many ways to do that. Buy Honduran goods. Write your representatives in Washington to back the present, law-based Honduran government. And, yes, even visit this friendly beleaguered place. When the world's governments isolate a country, with few exceptions, that's all you need to know about who the good guys are."
Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion For First Time
The AP reports that "the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall, intensifying fears about higher interest rates, inflation and the strength of the dollar... The soaring deficit is making Chinese and other foreign buyers of U.S. debt nervous, which could make them reluctant lenders down the road. It could also force the Treasury Department to pay higher interest rates to make U.S. debt attractive longer-term. 'These are mind-boggling numbers,' said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at the Smith School of Business at California State University. 'Our foreign investors from China and elsewhere are starting to have concerns about not only the value of the dollar but how safe their investments will be in the long run.'" The Obama administration's reckless spending is already leading to unprecedented deficits. And this is without Obamacare. How can this country afford this reckless fiscal policy? How can Obama seriously be proposing huge amounts of new spending on health care? Americans need to muster up the courage to rally against the bankrupting of this nation. As the AP notes, the there are very harmful ramifications of this kind of groundbreaking deficit spending, such as scaring off foreign investors, higher interest rates, inflation, and the devaluing of the dollar. The chart to the left should alarm any sane citizen of our great nation.Reuters reports that "the U.S. government rang up a $94.32 billion budget deficit in June, a record for the month, as the price tag for efforts to prop up the economy, banks and automakers mounted while revenues weakened. The Treasury Department said on Monday that June marked the ninth straight month in which the government had run a deficit. In June 2008, the budget enjoyed a $33.55 billion surplus. Through the first nine months of fiscal 2009, the government has racked up a $1.086 trillion deficit. That compares with a shortfall of only $285.85 billion in the comparable year-ago period, underscoring the sharp deterioration in the U.S. fiscal picture." I would disagree. The "fiscal picture" of our nation certainly accounts for the lessening of government revenue (aka tax collection), but it in no way accounts for the spending by government. There is no way to show that without the massive amounts of spending by the Obama administration, and even the Bush administration in the TARP program, the economy would be worse today. In fact, Obama continues to propose more spending despite these numbers. I remember very clearly that liberals criticized George W. Bush for his deficit spending. Those were merely political games on the part of Democrats. Democrats are are not the party of fiscal responsibility. In truth, they could care less about deficits. One need only see the excess spending under Obama, and the proposals for continued excess spending, to undertstand this. Not surprisingly, the criticisms of deficits has disappeared from the liberal pundit talking points.
The Rueters article shows that this is the Obama deficit. I will admit that Republican non-defense spending under Bush crossed the line as well. The TARP bailout is the case in point. There was also the prescription drug benefit for seniors. However, the pace of the increase in government spending under Obama is unprecedented on uncomparable, even to Bush. Furthermore, unlike the liberal punditocracy, conservative talkers were willing to abandon partisan considerations and criticize Bush for his spending. The fact that the liberal talking heads remain silent on Obama's deficit shows how disingenuous they really are.
$400 Million In Stimulus Money Has Gone To New Hampshire This Year, And Only 50 New Jobs Have Been Created, Only 34 Full Time
The Union Leader reports that "more than $400 million in federal stimulus money has come to New Hampshire this year, and more is on the way. The Office of Legislative Budget Assistant reported last week that $413.6 million made its way to the state under a list of programs that involve education, highways, environmental, health and human services, energy and law enforcement. … So far, a total of 50 jobs have been created by the funding, 34 of them full time. The OES will be headed by a director whom Gov. John Lynch has not yet appointed. All five OES jobs are described as full-time temporary positions that will go out of existence in September 2011, the end of the federal fiscal year."
So that amounts to $8.32 million per job. Taxpayer money well spent.
So that amounts to $8.32 million per job. Taxpayer money well spent.
Newsweek: AG Eric Holder "Leaning Toward Appointing A Prosecutor To Investigate The Bush Administration"
Newsweek writes: "'You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation’s laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort,' Holder says. 'But the reality of being A.G. is that I’m also part of the president’s team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values.' These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do."
Be sure to note the bias in Newsweek's article as the author talks about "brutal interrogation practices."
Be sure to note the bias in Newsweek's article as the author talks about "brutal interrogation practices."
Push For Ballot Initiative To End State Benefits For Illegal Immigrants And their U.S.-Born Children In California
"We will be out in full force to qualify this initiative," said Barbara Coe, who helped develop Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that would have ended benefits to illegal immigrants but was ruled unconstitutional. "Illegals and their children are costing the state billions of dollars. It's invasion by birth canal."
The L.A. Times reports that activists plan "a California ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare payments for their children and impose new rules for birth certificates... Supporters of the initiative, recently unveiled by San Diego political activist Ted Hilton, hope to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally. The 14th Amendment states that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.' Backers of the initiative argue that illegal residents are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and that, as a result, their U.S.-born children should not be citizens. Before Hilton, Coe and their allies can argue that point in court, however, they have many hurdles to overcome. Whether the initiative will even make it to the ballot remains to be seen. Organizers have just begun to collect the 488,000 voter signatures required to qualify the measure for the June 2010 election. So far, Hilton said, they have raised about $350,000 -- far short of the $4 million generally needed to pay signature gatherers to get a statewide initiative over that hurdle. But illegal immigration was a powerful political issue in the economic downturn of the early 1990s, and the initiative's backers hope it will be again. Hilton said the group is enlisting an 'enormous volunteer base' for the signature gathering. His organization, Taxpayer Revolution, has gathered endorsements from elected officials, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), the American Legion California chapter and immigration restrictionist groups such as NumbersUSA, Save Our State and Coe's California Coalition for Immigration Reform."
The L.A. Times reports that activists plan "a California ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare payments for their children and impose new rules for birth certificates... Supporters of the initiative, recently unveiled by San Diego political activist Ted Hilton, hope to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally. The 14th Amendment states that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.' Backers of the initiative argue that illegal residents are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and that, as a result, their U.S.-born children should not be citizens. Before Hilton, Coe and their allies can argue that point in court, however, they have many hurdles to overcome. Whether the initiative will even make it to the ballot remains to be seen. Organizers have just begun to collect the 488,000 voter signatures required to qualify the measure for the June 2010 election. So far, Hilton said, they have raised about $350,000 -- far short of the $4 million generally needed to pay signature gatherers to get a statewide initiative over that hurdle. But illegal immigration was a powerful political issue in the economic downturn of the early 1990s, and the initiative's backers hope it will be again. Hilton said the group is enlisting an 'enormous volunteer base' for the signature gathering. His organization, Taxpayer Revolution, has gathered endorsements from elected officials, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), the American Legion California chapter and immigration restrictionist groups such as NumbersUSA, Save Our State and Coe's California Coalition for Immigration Reform."
Anti-Abortion Heckler At Sotomayor Hearing
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
McCain On Palin's Resignation
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Sunday, July 12, 2009
WSJ: CIA Chief Did Away With Bush Presidential Authorization Allowing For Killing Of Al-Qaeda Targets
The Wall Street Journal reports that "a secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter... According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it. In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped. The revelations about the CIA and its post-9/11 activities have emerged amid a renewed fight between the agency and congressional Democrats. Last week, seven Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee released a letter that talked about the CIA effort, which they said Mr. Panetta acknowledged hadn't been properly vetted with Congress. CIA officials had brought the matter to Mr. Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress. Neither Mr. Panetta nor the lawmakers provided details. Mr. Panetta quashed the CIA effort after learning about it June 23."
Melanie Phillips Vs. Alan Dershowitz On Obama's Treatment Of Israel
Right-wing Israel supporter Melanie Phillips writes a scathing criticism of the piece left-wing Israel supporter Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal concerning Obama and Israel. Dershowitz then wrote a lengthy defence of himself against Phillips. Phillips has already written a response to Dershowitz's reaction. This exchange is very interesting and I thought it was important to bring this debate to the attention of my readers.
Bibi Netanyahu: Palestinian Recognition Of Jewish State "Key To Peace"
"The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians. They must once and for all give up the demand to resettle inside of Israel the descendents of the refugees," Netanyahu said during a Jerusalem memorial ceremony marking 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl. According to Netanyahu, the leaders of the Palestinians must say, "'We have had enough of this conflict; we recognize Israel as Jewish; we will live alongside you in true peace.' As soon as that is stated, a huge window to peace will be opened.""Let's make peace - both diplomatic peace and economic peace," Netanyahu said at the start of a cabinet meeting in Beersheba. "There is no reason why we can't meet, the Palestinian Authority president and I, anywhere in Israel, and since we are in Beersheba, I say, let's meet here. The Palestinian population living alongside us has a basic right to live in peace, security and prosperity. In recent weeks, we have made great efforts to ease their lives. We've removed many roadblocks, we have decided to increase the operating hours of the Allenby Bridge for more goods, and I've decided to advance a series of projects with the Palestinians to promote peace. But all these efforts can only bring us to a certain point, and the results will be multiplied by the dozen if there is cooperation from the other side."
Arizona Governor Signs Students' Religious Liberties Act
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2357, the Students' Religious Liberties Act. The Act prohibits public schools from discriminating against parents or students on the basis of religious viewpoints or expression. This includes religious viewpoints included in class assignments, artwork or coursework and provides that students may pray or engage in religious activities or expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner that students are allowed to engage in nonreligious expression or activities. The AP reported that "the bill also requires that an administrative process be used to consider alleged violations prior to a lawsuit being filed."
Unfortunately, very simliar legislation failed in California. It is good that Arizona is leading the way in protecting the rights of religious students in public schools. This is important legislation that would protect the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, religious liberty, which has come under increasing assault from the like of the ACLU.
Unfortunately, very simliar legislation failed in California. It is good that Arizona is leading the way in protecting the rights of religious students in public schools. This is important legislation that would protect the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, religious liberty, which has come under increasing assault from the like of the ACLU.
Obama Says Stimulus "Worked As Intended"
Bloomberg reports that "President Barack Obama said his $787 billion stimulus bill 'has worked as intended' as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.
Apparently Obama missed the government report last week that showed that employers cut 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rose to 9.5 percent, the highest since 1983. Unemployment has already risen above levels that the Obama administration predicted when sellling the stimulus plan. In fact, the Financial Times reports that Larry Summers, the director of the president’s National Economic Council, had the following to say: “I don’t think the worst is over ... It’s very likely that more jobs will be lost. It would not be surprising if GDP has not yet reached its low. What does appear to be true is that the sense of panic in the markets and freefall in the economy has subsided and one does not have the sense of a situation as out of control as a few months ago.” Summers says "the worst is not over" and yet that somehow is supposed to mesh with the "stimulus" having "worked as intended"?
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia said the stimulus bill was “full of pork-barrel spending, government waste and massive borrowing cleverly called ‘stimulus.’”
“The plain truth is that President Obama’s economic decisions have not produced jobs, have not produced prosperity, and have not worked,” Cantor said.
Republicans want reductions in tax rates that which could serve as an actual stimulus to our ecoonomy.
Apparently Obama missed the government report last week that showed that employers cut 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rose to 9.5 percent, the highest since 1983. Unemployment has already risen above levels that the Obama administration predicted when sellling the stimulus plan. In fact, the Financial Times reports that Larry Summers, the director of the president’s National Economic Council, had the following to say: “I don’t think the worst is over ... It’s very likely that more jobs will be lost. It would not be surprising if GDP has not yet reached its low. What does appear to be true is that the sense of panic in the markets and freefall in the economy has subsided and one does not have the sense of a situation as out of control as a few months ago.” Summers says "the worst is not over" and yet that somehow is supposed to mesh with the "stimulus" having "worked as intended"?
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia said the stimulus bill was “full of pork-barrel spending, government waste and massive borrowing cleverly called ‘stimulus.’”
“The plain truth is that President Obama’s economic decisions have not produced jobs, have not produced prosperity, and have not worked,” Cantor said.
Republicans want reductions in tax rates that which could serve as an actual stimulus to our ecoonomy.
Liberal Groups Go After White Firefighter Frank Ricci
On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way worked to draw reporters' attention to Frank Ricci's past. Frank Ricci was the white firefighter who was the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court's reverse-discrimination case Ricci v. DeStafano. Other liberal advocates for Sotomayor have also urged journalists to pursue story lines that go on the attack against the firefighter.
"To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci . . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction," said Roger Pilon, the director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies. "If they were smart, they'd keep a low profile."