Obama Alert

Is Osama Bin Laden really dead?

2011-05-02T03:38:00.000-05:00

When Saddam Hussein was captured in December 1993, the announcement was made from Baghdad, not the White House. The generals on the ground in charge of the operation were the ones to announce, "We got him!" and provide photographic images and other evidence that yes, indeed, Hussein was in custody.

Fast forward to May 1, 2011 - nearly a decade has passed since that fateful September day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The announcement came from the White House with no comments from the generals on the ground. No photographic evidence to support the conclusion that Public Enemy Number One was indeed killed. Then later reports came out to say that Bin Laden was buried at sea. In other words, it's President Obama's word against the rest of the world.

Here are some basic questions.

1.Will the Obama Administration produce enough DNA testing and other proof to make it clear that Bin Laden was in fact dead? Since the DNA evidence requires an earlier verified sample of DNA material to compare to, where did that sample originate and which lab did the testing?

2. Where are the photographs of the body?

3. Why a rush to judgment in burying the body at sea before or very soon after, the killing was actually announced? Is it really Bin Laden's body?

4. How come there haven't been any statements from General Petraeus or other top ranking officials in U.S. Central Command right after the announcement was made?

5. Some early reports suggest that he was killed a week ago by a bomb, while the President says it was Navy SEALs who shot him in the head. Which is true?

It was a happy Sunday night across America as thousands flocked to the White House and Ground Zero to celebrate the news. It was a happy Sunday night when Twitter and Facebook posts around the world shared the news. But will it be a somber morning in America when people wake up to see that the questions that they slept on overnight, "Is the news true?" "Can this REALLY be happening?" and "Is the war over?" start to get asked?

The Obama Administration has a lot of answers to provide the American public. In light of the "Birther" issue, where most Americans didn't care one way or another whether the President was born in Hawaii or not, Americans WILL care whether the person most responsible for the shedding of innocent American life a decade ago, the same person who was the cause of two major wars in the Middle East, is truly dead.

Mr. President, America will not wait for three years before they see a death certificate.

Where are the protesters?

2011-03-20T00:35:00.000-05:00

With Operation Odyssey Dawn operational, even with the French and British forces leading the operation, when are the anti-war protests going to heat up?

Eight years ago, there were mass protests that closed down Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Mass anti-war protests from sea-to-shining-sea occurred by organizations like Women Against Military Madness, A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink - all protesting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Eight years later as President Obama orders the launching of cruise missiles into Libya, the anti-war groups are astoundingly silent. Why?

According to news reports, thirty people protested the operation in Phoenix, Arizona. A.N.S.W.E.R had a protest in Boston but reports show that it was actually pretty small.

The Associated Press ran a story about 80 protesters who gathered in Times Square. They chanted "No to war!" and carried banners that read, "I am not paying for war" and "Butter not guns."

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., joined the protesters, saying he was angry that Congress was not consulted before the military strikes.

He said he was undecided on whether the military action against Libya was justified but thought lawmakers and their constituents should have had time to weigh in.

"Our presidents seem to believe that all we have to do is go to the U.N. and we go to war," Rangel said as a large television screen behind him at the recruiting station showed an advertisement for the Air Force with crews loading missiles onto fighter jets. "Going to war is not a decision that presidents should make," he added.

So for all this rhetoric from the anti-war left organizations like A.N.S.W.E.R., W.A.M.M. and Code Pink over the last decade - their limited action against Odyssey Dawn tell us that all they do is blow a lot of hot air but cannot be taken seriously.

What does Barack Obama believe in? (Part One)

2010-08-02T03:47:00.001-05:00

With the support of George Soros, Ted Turner and other self-proclaimed humanists, one can assume that the humanist philosophy is one that Barack Obama may believe in. Though he has not come out and proclaimed that he is a humanist, his policies are spot-on with the humanist agenda. Here is the first of three documents that outline the humanist agenda and why you should be concerned for the future of the United States of America.

Humanist Manifesto I was drafted and signed in 1933. It was revised in the 1970s with Humanist Manifesto II and later in 2003 with Humanist Manifesto III. John Dewey, considered by many as the "father of modern education" drafted the first document, which is printed in its entirely below.

Humanist Manifesto I

The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.

- Raymond B. Bragg (1933)

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

(Signed)

J.A.C. Fagginger Auer—Parkman Professor of Church History and Theology, Harvard University; Professor of Church History, Tufts College.
E. Burdette Backus—Unitarian Minister.
Harry Elmer Barnes—General Editorial Department, ScrippsHoward Newspapers.
L.M. Birkhead—The Liberal Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
Raymond B. Bragg—Secretary, Western Unitarian Conference.
Edwin Arthur Burtt—Professor of Philosophy, Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell University.
Ernest Caldecott—Minister, First Unitarian Church, Los Angeles, California.
A.J. Carlson—Professor of Physiology, University of Chicago.
John Dewey—Columbia University.
Albert C. Dieffenbach—Formerly Editor of The Christian Register.
John H. Dietrich—Minister, First Unitarian Society, Minneapolis.
Bernard Fantus—Professor of Therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Illinois.
William Floyd—Editor of The Arbitrator, New York City.
F.H. Hankins—Professor of Economics and Sociology, Smith College.
A. Eustace Haydon—Professor of History of Religions, University of Chicago.
Llewellyn Jones—Literary critic and author.
Robert Morss Lovett—Editor, The New Republic; Professor of English, University of Chicago.
Harold P Marley—Minister, The Fellowship of Liberal Religion, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
R. Lester Mondale—Minister, Unitarian Church, Evanston, Illinois.
Charles Francis Potter—Leader and Founder, the First Humanist Society of New York, Inc.
John Herman Randall, Jr.—Department of Philosophy, Columbia University.
Curtis W. Reese—Dean, Abraham Lincoln Center, Chicago.
Oliver L. Reiser—Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh.
Roy Wood Sellars—Professor of Philosophy, University of Michigan.
Clinton Lee Scott—Minister, Universalist Church, Peoria, Illinois.
Maynard Shipley—President, The Science League of America.
W. Frank Swift—Director, Boston Ethical Society.
V.T. Thayer—Educational Director, Ethical Culture Schools.
Eldred C. Vanderlaan—Leader of the Free Fellowship, Berkeley, California.
Joseph Walker—Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jacob J. Weinstein—Rabbi; Advisor to Jewish Students, Columbia University.
Frank S.C. Wicks—All Souls Unitarian Church, Indianapolis.
David Rhys Williams—Minister, Unitarian Church, Rochester, New York.
Edwin H. Wilson—Managing Editor, The New Humanist, Chicago, Illinois; Minister, Third Unitarian Church, Chicago

SCSU Scholars: Perhaps not so innocent

2010-04-16T19:38:00.000-05:00

From two years ago (2008) - courtesy of SCSU Scholars

More on "Islam Awareness Week"

http://blog.scsuscholars.com/2008/04/perhaps-not-so-innocent.html

University of Minnesota holds 'Islam Awareness Week'

2010-04-16T17:56:00.001-05:00

"Islam Awareness Week" was held between March 29 and April 2, 2010 at the campus of the University of Minnesota.

While the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives freedom of the press, speech, assembly, religion and to petition, meaning that they had every right to be there - there were was no media attention or protests.

However, to go a step further, this is a publicly financed institution. Does this mean the University of Minnesota supports Islam? Is this state sanctioning of religion?

If the shoe were on the other foot and a "Christian Awareness Week" were held instead, it would be castigated on the airwaves as "state sponsoring of religion." Protests would be held on and off campus pushing "Christian Awareness Week" to the sidelines. It would be in the talk of the town and the nation.

Yet with the Muslims, there is a double-standard.

I challenge the Regents of the University of Minnesota to allow a "Christian Awareness Week" on their campus in the interest of equal time.

Photos below.

Humanism Unmasked: AS DEFINED BY JOHN DEWEY, THE FATHER OF MODERN EDUCATION

2009-07-05T23:03:00.003-05:00

Courtesy of: www.christianparents.com

Humanism is as old as the garden of Eden, but few know what it is. The idea of Humanism replacing Godism can be seen in the garden of Eden when Satan taught Eve that she would know longer need God, she could be as her own god and do what she pleased after she got enough knowledge of her own.

Men have written on the subject since Plato and Aristotle, but still most people only think it means 'kind' or 'humane'.

A better definition is required if we are to understand the forces moving in the world systems today.

John Dewey gave us that definition when he signed the Humanist Manifesto.

That definition expressed by the Humanist Manifesto was given to us by no less than the man who has been called the father of modern American education. He influenced teachers in Russia, Asia, and Europe as well. We should take note of the words of such an influential man.

The Humanist Manifesto reveals a large picture of intent for education which Dewey shaped. It also shows a picture of what our government is doing, since it has been shaped so much by graduates of this modern system of education.

Please note the U.S. Dept. of Education did not exist until Lyndon B. Johnson as President. Such a department was never intended by the Founding Fathers. They didn't even want their children fed by the government, much less taught what to think by the ruling powers.

John Dewey had great influence in the National Education Association and reshaping America's schools. He has had a profound influence of generations of philosophers.

No one who leads or teaches others should be ignorant of purposes laid out in the Humanist Manifesto nor of the significance of those others who signed or agreed with the document.
The list of individuals, corporations, and trust funds is impressive with its power to influence. We come to see that the National Humanist Foundation, Society for the Humanities, and other such names do have a common philosophy and intent.

Seeing how great is the list of those who have publicly and openly endorse humanism in one way or another, it becomes clear that a common system of thought drives many sources of great economic and political power.

Having a common idea and goal makes it unnecessary to conspire. Just having a common philosophy and goal will eventually lead them closer and closer to support the same ways and means of accomplishing their common goal. How could anyone understand what is happening if he is ignorant of who is doing it, or ignorant of the power behind it, or is ignorant of the goal?

A few historical events focused into perspective can show you a picture of today's politics and economic powers that are shaping our government and education of our children. To draw that picture is the goal of this writing.

The Humanist Manifesto was signed by many prominent people. Since then a second, called The Humanist Manifesto II has been written and signed by many more.

That document, Humanist Manifesto and its follow up, Humanist Manifesto II , define a collectively held goal of many political-economic powers. No education is complete without understanding the big picture of Humanism.

The list of signers and their offshoots must also be traced even to see the connections between that philosophy and many things happening now. A clear example can be seen when you study the how The New Standard for American History has been developed by major Humanist supporters.

Philosophers have written on the subject since Plato and Aristotle. Later writers include French revolutionaries such as Rousseau in throwing off the authority of kings, and then Engles and Karl Marx in establishing the right of men to rule themselves.

Growth of the concept was slow for the first few thousand years of recorded history, until French and European philosophers further developed some of the details prior to the French Revolution. Then in 1859, Darwinism gave accelerated growth through the concepts of evolution, relativism and positivism. See Encyclopedia Britanica, 1952.

Law courses adopted the ideas of 'relativism' and 'positivism' in major universities as early as 1870.

By 1940, relative law or case law also called evolutionary law had replaced the absolute standard of original intent law. Justice Rhenquist has a book called Original Intent. Several other authors have books with the same title showing how different the new law interprets our Constitution by the changed standards of relativism.

A 1996 book, Original Intent, published by Wallbuilders with a four way index contrasting the original intent of our Constitution and how it has been changed, should be in all our schools.

This contrast is clearly shown by original documents from those great men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and other documents of that time.

Relativism as a positive gain relative to man's changing standards became popularized by the educational elite. Educators said since man evolves, his society evolves, and therefore his law must also change to fit the changing man. That's how Darwin's evolution impacted law, society, government, politics, economics of teaching in text book sales, as well as science in all its branches. Not only biology would change from Creationism to Evolution, but physics and math would change from Ordered Systems to Chaos as a focus of teaching.

Oliver Wendel Holmes was the first graduate of 'relative' legal standards interpretation.
Holmes began his influence on the Supreme Court in 1920.

By 1940 the absolute standards of Blackstone's Law Commentary had been discarded nearly everywhere.

Blackstone had been the standard of law interpretation since the British courts were developed.

Blackstone based all understanding on God, and natural law that came forth from God, and man's government law as derived from nature that was created by God. He believed in God, an absolute God, and he accepted an absolute system of law that like God did not change. The absolute system of Blackstone was discarded were discarded in favor of relative or situational law by 1940.

Engles and Marx brought Humanism to nation-wide birth for the Bolshevik Revolution.
After reading and correspondence with Europe, John Dewey, the Father of Modern Education John Dewey, traveled to Europe, China, and Turkey in the early nineteen thirties.

Upon his return to America, he helped author and did sign the Humanist Manifesto which was the Americanized version of the Communist Manifesto penned by Karl Marx.

Positivism says that what is a perceived gain, a plus, is a good thing. The plus or minus is measured from the relative point of view of an individual, not any absolute standard . Positivism along with Relativism are the basis of saying "The end justifies the means."

Humanism with its relative and subjective values feeds systems like, I'm OK. You're OK. or Tolerance in a big way. No absolutes. Each person establishes his own system of values as he sees fit with no absolutes or external authorities.

This results in calling them bigots who would impose any external authority or absolute standard of reference to right and wrong. It allows for saying the end justifies whatever means it takes to get a gain. So long as that gain seems to me as being a positive gain relative to how I see things, that's what I call good.

Humanism says forget the absolutes. Judge things by what seems to be right for you. Just like Satan tempted Eve in the garden. Humanism has crept into the pulpit of many churches.

During the 1950's and 60's many preachers strived to show where they could write or teach in a humanistic way. Such thinking was justified under the more naive definition of mankind doing good to man. The core idea being that Humanism as a system denies God, and Jesus as the Son of God who said that only God is Good.

Removal of God from the value system was done not only in the Bolshevik revolution but also in the Humanist Manifesto. Having no absolute standard leaves then only each individual to define his own ideas of what 'feels good' to him.

Another way of saying the same thing is to say, "Your way is OK for you, and my way is OK for me. Let's just be tolerant of each other and agree to disagree while still saying each other is right for himself.

Humanism has existed from the beginning of time. It was defined in the garden of Eden where Satan used his most tempting bait to get Eve first doubting and then ignoring the word of God. "...you shall be as gods..." Ancient philosophers, Plato, Aristotle and others, wrote on the theme of Humanism without recognizing its full picture.

Humanism can not be seen in its biggest context from its on point of view. Humanism denies God so it denies the total context. Only in a faith towards God can Humanism be seen for what it is in the highest context.

To those who believe in God, Humanism is man's way of saying, exactly what the Humanists proclaim, man must be his own god. That means to a Christian, rebellion against God.
The first rebellion was in the garden of Eden. It was over the idea of being as a god, self-directing and without further need of Almighty God. Thus the oldest Biblical word for what we call Humanism is Rebellion against God Almighty.

Most literature on humanism does not speak of rebellion against God. However humanistic writings were used to inspire rebellions against government in many places. Most notably, the Bolshevik Revolution which clearly and openly denounced God.

Humanism has been manifest since Eve was tempted to do away with her need for Almighty God and be her own god through partaking of all knowledge. Plato and Aristotle wrote on some ideas of Humanism.

Darwinism gave strength to Humanism after 1859. Engles and Karl Marx developed the European version of Humanism. By 1920, the Communist Revolution had motivated people around the world to read the ideas of Engles and Marx.

China did not ignore the rising trend of Humanism as expressed in the border nation of Russia. After reading and correspondence on these ideas, John Dewey traveled to China and Turkey. There he taught on state education to help develop students to better serve the state system.
Upon his return to America, John Dewey, the Father of Modern American Education wrote The Humanist Manifesto in 1933.

No education is complete today without understanding The Humanist Manifesto I and II and tracing the influence of those signers and supporters of the intentions expressed therein.

It is clear to see that the humanist designers of contemporary education do not want our children to have a complete education, else they would see what is happening.

To see where we came from and how we got where we are is to be able to see where we are headed. The direction and momentum must be realized to project a future path.

Read the article on Value of History comparing the graph of a golf ball's path to understanding the graph of where our nation is going.

Naivety and ignorance are a pitfall to everyone who assumes that humanism only means to be 'humane' or 'kind' to your neighbor. Teachers, pastors, and senators all need to recognize the strategy and goals of Humanists.

The system of money, philosophies of men, text books and politics that has entangled itself in America is now teaching our children from eight a.m. to 3 p.m. five days a week.

Look closely and you can see a loosening up of definitions, much like Satan redefined what God said to Eve. Teaching by loose analogies in the name of creative reasoning or higher order thinking is used to accustom children to believe anything can equal anything, which is exactly what Chaos says. But God says, I AM that I Am and I change not. Who will listen to the word of God and who will continue pleasing men, for the sake of paychecks going along and being friends with the system.

Pastors, you have the responsibility to warn your people. If you warn them and they do nothing, you are free; but if you do not warn them, then where does scripture say you are?

Humanism is nothing but a redefined label for the rebellion against God that happened in the garden, by adding to and taking from the truth of his word so to justify mankind in doing its own thing, whatever that may be.

The hearts of our children are the goal of those who have taught against absolutes and encouraged 'relative positivism' as a way of thinking based on loose association and calling it higher order thinking.

Be on guard. Be not deceived when you see those fine sounding phrases of "Changes in education for excellence" or "higher order thinking" or "critical thinking"; because most of those actions covered by those words are used to destroy faith in God.

Viewpoint from the New History" Consider this viewpoint from the New Standard of American History. Man emerged from the slime of a soupy organic ocean as he evolved from a protozoa form to higher and higher forms. So man is growing up. There was not a fall as the Bible teaches, but an upward evolution and therefore no need for a Savior. And as the humanists write, if man is going to be saved, he must do it himself.

Example of new history lesson: After many tribes of people grew, different ways of solving problems grew. Idols and many gods were one way man evolved to cope with his problems.
Then in the middle of civilization after man had been existent for thousands or millions of years, some small tribe called the Jews developed a system to cope with their problems, but their system was different, it was called monotheistic. And out of that failed system came what is called Christianity. But other systems were competing with Christianity and grew even bigger such as Buddhism and Islam and Brahman.

Today, dear students, we have the advantage of 'higher critical thinking' and as you compare and analyze the way those religions competed for converts, you can see how they slowly died out because their hope in God wasn't really solving problems. They still had wars and hunger and even killed one another in the name of their religions.

New history teaches children this way. So today, we clearly know that only man with clear thinking logic can save himself from his own problems. And as the new state religion of humanism, logic and reasoning by man, grows we will see the wonderful man made institutions of international scope solve the problems of our world. Man made cooperation for peace through the United Nations, the World Bank, and other such agencies are our way for peace in the new world economic order.

Dear parent or pastor, if you expect to send your child to school where this is taught and not have it impact his heart, please think again. The humanists expect to win the hearts of many children with their campaign. Scripture says they will succeed in doing much of their plan. They will ultimately fail. But meanwhile let those who hear take heed.

Even William Bennett, past Secretary of Education has called the educational system a 'blob'. If you stop it in one place, it just pours out in someplace else. If you ask for responsibility in one place, it just shifts the blame or question to someplace else. It includes the humanist favoring news reporters where they exist, the humanists in the N.E.A., and within each school system who do not teach God, and the U.S. Dept. of Education with its funds allocated to the "relativist, positive, no absolute standard " teaching methods that have done away with the absolute standards of teaching that helped us put men on the moon.

If humanistic ideas were not dominating the news how is it that such things as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and President Clinton's speech on it to a high school in 1995 could have been so kept from the parents and pastors of our churches?

When we are given clear right to restore Christian context to our school classes, the powers in effect keep the news from reaching those who would actually restore the Christian context.

If anyone says the news did reach the school districts, then let it also be said that not enough explanation reached the people to encourage the implementation of restoration of Christian context. The restoration must be done, and therefore people must be given enough encouragement from friendly media to accomplish the job!

Christian class books used to have little children reading stories with moral values and life helping information in them. Then the system switched to brainless Dick and Jane and from that to the current mass of nonsense and chaos books that fill our elementary schools. For example of a current title in elementary reading, I give you, "The Upside Down School".

Rather than building values, such books are acclimating our children to nonsense so they can equate anything with anything, another example of Chaos instead of Ordered Systems, or Relative Values verses the Absolutes of Christianity on which this nation was built. Restore values for our children!!!

Sources: The World's Oldest False Religion, Humanist Manifestos I and II, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, Vol. 7, p 297

Obama Breaks Promise, Embraces Healthcare Tax

2009-06-29T15:04:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of Newsmax.com

WASHINGTON � The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.

White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn't rule out taxing some employees' benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.

"There are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going," Axelrod said. "We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey."

But if President Barack Obama compromises on that point, it would reverse a campaign tax promise.

"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. "Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

At the time, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was proposing a tax on health benefits similar to the plan Obama is now considering. Just a year ago, Obama spent millions on campaign commercials attacking the idea.

One ad accused McCain of favoring "taxing health benefits for the first time ever ... taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can't afford John McCain."

A second Obama ad called McCain's approach "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Driving the point home, it contended the "McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?"

Under the current proposals, a tax on health benefits would affect only those with pricey health plans. The idea would be to tax as income the portion of health benefits worth more than a specified limit. Officials are considering several options, including one that would set the limit at $17,240 for family coverage and $6,800 for individuals.

Plans worth more than that would be taxed; those worth less would see no increase.

Obama has faced similar criticism before. When he increased taxes on tobacco to pay for a children's health bill, his critics said he was raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.

Obama left open the possibility of a tax during interviews last week, insisting he wasn't taking any option off the table despite his personal opposition. But two of his high-profile advisers budget chief Peter Orszag and economic adviser Jason Furman both have indicated they support some taxes on health benefits to pay for the overhaul.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that Obama should step in an oppose the tax if he's truly against it. Otherwise, he faces a loss to his own Democratic Party and his own campaign credibility.

"I think it's going to take presidential leadership to get people of his party to see that we shouldn't be subsidizing high-end health insurance policies that drive up inflation in health insurance," said Grassley, the top Republican on the powerful finance committee.

Grassley and, to be sure, other Republicans remember Obama's scathing criticism of their GOP presidential nominee.

"Since the president denigrated John McCain's effort to move in this direction during the campaign, it's going to take, in order to win over Republicans, presidential leadership in that direction," Grassley said.

To help sell his plan, Obama scheduled a town hall-style meeting this week in Annandale, Va., a Washington suburb. He plans to take questions Wednesday from the audience and from online sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

Axelrod insisted that the White House has made progress on a health care plan and is working with Congress. Even so, the emerging legislation is hardly the bipartisan collaboration Obama's top advisers had sought.

"One of the problems we've had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other," Axelrod said. "And you don't get anything done. That's not the way the president approaches us."

Axelrod appeared on ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press." Grassley appeared on "This Week."

Pray for Monica Conyers

2009-06-21T03:39:00.000-05:00

"If you're not praying for me, you're just adding to the problem," said Monica Conyers, wife of Congressman John Conyers who was implicated in a bribery investigation last week.

I hope every Christian takes the time to pray for Ms. Conyers that she sees the light of Christ's truth. She opened the door and now we are obligated to walk through it and ask for God's guidance.

Obama Is My Shepard

2009-06-18T02:49:00.002-05:00

THE FIRST BOOK OF DEMOCRAT
PSALM 2008-2012

OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.

HE LEADETH ME BESIDE THE STILL FACTORIES.

HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY OF THE BREAD LINE, I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY.

OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES.

MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME.

SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF HIS TERM.

FROM HENCE FORTH, WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD.

BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE.

BUT I WISH I WAS A DOG AND OBAMA WAS A TREE.

Today's Quote: "Too many Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the world, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."

Soros: European socialism needed

2009-06-05T04:19:00.002-05:00

From an article on George Soros at www.discoverthenetworks.org You can read the full article here.

In a November 2008 interview with Spiegel, Soros made some comments that accurately outlined precisely the course that President Obama's administration would eventually pursue in 2009:

"I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets -- because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion dollar range [in addition to the $700 billion bailout which the government already had given to the financial industry]…. I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation."

The interviewer then said: "Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as 'big government.' Republicans might call it European-style 'socialism.'"

Soros replied:

"That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful -- but also very harmful to our society…. I think it is better to have a government that wants to provide good government than a government that doesn't believe in government…. At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable. Once the economy begins to recover, you have to balance the budget. In 2010, the Bush tax cuts will expire and we should not extend them. But we will also need additional revenues."

Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding such noteworthy leftist organizations as the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; the Center for American Progress; Campaign for America's Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.

Apart from the more than $5 billion that Soros' foundation network has donated to leftist groups like those listed above, Soros personally has made campaign contributions to such notable political candidates as Charles Rangel, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Joe Sestak, and Sherrod Brown.

Obama's Gramps: Gazing skyward on D-Day in England

2009-05-31T00:21:00.002-05:00

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Surely, Stanley Dunham was gazing skyward 65 years ago, on D-Day. Dunham, the man whom Barack Obama would one day call Gramps, was a 26-year-old supply sergeant stationed near the English Channel with the U.S. Army Air Forces when the invasion of Normandy at last began.

Six weeks later, he crossed the Channel, too, and followed the Allied front across France. A year later, he was on track to fight in Japan when the atom bomb sent him home instead.

Dunham, who died 17 years ago, was the Kansas-born grandfather with the outsized personality who helped to fill the hole in the future president's life created by the absence of Obama's Kenyan father. Sgt. Dunham's war years have been something of a mystery, the details of dates and places lost with the passage of time. The units that he served in were unknown even to the White House.

But a life-size portrait emerges from interviews and records unearthed by The Associated Press. On D-Day, documents place him at Stoney Cross, England, in the 1830th Ordnance Supply and Maintenance Co., Aviation.

"This was the day we had all been waiting for," Dunham's commanding officer wrote the night of June 6 from their base near the English Channel. "Planes by the hundreds took off and landed at our field from dusk until dawn."

His company supported the 9th Air Force as it prepared for the assault on Normandy and took part in the drive that carried the Allies across France. Dunham and the men of the 1830th came across six weeks after the initial Normandy invasion and followed the front through France, servicing airfields known by numbers — A-2, A-44, A-71, and more — in places such as Brucheville, Cricqueville, St.-Jean-de-Daye, Peray, Clastres, Juvincourt and Saint-Dizier.

On this coming Saturday, the 65th anniversary of D-Day, Obama will visit the gravesites and beaches of Normandy, and look out across the channel that his grandfather crossed from a staging area at Southampton, England.

"I knew him when he was older," Obama said of his grandfather in 2007. "But I think about him now and then as he enlisted — a man of 23, fresh-faced with a wise-guy grin."

To the 75 men of Dunham's company, he was a good guy to have around.
For one thing, he taught the men how to use their new gas masks.

He also came up with a radio, games and books for a day room that Dunham's commanding officer described as "a swell place to spend an evening."

And when the 1830th had a party in the gym three days after D-Day, they had Dunham to thank for it.

On May 31, 1944, payday, Dunham had taken up a collection of 35 British pounds — about $150 in today's dollars — to finance the event. He lined up a convoy of girls from Southampton who, the men hoped, would be "simply smashing," as his commanding officer, Frederick Maloof, wrote in his diary.

"The party was a huge success, except that the beer ran out about 10:30 p.m.," 1st Lt. Maloof later reported. "All agreed that the orchestra was good. A few of the die-hards were still crooning over the empty beer barrels at an early morning hour."

For all the good times, the strains of war were ever present for Dunham and his fellow soldiers.
On the evening after D-Day, Dunham's unit dug 27 foxholes.

"This was done in case of a retaliation by the Germans," Maloof wrote.

On June 11, the first hospital ships returned from France, bringing tales of the "hardships encountered on invasion day."

That same day, Maloof wrote that "our mail has not been reaching home, and the wives and sweethearts are beginning to wonder if we have gone across the channel on the first wave."

The wives included Madelyn Dunham, back home in Wichita, Kan., with Stanley Ann, a toddler who would grow up to be Obama's mother.

Madelyn, the beloved grandmother known as "Toot" who helped raise the future president, did her part for the war effort, working the night shift as a supervisor on the B-29 bomber assembly line at the Boeing plant.

Her brother is part of the war story, too. Charles Payne, Obama's great-uncle, in 1945 helped liberate a sub-camp of the Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald, which Obama will visit this Friday.

Stanley Dunham's older brother Ralph, another great-uncle to Obama, also is a branch in the wartime family tree.

Ralph was called up after Stanley enlisted. He landed at Normandy's Omaha Easy Red beach on D-Day plus four, then worked his way through France, Italy and Germany as an assignment and personnel officer.

In the months before the invasion, the brothers met up twice in England while on leave. Once, they came across each other by happenstance in London, where Ralph was staying at the Russell Hotel.

"I walked down the steps and there was my brother sitting on a settee," 92-year-old Ralph Dunham said in interview with the AP.

It turned out that Stanley's hotel had run out of rations and he was sent to the Russell in search of food. The two Kansas boys — each 6-foot-2, by Ralph's recollection — spent the rest of their leave together, touring the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and other sites with a helpful taxi driver. At night, they sampled the London theater offerings. Ralph remembers they saw "Hamlet."

The brothers had a double portrait snapped to send home — after Stanley borrowed a jacket from a fellow member of the 9th Air Force so they'd both be in uniform. The February 1944 portrait is one that Ralph still treasures.

Late in July, six weeks after D-Day, Stanley Dunham's unit crossed the English Channel and landed at Omaha Beach.

"After looking over the Atlantic wall, with its pill boxes, we all agreed it was a miracle that the Allies were able to land," Maloof wrote.

In his autobiography, Obama reports that during the war his grandfather was "sloshing around in the mud of France, part of Patton's Army."

That's right, at least for a few months.

In February 1945, at Saint-Dizier, Dunham's unit was assigned to Patton's 3rd Army, and Dunham remained in that company until early April. Prior to February, Dunham's unit had supported 1st Army operations.

Obama sketches Dunham as a man with a wild streak early on who settled down to sell furniture and life insurance.

By the time he joined the Army, he already had lived large.

He'd been thrown out of his high school in El Dorado, Kan., for punching the principal in the nose. For three years he'd lived off odd jobs, "hopping rail cars to Chicago, then California, then back again, dabbling in moonshine, cards and women," Obama wrote in his autobiography, "Dreams from My Father."

Dunham had also fallen in love with a woman from the other side of the tracks — the good side — and married her. He eloped with Madelyn Payne just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 7, 1941, and he was quick to enlist after the Japanese attack.

"He was really gung-ho," remembers Ralph. "He didn't have to go because he was married. He could have held off."

He was inducted at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., on Jan. 15, 1942.

That November, while Dunham still was stationed stateside, he got leave to come home to Kansas when his daughter, Stanley Ann, was born at Fort Leavenworth.

Her unusual name, Obama wrote, was "one of Gramps' less judicious ideas — he had wanted a son." The family called her Stannie. Later, she would be known as Ann.

In December 1942, weeks-old Stanley Ann makes her appearance as a dependent on Dunham's pay records. (He's earning $22 a month, with $6.70 deducted for life insurance.)

Dunham spent the first year and a half of his war service stateside, part of it in the 1802nd Ordnance Medium Maintenance Company, Aviation, at Baer Field in Indiana, now Fort Wayne International Airport. He transferred to the 1830th in March 1943, and the unit shipped out to England on the HMS Mauretania that October.

"All officers and enlisted men alike tumbled out of bunks and hammocks to get the last view of the good old U.S.A. as it disappeared beyond the horizon," Maloof wrote.

The rhythms of life for Dunham and the men of the 1830th emerge in the weekly unit histories recorded by Maloof. Men transfer in and out. There is field training. There is a lecture on mines and booby-traps, another on "sex morality." Typhus shots are administered. The company drills on the use of the carbine. The men take a 3-mile hike and bivouacked overnight. Time and again, they move on from one airfield to the next, supporting the front lines.

A number of men go AWOL. Others are charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Dunham's name turns up with surprising frequency, but his conduct generates nothing but praise.

"Sgt. Dunham has been doing a good job as Special Service noncom," Maloof takes time to report in September 1944.

At Clastres in France, stoves are issued to each tent "as the weather at this base has been very cold." French classes are offered. At Juvincourt, it is worthy of note when a small shower is installed, heated by a boiler found in the ruins of an old building. "It is the best bathing facilities we have had since coming to France," the unit history states.

In October 1944, as the front presses forward, the men attend a compulsory lecture in the 367th Fighter Group area on "What to Expect When Stationed in Germany."

It turns out Dunham could have skipped that one. On April 7, 1945, one week before the 1830th moves on to Germany and three weeks before Hitler commits suicide, Dunham is transferred "to the infantry," the unit history shows. Further digging reveals he was assigned to the 12th Reinforcement Depot, based in Tidworth, England, where replacements were being trained for depleted combat units.

The war was winding down in Europe by then, with air superiority achieved and the Luftwaffe not a major threat. Ralph Dunham says his brother was sent back to the states to prepare for possible transfer to Japan in the infantry. Were it not for V-J Day in August 1945, "he would've been fighting in Japan," says Ralph.

Stanley Dunham's military personnel file was destroyed, along with millions of others, in a 1973 fire at the Military Personnel Records center in St. Louis.

The AP pieced together Dunham's war years from other records at the Air Force Historical Research Agency at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama and the St. Louis center, and with help from historian David Spires at the University of Colorado. The richest details, however, come from Ralph Dunham and the private papers of Maloof, who died in 2005. Maloof's granddaughter, Tamara Maloof Ryman in Houston, searched through page after page to pry out details about Dunham for the AP.

Four months after he transferred out of the 1830th, Stanley Dunham was discharged from the Army on Aug. 30, 1945, at Fort Leavenworth.

Obama tells the rest of the story in his autobiography.

"Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat, and the family headed to California, where he enrolled at Berkeley under the GI Bill," Obama wrote. "But the classroom couldn't contain his ambitions, his restlessness, and so the family moved again, first back to Kansas, then through a series of small Texas towns, then finally to Seattle, where they stayed long enough for my mother to finish high school."

Wanderlust sent the family on to Hawaii, where Dunham and his wife would be central figures in the life of their grandson after Obama's father left the family. Madelyn died last year at age 86, two days before Obama was elected president.

Stanley, who called his grandson "Bar," died in 1992 at age 73. His ashes are inurned at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, commonly known as Punchbowl.

"It was a small ceremony with a few of his bridge and golf partners in attendance, a three-gun salute, and a bugle playing taps," Obama wrote.

That ceremony was 17 years ago.

But Ralph Dunham is reminded of his brother every time Obama's face appears on TV or in the paper.

"You know," Ralph says, "he looks exactly like Stanley. He looks exactly like my brother, only he's dark."
___
Associated Press writer Betsy Taylor in St. Louis and investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report.

Rasmussen: Only 68% Of American Oppose National Sales Tax

2009-05-30T02:39:00.002-05:00

From Rasmussen Reports

To raise additional money for the government, just 18% of Americans nationwide favor a national sales tax. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 68% oppose such a tax.

There is more support for the concept if sales tax revenue is used to provide health insurance for all Americans. In that scenario, 40% favor a national sales tax and 49% are opposed.

Democrats strongly support a national sales tax to provide universal health insurance coverage. Republicans are opposed by a three-to-one margin, and those not affiliated with either major party are opposed two-to-one.

A plurality of Americans would support a national sales tax if it meant getting rid of the federal income tax: 43% favor that trade-off, but 38% are opposed. Pluralities of Republicans and unaffiliateds like the idea, while a plurality of Democrats are against it.

Forty-eight percent (48%) say a national sales tax is fairer than an income tax while 26% hold the opposite view. The sales tax is viewed as fairer by 52% of Republicans, 44% of Democrats and 49% of unaffiliateds.

According to recent news reports, some in Washington say adoption of a national sales tax on all goods and services would lead to a reduction in income tax rates. However, Americans are skeptical that the nation’s politicians would actually go through with such a trade-off.

Only 20% of Americans think it’s even somewhat likely that the government would actually cut income tax rates once the national sales tax was approved. Just eight percent (8%) say it’s Very Likely income tax rates would come down.

A Washington Post article this week said a national sales tax ranging from 10% to 25% is being discussed. In the Rasmussen Reports survey, no specific levels of taxation were mentioned. However, since the tax rate would be much higher than existing state sales taxes, it is likely that support for a national sales tax would decline as specific numbers became known.

An earlier survey found that 34% were generally willing to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for all. But there was strong opposition to taxing health insurance benefits provided by companies. Fifty percent (50%) are willing to tax alcohol products to generate revenue for health care, but there is little support for a “sin-tax” on non-diet sodas.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters prefer a government that offers fewer services and has lower taxes. Seventy-seven percent (77%) say the bigger problem in the United States is the unwillingness of politicians to control government spending rather than Americans' unwillingness to pay higher taxes.

Big Donors & Bundlers Among Obama's Picks

2009-05-29T22:54:00.003-05:00

Courtesy of www.opensecrets.org

Published by Michael Beckel on May 28, 2009

U.S. presidents have long rewarded big campaign donors, fundraisers and other loyalists with ambassadorships, and Democratic President Barack Obama seems to be no exception. Yesterday, he officially announced his intent to nominate a dozen individuals to ambassadorships around the globe. That list included a handful of career Foreign Service officers, but it also included several big contributors and bundlers, who, along with their spouses, have given nearly $1 million almost exclusively to Democrats since the 1990 election cycle. These donations include $34,600 to Obama himself, on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they steered toward Obama's presidential campaign and inauguration committees as bundlers.

Some of the individuals nominated for ambassadorships have not contributed any money to federal candidates, parties or committees, but most have, including one who reportedly holds the nickname of "Vacuum Cleaner" for his ability to suck up checks for Democrats. The nominated individuals--including Obama's choice to be the ambassador to Ireland, which he announced on St. Patrick's Day--and their spouses, have contributed at least $968,900 since 1989. Of this sum, 89 percent has gone to Democrats. (Download a list of the political contributions the nominees have given by cycle, as well as the candidates that have received money from them here: Ambassador_Data.xls. Note that there are two tabs.)

Here's the money-in-politics breakdown for Obama's recent ambassador picks:

Louis B. Susman: This lawyer and investment banker has reportedly earned the nicknames the "vacuum cleaner" and "big bundler" for his prowess as a bundler of campaign cash. He bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign and at least $300,000 for his inauguration, according to Public Citizen. This includes $50,000 from his personal funds. Further, he and his wife have contributed at least $581,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties, with 99 percent of that sum going to Democrats, including at least $12,800 to Obama. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to the United Kingdom.

Daniel M. Rooney: Owner and chairman of the Pittsburgh Steeler's football team, he and his wife have contributed at least $152,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties since the 1990 election cycle, including $500 to Obama. Ninety percent of their funds have gone to Democrats. Rooney also endorsed Obama in the run-up to Pennsylvania's heated presidential primary in April of 2008. He is a co-founder of the Ireland-related fundraising organization, The Ireland Funds, as well, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Ireland.

Charles H. Rivkin: The head of the entertainment company W!LDBRAIN, he served as a delegate to the Democratic National Committee in support of Obama last summer. Moreover, he sent at least half-a-million towards Obama's campaign committee as a bundler and another $300,000 toward his inaugural committee. Since the 1994 election cycle, he has personally contributed more than $97,500 to Democrats, including $6,600 to Obama, and now he has been nominated to be the ambassador to France.

John V. Roos: This lawyer has bundled at least $500,000 to Obama's presidential campaign. He and his wife have also contributed at least $77,500 to Democrats since the 1992 election cycle, including $6,900 to Obama. Roos is the CEO of the technology-oriented law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and has been nominated to be ambassador to Japan.

Laurie S. Fulton: The long-time lawyer who also served on the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace from 2004 to 2008 bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign. Moreover, she has personally contributed at least $48,900 to Democrats since the 1992 election cycle, including $4,850 to Obama. She has been nominated to be the ambassador to Denmark.

Vilma S. Martinez: The former head of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a litigator with Munger, Tolles & Olson, she has contributed more than $9,800 to Democratic candidates and groups since 1989, including at least $1,900 to Obama. She has been nominated to be ambassador to Argentina.

Miguel H. Díaz: A professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, Diaz contributed $1,000 to Obama's campaign last fall, his only federal political contribution to meet disclosure requirements since 1989. He also served as a Catholic adviser to Obama's presidential campaign. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to the Vatican.

Michael A. Battle, Sr.: The president of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Ga., Battle has no known history of giving federal campaign cash. He has also been an administrator at several higher education institutions, including Chicago State University, Virginia State University and Hampton University, and he has been nominated to be the U.S. representative to the African Union, which has the rank of ambassador.

Robert S. Connan: Working for the U.S. Commercial Service within the Department of Commerce since 1980, Connan has not made any contributions exceeding $200 to federal candidates, committees or parties. His most recent position has been with the European Union, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Iceland.

Patricia A. Butenis: A career officer with the U.S. Foreign Service, which she joined in 1980, Butenis has served most recently in the U.S. embassy in Iraq. She has been nominated to be the ambassador to both Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Butenis has not given contributions greater than $200 since 1989.

Christopher William Dell: A career officer with the U.S. Foreign Service, which he joined in 1983, he served most recently in the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. He has been nominated to be the ambassador to Kosovo, and he does not have any known federal campaign contributions.

Thomas A. Shannon: A career member of the U.S. Foreign Service, which he joined in 1984, he is the current Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Ambassador. He has not given any federal campaign contributions greater than $200, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Brazil.

Timothy J. Roemer: The former six-term Democratic congressman from Indiana was a member of the 9/11 Commission and provided Obama with a hearty endorsement during the contentious primary race with Hillary Clinton. He currently heads the Center for National Policy, a DC-based public policy organization, and has been nominated to be the ambassador to India. He has not made any personal campaign contributions to federal candidates, but he does appear in our Revolving Door database.

Since John F. Kennedy was president in the 1960s, about one-third of American ambassadors have been political appointees, according to the American Academy of Diplomacy. The academy is among the groups that think the public would be served if that number was lowered, and have urged Obama to cut that number to about ten percent. "Too often ambassadorships have served as political rewards for unqualified candidates," they wrote in a letter to Obama last year.

Time will tell if the Obama administration has any plans to buck this tradition and reduce the number of non-career appointees. And even as Obama rewards some big donors with ambassadorships, he has also pledged to grow the number of Foreign Service officers. The budget plan he submitted to Congress earlier this year would increase by 25 percent the total number of Foreign Service officers by 2013 and double the number of staffers at the U.S. Agency for International Development by 2012.CRP Researchers Doug Weber and Carolyn Sharpe contributed to this report.

Sounding Taps at Arlington - Fulfilling a Promise

2009-05-24T03:43:00.002-05:00

This was posted on the Buglers Across America website. This has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama, but it is an inspiring story and felt it should be shared. Please do not misconstrue the policy at Arlington to be a slight by our President on the veterans - it is not. The policy was instituted by the U.S. Army and has been in place for decades. Now, for the "rest of the story..."

I promised a friend of mine, Len Cowherd, that I would sound Taps for his son, Leonard Cowherd III, somewhere and sometime on May 16th, the 5th anniversary of Leonard's death in Iraq, where he was killed by a sniper. (You can learn more about Leonard at www.cowherd.org)

I did not anticipate going to Arlington, where Leonard is buried (Section 60, No. 7983), but Pam and I decided that it was the only right thing to do.When we arrived at Arlington National Cemetery, I fealt that I should receive permission first to sound Taps for Leonard. Disappointedly, I was told that it was not allowed. That made me very upset, but I acknowledged their decision.

Pam and I proceeded to find Section 60, and Leonard's gravestone. After a few minutes of searching the thousands of gravestones up to 7983, we found Leonard. We placed a flag next to his stone. There were only a hand-full of visitors in the area, and I knew that they were very saddened to be there, so I was apprehensive about doing anything. A veteran came up to us and expressed his sorrow for our loss. We explained to him that we were there on the behalf of the Cowherd family and would like to sound Taps for their son/brother. After an extended conversation with Cpt. Edward Liu, of the Army National Guard, he stated that "no one is going to object to your sounding Taps for Leonard".

I went back to Leonard's gravesite, and, after a few moments of prayer, sounded Taps for 2nd Lt. Leonard M. Cowherd, US Army, who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was born on August 16, 1981, and died May 16, 2004. He was a recent graduate of West Point Academy.

From this experience, all I can say is do not hesitate to show your patriotism. With what is going on this day in age, we must stand up and say "No, I am going to honor this hero, whether it is allowed or not. It must be done".

If you don't, chances are, no one else will.As Sgt. Will Mock said (who was also killed in Iraq) "Strength and Honor" "Honor and Strength"!!! IE: Do not fear, and do not hesitate to honor!!!!!

GOP decries 'socialism' of Obama, Democrats

2009-05-21T20:54:00.001-05:00

By Paul West
May 21, 2009
Baltimore Sun

OXON HILL - - The Republican National Committee approved a watered-down resolution Wednesday evening that called on President Barack Obama and the Democrats to stop "pushing our country towards socialism and government control."

The action, at a brief and rare special session of the RNC in Republican National Chairman Michael S. Steele's home county, spared the party the potential embarrassment of the more strident language of the original resolution.

An earlier version of the measure would have called for the opposition to "rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party." The revised resolution was approved by a voice vote, in a package with two other measures, with just one dissenting vote by an unidentified committeewoman.

Steele, who worked behind the scenes in recent weeks to resolve the issue, had objected to the initial wording, warning in a memo last month that it would give the party's adversaries an opportunity to "mischaracterize Republicans."

Steele, a resident of nearby Upper Marlboro, presided over the 23-minute meeting, which concluded a three-day gathering of party officials.

The annual meeting of state Republican chairmen became a forum for Steele to try to relaunch his chairmanship after an uneven start. He delivered a speech Tuesday attacking Obama and declaring that after recent electoral losses, a Republican comeback has begun.

Steele described the sessions, held in Prince George's County at his request, as "successful." But he did not appear at a post-session news conference.

"There's some place he's got to be," an aide explained. A party spokesman, Trevor Francis, pointed out that Steele had never been scheduled to take questions from reporters.

Steele's exposure to the news media has been carefully controlled in the wake of a series of gaffes. At a private session with party leaders earlier in the week, he said he had learned his lesson and vowed to impose greater discipline on himself.

"I put my size 13s in my mouth several times, and I'm here to tell you I'm going to stop," Steele said, according to a participant.

Steele was asked on his way into the closing session why he wouldn't be taking questions from reporters.

"Because I'm tired," he said.

On Abortion, Obama Is Drawn Into Debate He Hoped to Avoid

2009-05-15T04:48:00.000-05:00

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
New York Times
Published: May 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — In nearly four months in office, President Obama has pursued a careful two-pronged strategy on abortion, enacting policies that secure a woman’s right to the procedure while vowing to move beyond the culture wars that have divided the nation on the issue for more than three decades.

Now, Mr. Obama is suddenly in the thick of the battle he had hoped to transcend, and his delicate balancing act is being put to the test.

The confluence of two events — his commencement speech on Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, and his forthcoming choice of a candidate to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring from the Supreme Court — threaten to upend Mr. Obama’s effort to “tamp down some of the anger” over abortion, as he said in a news conference last month, and to distract from his other domestic priorities, like health care.

The invitation from Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic institution, has riled opponents of abortion, who object to giving such a platform to a supporter of abortion rights. The local bishop has vowed to boycott the ceremony. Some graduating seniors are planning to protest it. Conservatives, frustrated by what they regard as Mr. Obama’s skillful efforts to paint himself as a moderate, are all over the airwaves denouncing him as “the most radical, pro-abortion of any American president,” as Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, said on Fox News.

The White House must now decide whether to engage in the debate and, if so, how deeply. Mr. Obama’s communications adviser, Anita Dunn, said in an interview that the president was likely to “make reference to the controversy” in his speech on Sunday. “You can’t ignore it,” Ms. Dunn said, “but at the same time, you can’t allow it to become the focus of a day that’s actually supposed to be about the graduates.”

While the address has galvanized abortion opponents, the Supreme Court opening has galvanized backers of abortion rights. Both sides expect Mr. Obama to pick a candidate who would uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. But interest groups are taking no chances. “Take Action: Protect a Woman’s Right to Choose!” declared the Center for Reproductive Rights in an e-mail message to supporters on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama frames his position on abortion as a nuanced one — he calls it a “a moral and ethical issue” best left to women and doctors — and he envisions himself forging consensus around causes like reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting adoption. As he said in a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, “Culture wars are so ’90s.”

As president, Mr. Obama, who during the campaign answered a question about when human life begins by saying it was “above my pay grade,” has tried to straddle the abortion divide. He has done so partly by reaching out to religious conservatives, partly by avoiding the most contentious legislative battles and partly by reversing the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, a faithful ally of abortion opponents, in piecemeal fashion — all while the nation has been consumed by the economic crisis.

He has named abortion rights advocates to top jobs; Dawn Johnsen, a former legal director of Naral Pro-Choice America, is his pick to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. He has repealed the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibited tax dollars from going to organizations that provide abortions overseas; lifted Mr. Bush’s limits on embryonic stem cell research; stripped financing for abstinence-only sex education; and is seeking to undo a last-minute Bush regulation giving broad protections to health providers who refuse to take part in abortions.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said she told allies that their movement was emerging from “eight years in the wilderness.”

But even as Mr. Obama has delighted abortion rights advocates, he has dialed back some earlier ambitions. In 2007, he promised Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which effectively codifies Roe v. Wade. Now he says the bill is “not my highest legislative priority,” as he put it at a recent news conference.

Mr. Obama is also reaching out. At his direction, his top domestic policy adviser, Melody C. Barnes, is convening a series of discussions with people on both sides of the debate, with a goal to draft a set of policy recommendations by late summer.

“What we’ve said to people is, ‘This isn’t an opportunity to relitigate Roe v. Wade,’ ” Ms. Barnes said. “The president wants us to talk about reducing unintended pregnancies, but he doesn’t want this to be the conversation that never ends. His goal is to get something done.”

David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta who backed Mr. Obama despite their differences on abortion, has participated in the talks. He said the president was sending a message to moderate Catholics and evangelicals that “he clearly knows what the bright red lines are and is trying to avoid stepping over them.”

But religious conservatives and more ardent abortion opponents who have not been included say Mr. Obama is trying to have it both ways. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, an advocacy group, said that if the president really wanted to forge consensus, he would advocate rules allowing parents to be notified if their teenage daughters sought an abortion and banning the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama voted “present” on such initiatives, enabling their defeat.

“Moderate rhetoric, hard-left policies,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a vocal abortion opponent, assessing Mr. Obama’s approach.

Polls show that the American public is deeply conflicted over abortion and that support has declined steadily over the years. In 1995, roughly 60 percent of Americans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Last month, in a survey by the Pew Research Center, that number stood at 46 percent. A Gallup survey that examined seven decisions early in Mr. Obama’s presidency found that the least popular was the one to overturn the ban on sending tax dollars to organizations that provide abortions overseas.

Douglas W. Kmiec, a constitutional scholar and former Notre Dame professor who was an outspoken critic of abortion when he worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, said he had been advising the White House to use the speech at the university on Sunday to tackle the controversy head on, with the president making the case that “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.”

But as to whether Mr. Obama can indeed transcend the culture wars, Mr. Kmiec sounded uncertain.

“If there’s anybody who can, it’s the president,” he said. “Whether the culture wars will let him is the question, and the answer is unknown.”

Obama Skips Visit to Normandy, American Cemetery

2009-05-12T03:18:00.002-05:00

Due to the upcoming 65th Anniversary of the Normandy Invasion, I think this is worth posting, even though it's a month late.

by Mark Impomeni
PoliticsDaily.com
Originally published April 8, 2009

Reports out of London indicate that President Barack Obama declined an inviation from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to visit Normandy's Omaha Beach and the American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-mer on his way to Strasbourg for the NATO summit last week. The Daily Telegraph reports that White House officials travelled to France last month to discuss the visit with their counterparts on Sarkozy's staff. But one American official familiar with the negotiations said that President Obama never had any intention of making the stop over.

"It wasn't going to happen. We went through the motions to placate President Sarkozy but giving special treatment to France was not on our agenda. During this trip, we wanted to maintain a balance between the British, [the] German[s], and France."

The White House refused to comment on the Telegraph's report.

The rejection of Sarkozy's offer is the latest snub of the French president by President Obama. Sarkozy reportedly tried in vain to meet wih then President-elect Obama in Washington late last year. The Telegraph reports further that Sarkozy was "piqued" that Obama held a 50-minute press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown upon arriving in London last week. The president held only a brief media availability with Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But perhaps most damaging for the Administration domestically is President Obama's failure to visit the American Cemetery in Normandy. During the campaign, Obama was heavily criticized for cancelling a planned visit to the U.S. military hospital in Ramstein, Germany, for a meeting with wounded troops. Skipping a visit to the cemetery could spark similar criticism. Moreover, the White House would not comment on whether President Obama will attend the ceremonies for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in June, although a Sarkozy aide said Obama has agreed to the trip. So it remains unclear whether President Obama will get another chance to honor the 9,387 American soldiers buried there.

It is becoming clear, however, that there is tension between Obama and Sarkozy, despite French denials. Sarkozy has been critical of Obama's foreign policy ideas, especially with respect to Iran's nuclear programs. White House officials are not commenting, but they are also not going out of their way to quell the rumors. President Obama campaigned on a promise to reestablish relationships with American allies. So far, though, the relationship with France, and his personal relationship with Sarkozy, appears to be deteriorating with each new report.

Obama plans National Day of Prayer proclamation, not event

2009-05-06T21:13:00.000-05:00

By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will issue a proclamation marking the National Day of Prayer on Thursday (May 7), but appears to be moving away from the White House ceremonies hosted by former President George W. Bush.

"President Obama is a committed Christian and believes that we should be engaging Americans of faith in efforts to renew our country," a White House official said.

"He is following the tradition of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and others by signing a proclamation honoring the National Day of Prayer, while continuing to work with communities of faith to improve our country."

During Bush's eight years in office, prominent evangelicals, including National Day of Prayer Task Force chairman Shirley Dobson, and her husband, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, gathered each year for an East Room ceremony on the first Thursday in May.

"We are disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration," Shirley Dobson said in a statement issued by the task force on Monday. "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer."

This year, task force organizers went ahead with their own plans and scheduled their traditional morning ceremonies on Capitol Hill for the morning, the same time of day when past White House events had been held. They asked for a White House representative to attend but had not received a response as of Monday.

At his press briefing on Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president's upcoming plans included signing a proclamation to recognize the prayer day.

The National Day of Prayer was signed into law in 1952 by President Truman. President Reagan amended the law in 1988 to state that the observances would be held the first Thursday in May.

Specter is vulnerable in Democratic primary

2009-05-05T02:58:00.000-05:00

By Christopher P. Borick
Philadelphia Inquirer

It seems like a done deal: Arlen Specter will be the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania's 2010 U.S. Senate race. With the support of an all-star cast of Democrats that includes President Obama, Vice President Biden, Gov. Rendell, and Sen. Bob Casey Jr., it appears the path to the nomination has been cleared for the recent defector from the Republican ranks.

Surely no up-and-coming Democratic politician - such as U.S. Rep. Joseph Sestak or State. Rep. Josh Shapiro - would want to challenge a well-funded, well-connected incumbent who has likely given his new party the magical 60th seat in the Senate. That would only draw the ire of Democratic leaders in Washington and Harrisburg.

It may very well be that simple. But we shouldn't pencil in the name of the newest Democratic senator on the general-election ballot just yet.

One need look no further than the 2004 Republican Senate primary to find evidence that a candidate with ample funds and the support of party leaders can be pushed to the brink in an intraparty showdown. The conditions of that primary were notably similar to those emerging in the Democratic race today, with Specter again playing a leading role.

Few believed Specter was vulnerable in the 2004 GOP primary, despite long-simmering resentment among conservatives. After all, he was a four-term incumbent with the backing of the Republican establishment. George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, and Tom Ridge all threw their considerable influence behind him. Nevertheless, a fairly unknown congressman from the Lehigh Valley, Pat Toomey, came within a whisker of defeating him. How?

Toomey wisely recognized that Specter's popularity with moderates meant little in a closed party primary. He used his relatively limited resources to focus on Specter's shortcomings as a conservative, and to engage activists on the right to offset his lack of support from the party elite. While Toomey ultimately failed, he may have given a daring Democrat the perfect recipe for taking down Specter in 2010.

Perpetually denigrated as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) during much of his career, Specter has instantly become Pennsylvanian's most famous DINO: Democrat In Name Only. A smart fifth grader with access to Google could put together decades' worth of votes putting Specter at odds with Democratic positions. From Anita Hill to union card check, there is no shortage of material.

And, as recent elections have shown, nothing ramps up Democrats like tying a candidate to Bush. Even with Bush out of the spotlight, a series of ads reminding Democratic primary voters of the many times Specter went along with the former president could be a potent weapon. Specter's good friend Joe Lieberman can attest to the perils of getting too close to Bush.

A Democratic primary challenger might also be able to undermine one of Specter's greatest assets: his electability in November. Back in 2004, that helped Specter squeak out the victory over Toomey. But with well over a million more Democrats than Republicans in the commonwealth, any Democrat who is even remotely mainstream can claim to be favored to defeat the GOP nominee. This is especially true if a staunch conservative such as Toomey, the current front-runner, wins the Republican nomination. So Specter's general-election strengths would not be special.

Finally, will Pennsylvania's Democratic voters, flush with recent electoral successes, want to settle for Arlen Specter? Party leaders may welcome one more senator, but will rank-and-file Democrats give Specter a pass? They don't owe him anything. He may not be the ideal right-wing villain that Santorum was, but he certainly hasn't been a model Democrat, either.

When a party is weak, settling makes strategic sense. But the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is anything but weak. As the excitement generated by Specter's defection wears off, Democratic voters may start to wonder whether they can do better.

Specter may be tailor-made for a general election in Pennsylvania. He is a true moderate in a truly moderate state. And with names like Obama, Rendell, and Casey in his camp, it's easy to see why many Democrats may take a pass on challenging him next year.

However, as Toomey demonstrated five years ago, there is plenty of opportunity for an entrepreneurial candidate to challenge Specter within the confines of a primary. And although Toomey's 2004 bid was unsuccessful, the loss certainly didn't end his political career. Ironically, it may be the model that encourages an up-and-coming Democrat to try to take down Specter next spring and face Toomey in November 2010.

Philip Drew Administrator - project Gutenberg links

2009-04-30T21:03:00.001-05:00

If you are interested in reading Philip Drew Administrator, you can click on one of the links below to give you the on-line text.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/7phlp10.txt

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/8phlp10h.htm

Philip Dru Administrator: Understanding where we are headed

2009-04-30T20:37:00.003-05:00

I was listening to Glenn Beck's radio program this evening when he talked about reading a book that Stu never thought he would pick up. It's called, "Philip Drew Administrator," which Beck traces as the origin of modern progressivism. While doing a search for the book, I came across the following piece called, "The Future Is Calling" at www.pushhamburger.com, which gives a biographical sketch of Edward Mandell, the books author. Finding it quite fascinating reading, I thought I would share this segment with you. You can read the rest here.

The Future Is Calling

by G. Edward Griffin

Revised 2003, September 14

COLONEL HOUSE

As we re-activate our time machine, we find ourselves in the presence of one of the most colorful and mysterious figures of history. His name is Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was never in the military. The title of Colonel was honorary, granted by the Governor of Texas in appreciation for political services. He was one of the most powerful men in American politics and, yet, virtually unknown to most Americans today. He was the personal advisor to Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. He was close to the Morgan banking dynasty and also to the powerful banking families of Europe. He attended school in England and surrounded himself with Fabians. His father, Thomas, was an exporter in the Southern states and also a lending agent for London banks, which preferred to remain anonymous. It was widely believed that he represented the Rothschild consortium. Thomas House was one of the few in the South who emerged from the War Between the States with a great fortune.

Colonel House was what they called a "king maker" in Texas politics. He personally chose Woodrow Wilson, the most unlikely of all political candidates, and secured his nomination for President on the Democratic ticket in 1912. It was House who convinced the Morgan group, and others with power in politics and media, to throw their support to Wilson, which is what enabled him to win the election and become the 28th President of the United States. House was certainly a member of the Round Table and possibly a member of its inner circle. He was a founder of the CFR.

In 1912 he wrote a novel, entitled Philip Drew Administrator. It was intended to popularize the Fabian blueprint for converting America to collectivism using the Fabian strategy of working slowly as a turtle and secretly as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The hero of his story is Philip Dru, who is a fictionalized version the author, himself: a quiet, unassuming intellectual, working behind the scenes advising and controlling politicians who are easily purchased and just as easily discarded. Speaking through Dru, House describes his political ideal as: "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."1 Dru’s socialism, of course, was the Fabian version. It was to have gentle and humane qualities to soften its impact and set it apart from the Leninist version called Communism.

Like all collectivists, House spoke eloquently about defending the poor and the downtrodden, but in reality, he had great disdain for the masses. In his view, they are too stupid and lazy to take an interest in their own government, so it’s up to the professionals to do that for them. Speaking through the fictional character of Senator Selwyn, House says:

The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs, contenting himself with a general growl at the tax rate, and the character and inefficiency of public officials. He seldom takes the trouble necessary to form the Government to suit his views. The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views, Philip Dru, Administrator (New York: Angriff Press, 1912) p. 45. it being too much trouble to form them; therefore, some such organization as ours is essential.

Philip Dru foments civil war, leads an uprising against the old order, captures control of the government, becomes a dictator with the grateful support of the people, is given the title Administrator of the Republic, scraps all constitutional restrictions against government power, establishes a progressive income tax, creates a national banking cartel, annexes Canada, conquers Mexico, invites European nations to participate in world government, and ushers in a glorious new age of collectivism. This was not just a fictional story for entertainment. House described this book as an expression of his own "ethical and political faith."

The reason this is important is that the ethical and political faith of Col. House now is the ethical and political faith of American leadership – and it started with Woodrow Wilson.

In his memoirs, President Wilson said: "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one."

George Viereck was an admiring biographer of Colonel House and approved of almost everything his did. This is what Viereck said:

For seven long years, Colonel House was Woodrow Wilson’s other self. For six long years he shared with him everything but the title of Chief Magistracy of the Republic. For six years, two rooms were at his disposal in the north wing of the White House. It was House who made the slate for the Cabinet, formulated the first policies of the Administration, and practically directed the foreign affairs of the United States. We had, indeed, two presidents for one! … He was the pilot who guided the ship.

THE WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY

As we contemplate a member of the Rhodes secret society, occupying two rooms in the White House, virtually in control of American foreign policy, our time machine finally brings us to World War I. Since our main topic today is war, we must prepare now to comprehend the events we are about to see in terms of the strategy for using war to smash the world to bits and then remold it closer to the hearts desire.

The sinking of the Lusitania was the event that, more than any other, motivated the American people to accept the necessity and the morality of getting into World War I. Prior to that time, there was great reluctance to participate in a war that had little to do with Ibid., pp. 199, 200.

It must be remembered that Philip Dru was published in 1912. The U.S. income tax and Federal Reserve System were then in the drafting stages and being promoted by House, Wilson, J.P. Morgan, and other collectivists in Washington. The income tax and Federal Reserve were passed into law the following year, 1913.

"The Historical Significance of the House Diary," by Arthur Walworth, Yale University Library, http://www.library.yale.edu/un/house/hist_sig.htm. Also "An Internationalist Primer," by Wlliam Grigg, The New American, September 16, 1996, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no19/vo12no19_cfr.htm.

Charles Seymour, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (New York: Houghton Miffflin Co., 1926), Vol. 1, p.114.

George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (new York: Liveright Publishers, 1932).

American interests.

However, when the Lusitania left New York Harbor on May 1, 1915, with 196 Americans on board and was sunk six days later off the coast of Ireland, it became the cause celeb that moved the American consciousness into a war mood against Germany.

Americans were outraged at a nation that could viciously and cold-heartedly attack a peaceful passenger ship.

What is not well known about that piece of history is the role played by J.P. Morgan.

As you recall, the CFR was described by Professor Quigley as a front for J.P. Morgan and Company. We must remember that Morgan was, not only a founding member of the CFR, he was also a member of the Round Table, the inner group directing it, so how does Morgan fit into this?

During World War I, the Morgan Bank was the subscription agent for war loans to England and France. These countries had exhausted their financial resources to continue the war against Germany. So they came to the United States and asked J.P. Morgan – who was culturally closer to Britain than to America – to be their agent for selling war bonds. The House of Morgan was happy to do that, and it floated approximately $1.5 billion in war bonds on behalf of England and, to a lesser extent, for France.

Morgan was also the contract agent for these countries when they purchased materials and supplies from American firms. That means he had a wonderfully profitable revolving door in which he received a piece of the action as the money went out of the country as loans and again, when it came back into the country, for the purchase of materials.

As the war progressed, Britain and France were facing the increasing possibility of defeat. The Germans had unleashed a surprise weapon – the submarine – that was new to warfare in those days, and they were sinking the ships that carried food and other necessities to the British Isles. The Germans were literally starving the British into submission who, by their own estimate, at one point said they had only about seven weeks of food left.

For the British, there was only one salvation, and that was to have the Americans come into the war to help them. But on the American side, there was a different agenda.

What would happen to that $1.5 billion in war loans if Britain and France lost the war? The only time war loans are repaid is when the nation borrowing the money wins the war. Losers don’t pay off their bonds. So Morgan was in a terrible fix. Not only were his friends in England in dire danger, he and all his investors were about to lose $1.5 billion! A very serious situation, indeed.

The U.S. Ambassador to England at that time was Walter Page. Page was more than just an ambassador. Among other things, he was a trustee to Rockefeller’s General Education Board. It was in that capacity that he played a role in shaping educational policies to promote collectivism in America. Page sent a telegram to the State Department, and this is what he said,

The pressure of this approaching crisis, I am certain, has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan financial agency for the British and French Governments….

The only way of maintaining our present preeminent trade position and averting a panic is by declaring war on Germany.

Money was not the only motivator for bringing the United States into war. We must not forget that the American players in this drama dreamed of world government based on the model of collectivism, and they saw war as a great motivator to move society in that direction. They looked forward to the creation of the League of Nations when the fighting was over and knew that the only way for the United States to play a dominant role in shaping that world body was to be a combatant. The only ones who divide the spoils of war are the victors who fight the war, and it was that reality that fired the imaginations of House, Wilson, and even J.P. Morgan.

Obama's liberal arrogance will be his undoing

2009-04-29T01:37:00.000-05:00

The hubris and overreaching of the left sets the stage for the political correction sure to come.

Jonah Goldberg
Los Angeles Times

The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama's first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.

There's no denying that this is liberalism's greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.

"The world has changed," Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. "The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes ... [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over."

Right. "Family values" and a "strong foreign policy" belong next to the "free silver" movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.

No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.

When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that "our nation's political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before." One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.

During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.

It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they're at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama's Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.

If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous '30s and '60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.

Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it's still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush's 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama's victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).

Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The "tea parties" may not have been as big as your typical union-organized "spontaneous" demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush's tenure.

And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.

Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the '30s and '60s, Obama has -- without a whiff of self-doubt -- committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that's based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.

On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.

I'm not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They're not. But American politics didn't come to an end with Obama's election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama's first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come.

White House Cheat Sheet: Obama's Swing State Road Show

2009-04-24T19:02:00.001-05:00

The Fix
by Chris Cillizza
Washington Post

When President Obama commemorates his 100th day in office next Wednesday with a townhall meeting in St. Louis, Mo., it will mark the eleventh state he has visited during the early months of his presidency -- nearly every one of which is expected to be hotly contested in his 2012 reelection race.

In a little more than three months in office, Obama will have visited Arizona (Phoenix), California (Costa Mesa/Los Angeles), Colorado (Denver), Florida (Fort Myers), Illinois (Springfield/Peoria), Indiana (Elkhart), Iowa (Newton), Missouri (St. Louis), North Carolina (Camp Lejeune), Ohio (Columbus), and Virginia (Langley/Springfield/Willamsburg/Fairfax).

Of those eleven, nine were decided by nine points or less in the 2008 election -- the only exceptions being California and Obama's home state of Illinois -- and five were decided by four points or less. (Also worth noting: all of those nine states were carried by George W. Bush in 2004; seven of the nine flipped to Obama four years later.)

No state was closer than Missouri where Obama lost to Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) by approximately 4,500 votes out of more than 2.8 million cast.

Is it then mere coincidence that Obama is choosing to commemorate his first 100 days as president with a stop in Missouri? White House aides insist that is the case but the Fix has followed politics long enough to know that coincidences like that don't just happen.

The most precious commodity in a campaign or in the White House is the time of the candidate/president so it's nearly impossible to think that Obama's domestic travel schedule has not been chosen with an eye toward 2012 and the states he will need to secure for reelection.

This is nothing new in politics: every first term president spends his first four years positioning himself to win a second four years.

Nor does Obama's swing state tour mean that the sole driving force behind his travel schedule is the 2012 election.

But, what his domestic travel schedule does serve to remind us is that Obama and his inner circle are not simply idealists operating in a world without politics. He and they also carry a strong pragmatic streak -- his decisions to reject public financing during the campaign and to oppose the creation of a 9/11-like commission to look into the harsh interrogations used under the Bush administration yesterday are just two examples -- and understand that without winning in the political arena, victory is not possible on the policy front.

Barack Obama in Iraq Channels George W. Bush

2009-04-07T17:10:00.002-05:00

by Mark Whittington
www.associatedcontent.com

President Barack Obama traveled to Iraq from Turkey in a "surprise visit" that was speculated would happen, since Obama was "in the neighborhood." To hear Obama talk, one would have thought that George W. Bush had taken over his body.

Barack Obama had spent most of his campaign for the Presidency decrying the war in Iraq and promising a unilateral withdraw should he become elected. However, between then and now the surge strategy, which Obama opposed as a candidate, has all but broughtBarack Obama in Iraq Channels George W. Bush victory to Iraq. President Obama found that a unilateral withdraw from Iraq was not going to work. One of Obama's many night mares has him listening to Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal or Mitt Romney denouncing him for blowing the war in Iraq, with victory having been in our grasp.

Barack Obama also has strained relations with the US military, whose budget he proposes to slash. The visit to Iraq was a way to mend fences and to reassure our servicemen that he really does appreciate their service. Obama also took the time to present some medals during his brief visit at Camp Victory, the main US base near Baghdad. The troops greeted him with enthusiasm.

"You will be critical in terms of us being able to make sure Iraq is stable, that it is not a safe haven for terrorists, and we can start bringing our folks home," Obama told troops gathered at Camp Victory, a sprawling U.S. base near the airport.

This is a marked change from the Obama of the campaign and a useful example of how a politician must adapt to changing facts. Left unsaid that the strategy that made it possible to leave behind a stable Iraq which will not be a safe haven for terrorists was executed by Obama's processor, George W. Bush, whom Obama rarely misses an opportunity to criticize. Left also unsaid that if Senator Obama had his way, President Obama would be confronting an entirely different Iraq, an Iraq that would resemble South Vietnam in 1975, with the last American helicopters leaving the Green Zone as Baghdad burned.

A more gracious man than Barack Obama would have acknowledged the debt he and the country owes President Bush and would admit that he had been wrong. But Barack Obama may make apologies for the country of which he is President. He has never, publically at least, apologized for himself. Hence the Twilight Zone spectacle of Barack Obama in Iraq celebrating victory and congratulating the troops that helped to bring it about, no thanks to him.

RCP: Top 10 States in Budget Trouble

2009-04-01T20:22:00.002-05:00

From www.realclearpolitics.com with information provided by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Wall Street Journal.

(Ed - I'm surprised that Michigan, Ohio and Minnesota haven't made the list. I know their budget troubles dwarf North Carolina and a few other states that did make the list)

With the country in economic turmoil, it's no great secret that budget woes are plaguing nearly every state legislature and governor. But just as the stimulus package provides different benefits to different areas, the depth and breadth of the downturn is more severe for some states than others. Here, we take a look at the 10 states that have the largest deficits to deal with--from coast to coast, these unfortunate areas have the biggest gaps to close, and in many cases, it won't be easy.

California

FY2009 Deficit: $13,700,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $7,854,800,000

Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: No

Job Approval Rating: 38% Approve, 54% Disapprove*

*Source: Field Research Corp. 3/3/09

Illinois

FY2009 Deficit: $4,300,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,713,550,000

Governor: Pat Quinn (D)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes

Job Approval Rating: 49% Approve, 6% Disapprove*

*Source: Chicago Tribune 2/11/09

New Jersey

FY2009 Deficit: $3,600,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,763,258,000

Governor: Jon Corzine (D)

Up for Reelection in 2009?: Yes

Job Approval Rating: 40% Approve, 50% Disapprove*

*Source: Quinnipiac 3/12/09

Massachusetts
FY2009 Deficit: $2,400,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,314,888,000

Governor: Deval Patrick (D)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes

Job Approval Rating: 28% Approve, 68% Disapprove*

*Source: SurveyUSA 2/26/09

Florida

FY2009 Deficit: $2,300,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $3,546,800,000

Governor: Charlie Crist (R)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes

Job Approval Rating: 67% Approve, 22% Disapprove*

*Source: Quinnipiac 2/18/09

Pennsylvania
FY2009 Deficit: $2,300,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,528,086,000

Governor: Edward Rendell (D)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: No

Job Approval Rating: 47% Approve, 38% Disapprove*

*Source: Quinnipiac 2/11/09

Georgia

FY2009 Deficit: $1,999,662,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $2,200,000,000

Governor: Sonny Perdue (R)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: No

Job Approval Rating: 57% Approve, 39% Disapprove*

*Source: Rasmussen 12/11/2008

North Carolina
FY2009 Deficit: $2,000,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $1,838,396,000

Governor: Bev Perdue (D)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: No

Job Approval Rating: 43% Approve, 32% Disapprove*

*Source: Public Policy Polling 2/18/09

Connecticut
FY2009 Deficit: $1,700,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $718,194,000

Governor: M. Jodi Rell (R)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes

Job Approval Rating: 75% Approve, 19% Disapprove*

*Source: Quinnipiac 2/11/09

New York

FY2009 Deficit: $1,700,000,000

Projected Stimulus Funds: $3,991,858,000

Governor: David Paterson (D)

Up for Reelection in 2010?: Yes

Job Approval Rating: 26% Approve, 71% Disapprove*

*Source: Marist Institute 2/18/09

Analysis: Dems punt hard choices on Obama budget

2009-04-01T20:15:00.000-05:00

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in Congress are taking only baby steps with his budget, putting off crucial decisions on his ambitious plans to expand health care, curb global warming and raise taxes on the wealthy.

Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and both Bushes all got far stronger assists from Congress on their first budgets. Nonetheless, Obama, is counting on votes approving budget outlines this week to give him some semblance of momentum.

"If we don't pass the budget, it will empower those critics who don't want to see anything getting done," Obama told House Democrats Monday, according to a House aide who required anonymity to reveal what was said at the closed-door meeting.

Risk-averse Democrats, however, are merely kicking the can down the road rather than using the budget to give a real push to the president's agenda. On health care, global warming and even Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax cut, the pending House and Senate budget plans offer no clues as to how those big ideas might advance.

The House and Senate are expected to pass separate versions of the budget resolution by week's end, then reconcile differences after their spring break.

Budget resolutions are not law. They don't have to be signed by the president. They are nonbinding outlines paving the way for future legislation. Often, they only determine the amount of money that can be spent on departments' operating budgets that Congress must pass each year.

But they are an early measure of political strength. And especially in the first year of a presidency — when most of the heavy lifting is done on a president's agenda — they have far more importance.

Votes taken during budget resolution debates can put members on record in favor of particular policies — tax cuts or increases, cost curbs on federal health care programs, or welfare reform, for example. Presidents use political capital in winning such votes, and the lawmakers casting them tend to buy into the ideas involved.

At a comparable stage in 1981, Ronald Reagan broke the back of the Democratic House leadership in winning a key budget vote in favor of his tax cut agenda.

And in 1993, debate on Bill Clinton's deficit-cutting plan put his Democratic allies on record in support of higher taxes. That made subsequent votes to actually impose those tax hikes easier.

Budget resolutions also ratified a key 1990 budget pact between President George H.W. Bush and Democrats in which Bush broke his "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.

Key Senate budget votes in 2001 and 2003 limited the size of George W. Bush's tax cuts — but made sure they advanced.

To be sure, Obama's plans for global warming and health care are still so fuzzy that it's difficult to translate them into numbers in a congressional budget plan. And rather than overload Republicans now, it could make sense for Democrats to hold off on detailed assumptions in hopes of building bipartisan consensus later.

Still, the budget proposal that Obama sent to Congress in February did present some difficult choices:

_Fewer itemized tax deductions for the wealthy, providing money to help buy health care insurance for tens of millions of Americans who don't have it.

_Cuts in government payments to insurance companies and health care providers.

_An expensive and highly controversial plan to combat global warming through a "cap-and-trade" scheme that calls for auctioning off pollution permits for nearly $650 billion. The Senate, during budget debate Tuesday, voted to instead devote any revenues from the scheme to help consumers pay higher gasoline and electric bills that energy companies will pass on to them.

Both the House and Senate budget writers, for the most part, ignored all of Obama's big ideas when crafting their fiscal plans, sapping his agenda of momentum.

Indeed, key lawmakers are already playing "taps" over his proposals to chip away at wealthy people's ability to deduct charitable donations and mortgage interest at higher rates.

Instead, they designed a host of so-called reserve funds that give some modest procedural help to Obama initiatives but do nothing concrete to really advance them.

As a result, lawmakers can cast symbolic votes in favor of Obama's agenda — even if those votes don't say anything about the depth of that commitment. In fact, they can at the same time say they are voting for Obama's agenda even as they distance themselves from key elements of it, like his tax increases or the higher energy bills that would result from his global warming curbs.

The detail-free approach protects lawmakers from difficult votes. Its defenders also say it provides lawmakers with leeway when writing follow-up legislation.

"The strength of reserve funds, from my perspective, is you give the committees full flexibility to write the best legislation they can," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad told reporters.

But flexibility can also indicate a lack of direction. How will Democrats find $1 trillion or more over the next decade to pay for health care reforms? Is Obama's cap-and-trade initiative too unpopular to advance?

For now, there are only guesses.

"They're not putting their cards on the table," said GOP lobbyist Rich Meade. He knows how this works; he's a former staff director of the House Budget Committee.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ Andrew Taylor has covered Congress since 1990.

Obama puts GM, Chrysler on short leash

2009-03-30T16:12:00.001-05:00

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, bluntly rejecting turnaround plans by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, demanding fresh concessions for long-term federal aid and raising the possibility of quick bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.

Obama took the extraordinary step of announcing the government will back new car warranties issued by both GM and Chrysler, an attempt to reassure consumers their U.S.-made purchases will be protected even if the companies don't survive.

"I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars," Obama said in his first extended remarks on the industry since taking office nearly 10 weeks ago. And yet, he added, "our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough to succeed."

Obama, flanked by several administration officials at the White House, announced a short-term infusion of cash for the firms, and said it could be the last for one or both.

Chrysler, judged by the administration as too small to survive, got 30 days' worth of funds to complete a partnership with Fiat SpA, the Italian manufacturer, or some other automaker.

GM got assurances of 60 days' worth of federal financing to try and revise its turnaround plan under new management with heavy government participation. That would involve concessions from its union workers and bondholders. The administration engineered the ouster of longtime CEO Rick Wagoner over the weekend, an indication of its deep involvement in an industry that once stood as a symbol of American capitalism.

Obama's announcement underscored the extent to which automakers have been added to the list of large corporations now operating under a level of government control that seemed unthinkable less than a year ago. Since last fall, the Bush and Obama administrations, often acting in concert with the Federal Reserve, have engineered the takeover of housing titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seized a large stake in several banks and installed a new CEO at bailed-out insurance giant American International Group.

The latest addition to the list, the once-proud auto industry, has struggled with foreign competition for more than a generation, then was further battered by the recession and credit crisis gripping the economy. Obama said 400,000 industry jobs have been lost in the past year alone, many in Michigan.

Fritz Henderson, newly named as CEO of General Motors, issued a statement saying the company would work "to make the fundamental and lasting changes necessary to reinvent GM for the long term." The company said it hopes to avoid bankruptcy, but added it will "take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure the company, which could include a court-supervised process."

Chrysler Chairman Bob Nardelli sought to assure customers, dealers, suppliers and employees that the automaker "will operate 'business as usual' over the next 30 days," while working closely with the government and Fiat to secure the support of stakeholders.

Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat, issued a statement calling the Obama administration's involvement "tough but fair, and we believe we will arrive at a result that will establish a credible future for this crucial industrial sector and that assigns the right priority to the repayment of U.S. taxpayers' funds."

Fiat executives have talked to administration officials about a proposal to acquire a 35 percent stake in Chrysler in exchange for small car technology, transmissions and other items that Chrysler has valued at $8-$10 billion.

There was no immediate response from the United AutoWorkers Union, which will be pressured to make additional wage and benefit concessions under Obama's demand for a revised restructuring plan. One worker, Don Thompson, 56, of Chesterfield Township in Michigan, said automakers were being punished because of public anger over the banking bailout. "They're using us for the mistakes they've made in Washington," he said.

Other workers were critical of what they see as a double standard in how Washington has dealt with the auto industry versus financial institutions, with the ousted Wagoner treated differently than the CEOs of troubled banks. "They're using him as a fall guy," said Frank Rowser, financial secretary for UAW Local 909.

When Wagoner leaves the automaker, he will take a financial package worth an estimated $23 million.

Ford Motor Co., the third member of the Big Three, has not requested federal bailout funds.

Obama said bankruptcy would be a way for either GM or Chrysler to "quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet," and stressed that either firm would remain open.

"What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years, unable to get out," he said.

Still, fears about the industry's future sent stocks plummeting, with the Dow Jones industrial average losing about 254 points. GM plunged 92 cents, or 25.4 percent, to $2.70. Chrysler is not publicly traded.

Obama's remarks were prompted by the expiration of a temporary bailout approved by the Bush administration last winter, with $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. Under its terms, the two automakers had until March 31 to submit restructuring plans as it searched for additional federal funds.

At the time, it appeared Bush had avoided an industry collapse on his watch yet had deferred the most difficult decisions for his predecessor.

By his comments, Obama bought himself a little more time, but made it clear it was fast running out. "Now is the time to confront our problems head-on and do what's necessary to solve them," he said.

The administration issued papers detailing the prospects for survival of both GM and Chrysler, credited them with making difficult choices, yet also stressing the difficulties that remain.

It said that while GM's new car of the future, the Volt, "holds promise, it will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short run," the paper said. A GM Web site hails the car for its "revolutionary propulsion system that takes you beyond the power of the battery. It will use a lithium-ion battery with a gasoline-powered, range-extending engine that drives a generator to provide electric power when you drive beyond the 40-mile battery range."

The administration said that even with the changes it has made, GM's own plan is based on overly optimistic assumptions, and also assumes a negative cash flow of $14.5 billion over the next six years. It also says the GM plan does not do enough to solve the problem of "underperforming brands, nameplates, and an excess of dealers."

And yet, it says GM can potentially survive as a freestanding corporation, a judgment it does not make for Chrysler.

Government experts said the firm does not spend enough money on research and development. It also said the "inferior quality of its existing product portfolio and its heavy truck mix leave the company poorly positioned." Additionally, Chrysler is heavily dependent on North America, making it vulnerable to local economic conditions, Obama's advisers said.

They said the administration would consider investing another $6 billion in the firm if it can conclude an agreement with Fiat over the next 30 days that is satisfactory.

"If an agreement is not reached, the government will not invest any additional taxpayer funds in Chrysler," it said.

____

Associated Press Writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Ken Thomas in Washington and Ben Leubsdorf in Warren, Mich., contributed to this report.

Voters Divided As to Whether Obama Budget Will Help or Hurt Economy

2009-03-27T17:53:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of Rasmussen Reports

Voters are evenly divided over whether President Obama’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget will help or hurt the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 42% believe it will help the economy while 43% say it will hurt.

The data, combined with two earlier surveys tracking the topic, shows that opinion on both sides of the debate are fairly entrenched. The data also indicates that proposals for health care reform are likely to be the central front in the budgetary debate.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Forty-percent (40%) of voters have a favorable opinion of the president’s budget while 46% have a unfavorable view. Those numbers have barely budged from surveys conducted in the first week of March and in mid-March. In all three surveys, the number with an unfavorable opinion of the budget has been at 45% or 46%. The number offering a positive review of the budget was a few points higher in mid-March.

The number who say Obama’s budget will help the economy has stayed between 42% and 44% in each survey. The number who believe it will hurt has increased a bit over the course of the month.

If one of the president’s priorities had to be scaled back to reduce the deficit, 34% would cut back on health care reform, 29% would cut development of new sources of energy, and 20% would cut his plans for education. However, there is a huge partisan gap on this point. For Democrats, health care reform is the last place they’d cut back. For Republicans and those not affiliated with either major party, health care is the first place they’d cut.

These results are consistent with earlier data showing that Democrats consider health care the top budget priority while Republicans and unaffiliateds place a higher value on deficit reduction. It’s a huge challenge since 63% agree with the president’s assertion that “we must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.”

Three-out-of-four voters (77%) remain concerned that Obama’s plan will generate too much government spending.

Two-thirds (66%) fear that the president will have to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year.

Obama continued to champion his budget in a prime-time press conference Tuesday night, but senior Senate Democrats are questioning the level of spending in it, especially in light of reports that its 10-year deficit projections may be off by as much as $2.3 trillion.

Americans consistently believe that tax cuts are good for the economy and that increased government spending tends to hurt the economy.

In the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday, 35% of voters Strongly Approve of Obama's job performance while 30% Strongly Disapprove.

Cheney Says Obama Has Increased Risks

2009-03-16T15:45:00.001-05:00

By A. G. SULZBERGER
New York Times
Published: March 15, 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that President Obama had made the country less safe, asserting that the new administration’s changes to detention and interrogation programs for terrorism suspects would hamper intelligence gathering.

Mr. Cheney said the moves suggested that terrorism was now being treated as a law enforcement problem.

“He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” Mr. Cheney said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the CNN program “State of the Union.”

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has reversed many of the policies championed by Mr. Cheney in his eight years of serving under President George W. Bush. Mr. Obama has announced plans to close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within the year, suspended military trials for terrorism suspects and prohibited the interrogation practice known as waterboarding.

But on Sunday, Mr. Cheney said those very policies had produced intelligence — still classified — that helped uncover specific plots.

“I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11,” Mr. Cheney said of Bush administration policies, echoing statements he made in an interview last month with the Web site Politico.com.

“I think that’s a great success story,” he said. “It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.”

Mr. Cheney said the Bush administration decided after the 2001 attacks to make fighting terrorism a function of the military rather than law enforcement.

“Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem,” he said. “You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail.

“Once you go into a wartime situation and it’s a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they’ve got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources — everything you can — in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you.

“When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they’re doing, closing Guantánamo and so forth, that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that’s required, and that concept of military threat that is essential if you’re going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks.”

In what CNN promoted as his first televised interview since leaving office in January, Mr. Cheney touched on a number of other subjects, including the economy, his failure to persuade Mr. Bush to pardon his former aide I. Lewis Libby Jr. and the war in Iraq.

“We’ve accomplished nearly everything we set out to do,” he said about Iraq. “Now, I don’t hear much talk about that, but the fact is, the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There’s been elections, a constitution. They’re about to have another presidential election here in the near future.”

“We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal,” Mr. Cheney said. “And it is, in fact, what we set out to do.”

National Anthem History video

2009-03-12T21:07:00.001-05:00

I understand this is a must see video on the history of our National Anthem.

March 2009 - Obama debt report

2009-03-10T21:59:00.002-05:00

From National Debtbusters, the National Debt has increased by $323,781,545,093.18 since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009. This represents an average daily increase of $6,745,448,856.11 since he swore the oath of office.

Excuse me? “Deficit we inherited?”

2009-03-10T21:56:00.000-05:00

Washington, Mar 3 - President Obama and Congressional Democrats have repeatedly claimed they “inherited” the massive deficits plaguing our budgets. Yet a look back at the year in taxpayer-funded bailouts, stimulus, and backstops shows just how unconcerned they are by skyrocketing deficits.So, please, spare us the false outrage.

Deficit Spending
Democrat Opposition? Not Quite

Feb. 13, 2008 – The first “stimulus” bill, H.R. 5140, became law, putting checks in the mail.
215 House Democrats (93%) voted to add $124.4 billion to the deficit (CBO). Senator Obama did not show up to vote.

July 30, 2008 – H.R. 3221 became law, allowing the government to insure $300 billion in mortgage loans. 227 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $24.9 billion to the deficit (CBO). Senator Obama expressed support but did not show up to vote.

Oct. 3, 2008 – H.R. 1424 became law, authorizing $700 billion for TARP. 172 House Democrats (73%) and Senator Obama voted to bailout Wall Street with $700 billion (CBO).

Dec. 10, 2008 – The House passed H.R. 7321 to bail out automakers. When it did not pass the Senate, the Treasury provided a bailout with very similar terms. 205 House Democrats (87%) voted to spend $16.168 billion (CBO) with President-elect Obama’s full support.

Feb. 17, 2009 – The non-stimulus bill, H.R. 1, became law, spending $787 billion on long-time Democrat priorities and pseudo tax relief for non-taxpayers. 246 House Democrats (96%) voted to add $787 billion to the deficit (CBO) with President Obama’s full support.

Feb. 25, 2009 – H.R. 1105 passed the House of Representatives, spending $410 billion on a pork-laden omnibus bill that gave big increases to existing government programs. 229 House Democrats (91%) voted to spend $410 billion with President Obama’s full support.

The Obama team's Limbaugh fixation

2009-03-09T20:23:00.002-05:00

Bill O'Reilly
FoxNews

Man, I got out just in time. Last week, I gave up doing the Radio Factor after seven years because I needed to get some sleep. Working 65 hours a week is fine when you're 30, but as Clint Eastwood once opined: A man must know his limitations.

My radio program competed against Rush Limbaugh's show in some markets, and now, in an amazing bit of political gamesmanship, the Obama administration has elevated Limbaugh to Alp-like heights. By publicly attacking the broadcaster, the Obama crew has not only galvanized his loyal audience, but also sent curiosity seekers into his domain. What a ratings bonanza for Limbaugh! Who would want to compete against that?

According to the Web site Politico, Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville polled Limbaugh's popularity and found it lacking among voters younger than age 40. The Web site contends they convinced White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to go after Limbaugh and define him as the behind-the-scenes leader of the Republican Party. The strategy was to paint the GOP as a leaderless outfit fearful of a high-profile radio guy. Emanuel dropped the propaganda bomb on a morning TV show last Sunday.

In conjunction, Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe wrote a sarcastic op-ed in the Washington Post claiming the Republican Party is "paralyzed with fear of crossing (Limbaugh)."
Presto, the liberal mainstream media pounced on the new leader of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, mocking him for playing second fiddle to Limbaugh. Steele did not like that and told CNN the broadcaster is an entertainer who often pops off. Limbaugh did not like that and lambasted Steele. Under pressure, the RNC chief apologized.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are "lol" as they say on the Net.

But there may be an unintended consequence in this for the White House. By empowering Limbaugh, who already commands an enormous audience, the Obama administration is supplying weaponry to the enemy. Sure, the Democratic home team is yukking this stuff up, but most Americans are steaming mad about the economy and in no mood for shallow political games. If the president cannot get Wall Street to believe in him, demonizing Limbaugh will begin to look like a diversionary tactic, which it might well be.

It is certainly true that the Republican Party is currently taking some lumps, especially among the pro-Obama media. But in politics things can turn fast. If the GOP can develop some strong leadership and a populist vision, it will compete in the 2010 election.

We are living in dangerous times and the folks know it. Fighting with a radio talk-show host may be entertaining, but it is certainly not presidential.

Business leery of Obama’s tax plans

2009-03-09T20:18:00.001-05:00

By Kent Hoover
New Mexico Business Weekly

The nation’s most successful small business owners could pay higher taxes under President Obama’s budget plan.

The income of most small businesses is taxed at the individual level. The budget plan calls for increasing the top two tax rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent in 2011, up from the current rates of 33 percent and 35 percent.

These higher-income taxpayers also would not receive the full value of their itemized deductions, and they would see their capital gains and dividends taxed at a 20 percent rate instead of 15 percent.

That’s bad news for small business owners who report more than $200,000 in income as individuals or more than $250,000 as joint filers.

Only 9 percent of taxpayers who report small business income make this much money, however, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Plus many of these taxpayers are passive investors in small businesses, not owner/operators.

Most small business owners are middle-income individuals who would receive tax cuts under Obama’s budget and would benefit from his proposal for health care reform, said Robert Greenstein, the center’s executive director.

“In fact, small businesses would win under this budget,” Greenstein said.

Small business owners who make the most money, however, also are the most likely to invest in their businesses and hire additional workers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“If we take away their incentives to take risks, grow and succeed — as this budget does — we will be unnecessarily shooting ourselves in the foot,” said Bruce Josten, the chamber’s executive vice president for government affairs.

The effects of higher tax rates on business decisions “are almost theological questions,” said Clint Stretch, managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte Tax. Some business owners might decide not to expand as a result of higher taxes, but others might invest even more in their businesses so they can earn extra money to make up for the increased tax burden, he said.

The president’s budget plan also includes provisions that could hurt residential and commercial real estate. The limit on itemized deductions for upper-income taxpayers would reduce the value of the mortgage interest deduction for many homeowners, particularly in high-cost areas such as the Northeast and California.

The National Association of Realtors contends the proposal would hurt not only these taxpayers, but also home values across the board.

“There is never a good time to propose something that undermines the basic foundation of homeownership, but given our current housing crisis, this has to be the worst possible time,” said NAR President Charles McMillan, broker of record for Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Irving, Texas.

Commercial real estate investors are concerned about Obama’s proposal to tax “carried interest” — a share of profits paid to managers of investment funds — as ordinary income instead of as capital gains. As a result, taxes on these payments could jump from the current 15 percent to as high as 39.6 percent. This change would apply not only to private equity firms and hedge funds, but also to 1.2 million real estate partnerships that own everything from office buildings to rental housing.

U.S.-based multinational corporations also would see higher taxes under the budget plan. The president proposes reforming laws that allow U.S.-based businesses to defer taxes on income earned abroad until they bring that money back to the U.S. Obama pledged to “end tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas.”

That’s “a great one-liner,” said Martin Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The proposal, however, would make U.S.-based multinational corporations less competitive against their global rivals, he said. Most foreign-based companies are taxed only once, in the country where the income is earned. U.S.-based companies, on the other hand, are taxed twice on foreign profits — overseas and in the U.S. Allowing corporations to defer their U.S. taxes until they bring the money back to this country takes some of the sting out of this double taxation.

Ending this deferral “could really hurt businesses that are trying to expand outside of their current client base” into other countries, said Mike Metz, executive vice president of tax services at RSM McGladrey.

Tax plan for businesses

Under the budget plan proposed by President Barack Obama, business owners would see the following changes:

Tax increases
• Individual income tax rates would be increased for taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 (single filers) or $250,000 (families)

• The value of itemized deductions for these taxpayers would be reduced

• The tax rate for capital gains and dividends earned by these taxpayers would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent

• Carried interest earned by managers of investment partnerships would be taxed as ordinary income instead of as capital gains

• A company’s ability to defer U.S. taxes on income earned in other countries would be limited

Tax cuts

• The Making Work Pay tax cut ($400 for individuals, $800 for families) would be extended

• Capital gains on investments in small businesses would not be taxed beginning in 2014

• Middle-class taxpayers would get relief from alternative minimum tax

• Research and development tax credit would be made permanent

• More companies would be allowed to carry back net operating losses for five years

Rush to President: Debate me!

2009-03-06T21:30:00.003-06:00

The following is found on RushLimbaugh.com

RUSH: It is on the record -- thanks to Politico.com -- since last fall, the White House, led by Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff to Barack Obama, has been targeting me, your host, your harmless, lovable little fuzzball. Their standard operating procedure: they need a demon to distract and divert from what their agenda is. They need a demon about whom they can lie so as to persuade average Americans that they're the good guys, the benevolent good guys, and the mean SOBs are their enemies trying to stop this great young little president from doing miraculous and wonderful things.

Here is a new ad that this union bunch is running in Washington, DC, ladies and gentlemen. And, of course, it's been picked up all over the Web. You guys, if you haven't done so, you gotta go to RushLimbaugh.com. The DNCC, whatever it is, they have a questionnaire up there. It's hilarious. I have to give 'em credit. You can see it right now at RushLimbaugh.com. It is a form letter where any Republican can send a note of apology to me. The note is an apology note to me, and you can fill in your name and the reason you're apologizing. It is funny. I had to laugh when I saw it last night. I instructed Koko, just put it up there, 'cause it's hilarious. It's as good as the old Saturday Night Live stuff back when Saturday Night Live was actually funny. But there's a new ad targeted at your lovable, harmless little fuzzball host from that union bunch. It starts today in Washington, DC, which means it's going to be all over the cable networks pretty soon.

ANNOUNCER: Who is the leader Republicans hailed as a hero last weekend? Was it Sarah Palin?

PALIN: Nope, nope, nope.

ANNOUNCER: Bobby Jindal?

JINDAL: No, no, no.

ANNOUNCER: Michael Steele?

STEELE: No, no, no.

ANNOUNCER: Mitch McConnell?

MCCONNELL: No, no, no.

ANNOUNCER: Then who? Not Rush Limbaugh?

RUSH ARCHIVE: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

ANNOUNCER: Call the Republican leadership. Tell them to just say "no" to the politics of Rush Limbaugh.

RUSH ARCHIVE: I hope he fails.

ANNOUNCER: Paid for by Americans United for Change.

RUSH: That's the union bunch. Can you just see...? (laughing) "Call the Republican leadership and say no to Limbaugh." (laughing) Now, ladies and gentlemen, the Politico story today. I got an e-mail last night from the writer of the story, Jonathan Martin, who did not tell me the full details of what the story they were working on was. He did not tell me that they have discovered that there is a team inside the White House targeting me and that they've been doing this since last fall, when they went out and did some polling data and found out I've got very high negatives among certain groups. So they thought, "Well, this is the guy to demonize! Since Bush is leaving, we need somebody," and so this is being led from the White House. There is an orchestrated attack, daily drumbeat on me from the White House. The participants here are James Carville, Paul Begala and Rahm Emanuel.

But make no mistake about it. Emanuel is the leader of all of this. Carville and Begala are just trying to ride my fame into their fortune and become relevant again. Begala and Carville, don't confuse them with the power brokers that are managing this. It all Emanuel. Begala and Carville are second-rate talking heads on CNN. CNN has no audience. Rahm Emanuel is the power behind the throne -- and don't let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate (he was a ballerina at one time) but he has the feral instincts of a female rat defending its young. Well, take a look. When Emanuel and Carville and Begala are together (and I've seen pictures) it looks like a reunion of the Village People. (singing) Y! M! C! A! They are really the official greeters in Roswell, New Mexico, in Area 51 where Carville was born.

My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They've never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they're trying to do now. They don't want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They're not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny. So what do they do? They leak stories to The Politico intended to create impressions about their own importance and their brilliance, when in fact they aren't even bit players on the nation's stage. This is Emanuel, and this is Obama.

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it's on the record. They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let's talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There's no "up and down" here. We have a plunge. The president yesterday suggested "we're getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest." Uh, Mr. President? There is no "profits and earnings" ratio. It's "price and earnings" ratio. He's the president of the United States. He doesn't know anything about the stock market. He's admitted it before. Let's talk about it anyway. You want to maintain it's a tracking poll? I'd love to talk to you about that. Let's talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let's go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party -- they think that's a great thing -- then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let's have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don't agree with you how wrong we all are. You're a smart guy, Mr. President. You don't need these hacks to front for you. You've debated the best! You've debated Hillary Clinton. You've debated John Edwards. You've debated Joe Biden. You've debated Dennis Kucinich. You've debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don't send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding -- and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He's got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it. You don't need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that's published today. You don't need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest. If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

In fact, Mr. President, you know what, I know these are tough economic times, and you're trying to convince people that you're "saving" the taxpayers money, that you're cutting spending, that you're cutting the deficit. In that vein, I, Mr. President, will send my jet, EIB One, to pick you up and bring you here and take you back to wherever you want to go. You'd love it. It's not as big and luxurious as your jet, but it's got enough seats for your Secret Service detail. But it is something to behold. I'm very proud of it, Mr. President. I worked for it. I paid for it. Taxpayers pay you for your travel. Nobody pays me for mine. I pay for it. I pay for the airplane. I pay for the travel. I pay for practically everything I do. We can talk about that, too. I could tell you what that's like.

And once you land, by the way, I have a fleet of SUVs because I have guests here all the time. I have four or five SUVs. I can send a caravan to pick you up. I'll even put you up at The Breakers. It's a five-star resort. I'll do it all on my dime. We don't want the taxpayers footing any of the bill for this -- and my jet burns a lot less fuel than your two and your C-130 to bring your limousine and SUV caravan here. In fact, you know what, Mr. President? I'll tell you what I will do, if you will do this. I will promise to order some Wagyu Kobe beef at $100 a pound, just like you serve at your cocktail parties and your Super Bowl parties. I'll get it from Allen Brothers in Chicago, since you like that. I know you like $100-per-pound beef. You serve it at the White House.

But I'll cover the cost. I will cover the cost, Mr. President, so that the taxpayers do not have to pay for it, as they did your Super Bowl party, and as they do your Wednesday afternoon cocktail party. So you have no excuses. Your flunkies are demanding this debate. Your flunkies are targeting a private citizen with an enemies list that so far has three or four names on it: Mine; Rick Santelli; Jim Cramer at CNBC; and let's not forget Joe the Plumber, who your allies in Ohio also tried to destroy. The difference is that Joe the Plumber does not have his own microphone every day. They're shutting Santelli up at CNBC. They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight. That isn't going to happen here, to me.

I'm calling. I'm ready. I'll do everything I can to facilitate it. You're a very courageous man, Mr. President. I am, after all, just The Last Man Standing. If you take me out, if you can wipe me out in a debate and prove to the rest of America that what I say is senseless and wrong, do you realize you will own the United States of America? You will have no opposition. You have America's media in your back pocket. It's amazing. In 1972, Richard Nixon had an enemies list, and the media was outraged by this. They were outraged. At the same time, those who weren't on it were a little jealous. But they were outraged that a president would engage in this kind of behavior toward the media. Now they go after a private citizen.

Rahm Emanuel is leading the team going after a private citizen, and the Drive-By Media applaud, get on board and help further the mission. We live in different times. So if you can wipe me out -- and, by the way, Mr. President, and Mr. Emanuel: Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm wiping myself out here in the process. I want to thank you guys for elevating me beyond the stature I already earned and achieved, because now more and more Americans have the opportunity to learn who you really are, what your ideas will really accomplish, and what damage and harm I think your policies will bring for a very, very long time to them and to this country. So I want to thank you for the opportunity. Obviously, it's a threat targeting me. I've extended the invitation. I'm looking forward to hearing back from whoever in your cabal one way or the other on accepting my offer.

Rush Limbaugh challenges Obama to debate on his show

2009-03-06T21:27:00.001-06:00

Courtesy of USA Today

Rush Limbaugh, apparently taking to heart the Obama administration's description of him as the leader of the Republican Party, has invited President Obama to come on his radio show for a debate.

The edgy, bombastic conservative, describing himself as a "harmless, lovable little fuzzball" and "the Last Man Standing," wrapped the invitation in a long series of jibes at Obama, his policies, his party, his aides, his speaking style and the entertaining he's done during his six weeks at the White House.

"You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity," Limbaugh said on his show, which has millions of listeners on more than 600 radio stations.

Read the whole segment here. There's even a cartoon invitation in fancy script.

It's the latest chapter in a tale that began Saturday with Limbaugh reiterating his hope that Obama fails in a nationally televised speech to a conservative group, and has continued all week with Democrats designating him the leader of the GOP and Republicans stumbling over whether to embrace Limbaugh, reject him, ignore him or figure out something else.

We've asked the White House for a response to today's development.

Obama Offered Deal to Russia in Secret Letter

2009-03-03T21:27:00.001-06:00

By PETER BAKER
New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line against Iran.

“It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration official. “It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”

On Tuesday, a press secretary for Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax news agency that the letter did not contain any “specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

Natalya Timakova said the letter was a reply to one sent by Mr. Medvedev shortly after Mr. Obama was elected.

“Medvedev appreciated the promptness of the reply and the positive spirit of the message,” Ms. Timakova said. “Obama’s letter contains various proposals and assessments of the current situation. But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”
She said Mr. Medvedev perceives the development of Russian-American relations as “exceptionally positive,” and hopes details can be fleshed out at a meeting on Friday in Geneva between Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev will meet for the first time on April 2 in London, officials said Monday.

Mr. Obama’s letter, sent in response to one he received from Mr. Medvedev shortly after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, is part of an effort to “press the reset button” on Russian-American relations, as Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. put it last month, officials in Washington said. Among other things, the letter discussed talks to extend a strategic arms treaty expiring this year and cooperation in opening supply routes to Afghanistan.

The plan to build a high-tech radar facility in the Czech Republic and deploy 10 interceptor missiles in Poland — a part of the world that Russia once considered its sphere of influence — was a top priority for President George W. Bush to deter Iran in case it developed a nuclear warhead to fit atop its long-range missiles. Mr. Bush never accepted a Moscow proposal to install part of the missile defense system on its territory and jointly operate it so it could not be used against Russia.

Now the Obama administration appears to be reconsidering that idea, although it is not clear if it would want to put part of the system on Russian soil where it could be flipped on or off by Russians. Mr. Obama has been lukewarm on missile defense, saying he supports it only if it can be proved technically effective and affordable.

Mr. Bush also emphasized the linkage between the Iranian threat and missile defense, but Mr. Obama’s overture reformulates it in a way intended to appeal to the Russians, who long ago soured on the Bush administration. Officials have been hinting at the possibility of an agreement in recent weeks, and Mr. Obama’s proposal was reported on Monday by a Moscow newspaper, Kommersant.

“If through strong diplomacy with Russia and our other partners we can reduce or eliminate that threat, it obviously shapes the way at which we look at missile defense,” Under Secretary of State William J. Burns said about the Iranian threat in an interview with the Russian news agency Interfax while in Moscow last month delivering Mr. Obama’s letter.

Attending a NATO meeting in Krakow, Poland, on Feb. 20, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, “I told the Russians a year ago that if there were no Iranian missile program, there would be no need for the missile sites.” Mr. Obama’s inauguration, he added, offered the chance for a fresh start. “My hope is that now, with the new administration, the prospects for that kind of cooperation might have improved,” he said.

The idea has distressed Poland and the Czech Republic, where leaders invested political capital in signing missile defense cooperation treaties with the United States despite domestic opposition. If the United States were to slow or halt deployment of the systems, Warsaw and Prague might insist on other incentives.

For example, the deal with Poland included a side agreement that an American Patriot air defense battery would be moved from Germany to Poland, where it would be operated by a crew of about 100 American service members. The administration might have to proceed with that to reassure Warsaw.

Missile defense has flavored Mr. Obama’s relationship with Russia from the day after his election, when Mr. Medvedev threatened to point missiles at Europe if the system proceeded. Mr. Medvedev later backed off that threat and it seems that Moscow is taking seriously the idea floated in Mr. Obama’s letter. Kommersant, the Moscow newspaper, on Monday called it a “sensational proposal.”

Mr. Medvedev said Sunday that he believed the Obama administration would be open to cooperation on missile defense.

“We have already received such signals from our American colleagues,” he said in an interview posted on the Kremlin Web site. “I expect that these signals will turn into concrete proposals. I hope to discuss this issue of great importance for Europe during my first meeting with President Barack Obama.”

David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington, and Michael Schwirtz and Ellen Barry from Moscow.

Candidate Obama vs. President Obama

2009-03-03T21:25:00.000-06:00

By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post

One of the challenges for presidential candidates who turn into presidents is finding ways to wiggle out of unaffordable or ill-advised campaign positions without attracting too much notice.

President Obama managed to do this twice in his new budget: once explicitly, once by implication. Good for him, because both moves signal a better, more fiscally responsible approach.

The budget made a dramatic, smart and little-noticed pivot from his campaign-trail promise to cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans. Candidate Obama’s original plan -- a plan I criticized at the time as unduly expensive and poorly crafted -- provided for tax credits of $500 per individual or $1,000 per couple; couples making as much as $200,000 annually would qualify for a partial credit. The size of the credits was scaled back in the stimulus package, to $400 and $800. But the big switch came when now-President Obama released his budget last week. The “Making Work Pay” tax credits were there -- but for the first time they were contingent on revenue from auctioning permits in the administration’s proposed cap-and-trade program to alleviate climate change. In other words: no cap-and-trade, no tax credits.

This is extremely clever. A cap-and-trade regime is, in effect, a carbon tax, a penalty on pollution that would be passed along to ordinary Americans. It makes sense to require polluting industries to pay for the impact of their activities, and to give them the incentive to move to less polluting approaches. At the same time, it makes sense to alleviate the costs that would impose on individuals.

In fact, it makes so much sense that this is what Obama envisioned during the campaign. Back then, he promised to devote some cap-and-trade revenue to investing in alternative energy, and to save most of the rest “for rebates and other transition relief to ensure that families and communities are not adversely impacted by the transition to a new energy, low carbon economy.”

So the tax credit that Obama now promises to finance with cap and trade revenue replaces a rebate he already promised. Two proposed tax cuts have, in effect, been merged into one. An expensive tax credit is paid for with a valuable social program. Obama does not get dinged for abandoning an expensive and high-profile campaign promise, but he has managed to disappear a different one.

There was another potential pivot implicit in Obama’s health care proposal. He identified $634 billion in revenue over ten years to pay for the program, but he acknowledged that this would only cover about half the cost of universal coverage. Lawmakers working on the issue would have to come up with the rest.

For the Willie Suttons of health policy, there’s one obvious place to find that kind of money: the expensive, counter-productive, unfair and regressive preference for employer-provided health built into the tax code. Health care offered by employers is not considered part of workers’ taxable wages. This is expensive, costing about $200 billion a year. It is counter-productive because it encourages overconsumption of health care. It is unfair because those who must purchase insurance on their own generally do not receive special tax treatment. It is regressive because higher-income employees, who are taxed at higher brackets, receive a greater benefit from the exclusion.

On the other hand, there is the slight problem that when Republican nominee John McCain proposed to tax the value of employer-provided insurance, and instead to provide tax credits to buy insurance, Obama blasted him for seeking a $3.6 trillion tax hike on American workers, “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Hard to now turn around and endorse something similar.

Hence, the dog whistle of the Obama budget when it comes to paying for health care reform: You can't hear him saying "let's think about taxing employer-provided health care" unless your ear is turned to that pitch. Obama's budget does not make that proposal, but it is the predictable consequence of everything he lays out. If (a) health care should be financed in a deficit-neutral way and (b) more revenue is needed, then (c) cutting back in some way on the tax preference for employer-provided insurance cannot be far behind. It’s not exactly a profile in courage for Obama not to say this straight out. Yet the logic of his budget is that it implicitly signals an openness to doing so.

These are both good moves -- even if, in a political season, they might be labelled flip-flops.

Economic Stimulus Payment Q&A

2009-02-27T17:02:00.003-06:00

This was sent from a friend of mine and thought you might like. Makes complete sense to me.

This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment.

This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A.. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. No, they are borrowing it from China . Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

GOP finds little common ground with Obama

2009-02-25T20:05:00.002-06:00

They too call for fiscal responsibility but say they'll oppose Obama on most every issue.

By James Oliphant and Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times
Feb. 25, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Following President Obama's call Tuesday evening for a return to fiscal responsibility, Republicans responded -- by demanding the country return to a policy of fiscal responsibility.

If that sounds like the two parties are on the same page at last, the GOP's actual message -- expressed most directly by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the party's official response to Obama's speech -- was that the party was prepared to oppose the president's economic program at almost every turn.

"To solve our current problems, Washington must lead," Jindal said. "But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in the hands of Washington politicians."

Calling for traditional Republican policies of tax cuts, less government involvement and reliance on free markets and individual effort, Jindal said: "The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens."

Jindal and most other Republicans gave a nod to polls showing strong public support for the president on the economy, saying they wanted to work with him on what all agreed was the country's most pressing issue.

But they accused Obama -- and, more pointedly, Democrats in Congress -- of choosing the wrong tactics by backing programs that they said would increase taxes and concentrate power in Washington instead of in private hands.

Emerging from the House chamber where Obama delivered the address, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was succinct: "Whether it is cap and trade, whether it is cradle-to-grave education, whether it is universal healthcare, the era of big government is here."

The Republicans' attempt to draw a contrast between the two major parties' visions for the country was complicated by Obama's repeated promises to eliminate waste, his assertion that he too favored smaller government, and his pledge to slice the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term.

The difference, Jindal and other Republicans said Tuesday, is that they wanted to spend even less than Democrats, except on defense. And, they said, they won't raise taxes to trim the deficit.

The Louisiana governor, considered a rising star who might run for president in 2012, recently said he may not accept a portion of money in the recent stimulus package set aside for Louisiana.

Jindal invoked his state's experience following Hurricane Katrina in support of Republican skepticism about government's ability to deal effectively with major national problems."

Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts," he said.

Jindal, along with many Republicans in Congress, focused on the almost $1.5 trillion the government has recently committed for jump-starting the struggling economy and propping up ailing banks. The House will take up a mammoth spending bill today that was held over from the last session."

I enjoyed about half of the speech," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River). "I enjoyed the president's rhetoric. I enjoyed his call for responsibility. I enjoyed his statement that we have to be concerned about [our] children and grandchildren's debt. It's with the background of him applauding everything that was in the stimulus package and evidently everything that is going to be in the omnibus -- the two just don't add up."

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip and the face of a new conservative insurgency in Washington, said his party wanted to work with the president, but "there are some principles by which we're going to operate in proffering our ideas to the president and frankly to our congressional colleagues on the other side of the aisle."

Cantor's remarks illustrated the gamble Republicans have taken in opposing Obama's economic initiatives, including the stimulus bill. A New York Times poll released Tuesday said that almost three-quarters of Americans polled believed the president had been trying to work with Republicans, but only about 30% think Republicans were trying to work with Democrats.

That may be why many Republicans continued their campaign to drive a wedge between the White House and Congress by praising Obama but suggesting that his goals will be frustrated by Democratic leaders on the Hill.

"Nice speech," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), after Obama concluded his address. But he said that Obama's call for bipartisanship "fell on deaf ears" with the congressional Democratic leadership.

"It's going to take him weighing in early to bring everybody to the table, because so far the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate haven't got the memo on bipartisanship," Cornyn said.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), however, apparently had read that memo. He was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. "I thought he was right on target on the issues -- energy, education, healthcare and housing. I just think the American public is just starved for details. When will we see results? Who's going to end up paying for all this?"

Given the fact that he's only been in office four weeks, I think the sooner he can fill in the blanks, the sooner we can get to work," Brady said. "Look, he deserves a fair chance to deliver on these issues. Where there's common ground, we ought to work together."

GOP Gov. Jindal calls Obama's plan irresponsible

2009-02-24T21:19:00.001-06:00

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Republican leaders continued their attacks on President Barack Obama's handling of the economy Tuesday, calling it irresponsible and certain to increase taxes and federal debt.

Responding in advance to Obama's televised speech to a joint session of Congress, top Republicans said the president relies too heavily on spending, and not enough on tax cuts, to try to revive the gasping economy. They said they want to work with Obama, and sometimes blamed congressional Democrats more than him. But their criticisms were sharp and plentiful.

"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republican Party's official response, said in excerpts released early. The massive economic stimulus bill recently enacted by Obama and congressional Democrats, Jindal said, will expand the government, "increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt."

"It's irresponsible," said Jindal, who is eyeing a presidential bid in 2012.

The tone of the Republicans' response was in keeping with their nearly unanimous opposition to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, which was backed by only three Republicans in the Senate and none in the House. Some Democrats and independents think the Republicans are blundering and misreading most Americans' sentiments about the need for massive government action to help the economy.

In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, about three-fourths said Obama was trying to be bipartisan, and almost as many faulted the response of Republican officials, which was seen as politically motivated.

Despite such findings, GOP lawmakers say they believe they will be proven right in the long run.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Tuesday that Republicans want to help Obama find "responsible solutions to the challenges facing our nation, but thus far congressional leaders in the president's own party have stood in the way."

Boehner, Jindal and other Republicans repeatedly accused Democrats of wanting to raise taxes, but the Obama-backed stimulus package has extensive tax cuts.

Jindal acknowledged that to some degree, Republicans deserved the drubbing they took in the last two national elections.

"Our party got away from its principles," he said. "You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington." But that is changing, he said.

Taking advantage of his moment in the national spotlight, Jindal publicized a Web link Tuesday (http://www.bobbyjindal.com/sotu/) allowing respondents to receive early excerpts of his planned televised response, and to donate to his political organization. Jindal also collected their e-mail and postal addresses, which could prove handy in a presidential race.

Obama vows to lead US from dire 'day of reckoning'

2009-02-24T21:17:00.001-06:00

By JENNIFER LOVEN
AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised a nation shuddering in economic crisis Tuesday night that he would lead it from a dire "day of reckoning" to a brighter future, summoning politicians and public alike to shoulder responsibility for hard choices and shared sacrifice. "The time to take charge of our future is here," Obama declared, delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress.

Offering words of reassurance to an anxious nation, he declared, "Tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."

"We are a nation that has seen promise and peril," he said. "Now we must be that nation again."Cheered robustly as he entered the House chamber, Obama grinned, shook hands and kissed lawmakers and stopped for a lengthy embrace with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench only this week after surgery for pancreatic cancer.

To deal with the current crisis, deepening each day, the president said more money will be needed to rescue troubled banks beyond the $700 billion already committed last year. He said he knows that bailout billions for banks are unpopular — "I promise you, I get it," he said — but he also insisted that was the only way to get credit moving again to households and businesses, the lifeblood of the American economy.

Along with aid for banks, he also called on Congress to move quickly on legislation to overhaul outdated regulations on the nation's financial markets.

"I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary," Obama said. "Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession."

Thinking longer-term, Obama said in a speech lacking many specifics and devoid of initiatives that both political parties must give up favored programs while uniting behind his campaign promises to build better schools, expand health care coverage and move the nation to "greener" fuel use.

Just five weeks after his inauguration, Obama addressed an ebullient Democratic congressional majority and an embattled but reinvigorated GOP minority as well as millions of anxious viewers. Despite the nation's economic worries and the lack of support for his plans from all but a few Republican lawmakers, Obama enjoys strong approval ratings across the nation.

Louisiana's young, charismatic governor, Bobby Jindal, delivering the televised GOP response, exhorted fellow Republicans to be Obama's "strongest partners" when they agree with him. But he signaled that won't happen much, calling Democrats in Congress "irresponsible" for passing the $787 billion stimulus package that Republicans have criticized as excessive and wasteful.

"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Jindal said, according to excerpts of his remarks released by the Republican Party. "Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?"

Jindal is considered a likely presidential contender in 2012.

Obama spoke as bad economic news continued to pile up, felt all too keenly in U.S. homes and businesses. Some 3.6 million jobs have disappeared so far in the deepening recession, which now ranks as the biggest job destroyer in the post-World War II period. Americans have lost trillions of dollars in retirement, college and savings accounts, with the stock market falling nearly half from its peak of 16 months ago.

And new polls — some with his public support rising and others with it dropping — show that the political climate can be as precarious as the economic one. Aware that his and his party's fortunes will suffer if he cannot right the economic picture, Obama sought to blend the kind of grim honesty that has become his trademark since taking office with a greater emphasis on optimism.

"The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation," he said.

The central argument of his speech was that his still-unfolding economic revival plan has room for — and even demands — simultaneous action on a broad, expensive agenda including helping the millions without health insurance, improving education and switching the U.S. to greater dependence on alternative energy sources. This is the big lift of his young presidency: bringing the public behind what are sure to be enormous outlays on contentious issues.

His hope was to begin to persuade the country that those longer-term items on his presidential agenda are as important to the nation's economic well-being as unchoking credit and turning around unemployment numbers.

"The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care, the schools that aren't preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit," Obama said. "That is our responsibility."

He urged lawmakers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change by creating a cap-and-trade system of limits and pollution allowances, especially for industries such as utilities with coal burning power plants. And he said the budget he is sending to Congress on Thursday will call for $15 billion a year in federal spending to spur development of environmentally friendly but so far cost-ineffective energy sources such as wind and solar, biofuels, clean coal and more fuel-efficient vehicles.

He said his budget request also will create new incentives for teacher performance and support for innovative education programs. He asked every American to commit to completing a year or more of higher education or career training.

New in office, he wasn't charged with producing a formal State of the Union status report. But for all intents and purposes, that's what it was: a night for the president to sketch out his priorities in a setting unmatched the rest of the year.

It took nearly 15 minutes for him to make his way through a House chamber packed with lawmakers eager to welcome the nation's first black president into a Capitol built by slaves. The gallery included a special section hosted by first lady Michelle Obama in which guests were selected to serve as living symbols of the president's goals. Cramming the floor was virtually the entire leadership of the federal government, including Supreme Court justices and all but one Cabinet member, held away in case disaster struck.

Pre-speech, Wall Street was in a better mood than it had been in for days: Stocks were up after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the recession might end this year.

In contrast to many State of the Union addresses by George W. Bush, Obama did not emphasize foreign policy. He touched on his intention to chart new strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan and to forge a new image for the U.S. around the world even as he keeps up the fight against terrorism.

With the economy dominant, Obama said the mess was one he inherited. "We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter or the next election," he said.

He aimed to show he was tackling the situation with both urgency and strict oversight for how the staggering sums are being spent. The massive stimulus plan, an overhaul of the separate $700 billion bailout for the financial sector, and a $275 billion rescue for struggling homeowners are already in place, and more is on the way, Obama said.

Even as Washington pours money into the economic recovery, Obama said the budget deficit, at $1.3 trillion and ballooning, must be brought under control.

He promised he would slash it by half by the end of his term in 2013, mostly by ending U.S. combat in Iraq and eliminating some of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. He said his budget officials have identified a total of $2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years, also including ending education programs "that don't work" and payments to large agribusinesses "that don't need them," eliminating wasteful no-bid contracts in Iraq and spending on weapons systems no longer needed in the post-Cold War era, and rooting out waste in Medicare.

"Everyone in this chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars," he said. "And that includes me."

He touted his decision to end the practice of leaving Iraq and Afghanistan war spending out of the main budget. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," Obama said.

Obama recovery plan stimulates whining

2009-02-23T17:26:00.000-06:00

We need to get money into the economy. Critics and obfuscators often focus on scoring political points instead.

By Michael Hiltzik
Los Angeles Times

You just can't please some people.

In the wake of President Obama's signing of a historically ambitious economic recovery program last week, the nitpickers and pettifoggers have come out in force.

The program's too big, the program's too small. It's got too many local make-work projects, it's got too many long-term projects. There are too many tax cuts, there are too few tax cuts. Eight bucks more in your week's take-home pay won't save anyone, let's give millions to corporations instead. And so on.

The same thing happened when Obama announced a housing recovery plan Wednesday encompassing many of the provisions housing experts say are needed to spur more home buying and arrest the foreclosure wave. Among them are more low-interest loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, incentives for loan servicers to keep borrowers out of foreclosure, and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify underwater home loans.

The next day, Rick Santelli, a market commentator and ex-futures trader on the financial news channel CNBC, staged an extended rant from a Chicago commodities pit about the injustice of helping people in distress, especially while there are still a few people around who aren't in distress.

Santelli asked "if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road. And reward people that can carry the water instead of drink the water."

When the futures floor erupted in cheers, he swept his hand about the room and proclaimed theatrically, "This is America!"

Well, no. America is a place where 8 million families are threatened with losing their homes, not a futures pit filled with braying traders.

CNBC should have known that the proper response to Santelli's tantrum was to instruct him to put a sock in it. Instead, it re-ran the video incessantly while its anchors congratulated him for making a big noise.

It may be inevitable that government programs of this magnitude bring out flocks of screeching magpies, for they're big enough to have something for any critic to hate. One reader wrote me to object to "Pork-barrel Pelosi's" inclusion of a skateboard park and a Frisbee park in the stimulus bill, though it wasn't clear whether his chief objection was to skateboarders, recreational facilities or the Democratic speaker of the House.

The risk is that these cavils will obscure the virtues of the stimulus and housing programs. They will get money into the economy, which is 90% of the point.

What was drowned out by Santelli's outburst, for example, is that the housing proposal is aimed not at deadbeats but people who are still working and trying to pay their bills but have been rendered overextended by conditions in the credit and housing markets.

Furthermore, a certain amount of inequity is built into any government assistance program, but it gets trumped by society's needs in times like these. "Life is unfair," Tom Davidoff, a real estate expert at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, observes apropos of the housing bill. "We're doing this so the economy won't crash." For the record, he believes that most of the housing proposal is "healthy," though more help may be needed.

The experience of the New Deal's first year suggests that almost from the moment the stimulus money begins to flow, positive consequences will appear, including a stemming of unemployment, a halt to the deflation trend, and possibly a better tone in the capital markets.

If Obama has revealed a shortcoming in his first month, it's his failure to seize and hold the high ground of optimism; Bill Clinton was not far wrong when he said last week that Obama should be communicating confidence about his stimulus program a lot more forcibly. That was one of FDR's surpassing talents, and no one doubts that it contributed to recovery.

Among other things, Obama should make clear that much of the grousing is partisan. Just look at the Republican governors of Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, South Carolina, Mississippi and Idaho, who have said they will not or might not accept stimulus money for their states, none of which is known to be in roaringly good shape at the moment, budget-wise.

According to White House figures, the stimulus package would create or save a combined 424,000 jobs in those six states, so that makes nearly half a million Americans who no doubt will take it as an honor to be sacrificed for their governors' stand on principle.

And what is the principle, exactly? Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour's spokesman griped to the Associated Press that accepting money to enhance unemployment benefits might force his state "to pay benefits to people who wouldn't meet state requirements to receive them." Barbour presumably expects us to defer to his judgment because Mississippi is so nationally famous for its generosity to the downtrodden.

These six paragons of integrity remind me of one of Shakespeare's whiniest characters. That would be Isabella of “Measure for Measure," who upon hearing about all the privileges granted the sisters in a convent she's planning to join tells the abbess sourly that she'd prefer something rather more dismal, thanks. (I paraphrase.)

At least Isabella was no poseur. Can we say that of the austerity governors? Several are lining up to run for president in 2012. (Surprise du jour: Sarah Palin's in the club.) Furthermore, they all know that there's no chance their states will actually be deprived of stimulus cash: Congress, detecting the acrid stench of partisan posturing on the wind, wrote the act so that state legislatures could accept the money over their governors' objections.

The proper approach to these complaints is to tune them out, because they merely represent political opportunism run wild. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) more or less defined the form when he carried on on CNN about how the stimulus package was a "slush fund for states" and "worse than nothing" and designed to "help a bunch of politicians."

Then, asked if his state should accept the money, he said of course it should: "You don't want to be crazy here."

Rasmussen: Consumer Confidence Falls To ALL TIME LOWS

2009-02-23T17:22:00.000-06:00

The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures consumer confidence on a daily basis, fell two points on Monday to 55.5. That’s the lowest level of confidence ever recorded in the seven-year history of the Consumer Index, and the fourth time a new low has been set this month.

The Rasmussen Investor Index fell nearly four points on Monday to 56.9, also a record low. For the Investor Index, the previous low had been established in mid-December.

The drop for both has been fairly significant. The Consumer Index has fallen eight points over the past month and 39 points over the past year. The Investor Index has fallen nine points over the past month and 45 points over the past year.

One month ago today was the first Index update based entirely upon interviews completed while Barack Obama was President. Since that time, assessments of current economic conditions have changed little. However, expectations of future economic performance has fallen dramatically (among consumers, from 70.8 to 58.5).

Among all consumers, 8% say the economy is getting better while 70% say it is getting worse. One month ago, 11% said things were getting better and only 65% said worse.

Among investors, just 7% say things are getting better and 74% take the opposite view.

Investor confidence is low enough that 34% would put new investment money in a savings account. Just 30% would opt for a real estate investment and only 16% are eyeing the stock market.

The latest COUNTRY Financial Security Index (SM) reveals a steady six-month decline in Americans' financial security.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).

The Rasmussen Consumer Index and Investor Index are derived from nightly telephone surveys of 500 adults and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The baseline for the Index was established at 100.0 in October 2001. Readings above 100.0 indicate that confidence is higher than in the baseline month. Detailed supplemental information is available for Premium Members. Historical data for the Consumer and Investor indexes as well as attitudes about the economy and personal finances are also available to Premium Members.

The Rasmussen Consumer Index reached its highest level ever at 127.0 on January 6, 2004. The all-time low was reached on February 23, 2009 at 55.5.

The Rasmussen Investor Index reached its highest level ever at 150.9 on January 7, 2004. The lowest level ever measured was 56.9 on February 23, 2009.

The baseline for the Rasmussen Consumer Index was established at 100.0 in October 2001. At 55.5 the overall levels of economic confidence are significantly lower today than they were in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Democrats Introduce More Legislation to Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights

2009-02-21T19:50:00.004-06:00

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduce the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 on January 6th. This is legislation that MUST BE STOPPED!!! Below is the Bill Summary of H.R. 45 as found on http://thomas.loc.gov While there are no cosponsors to this legislation at present, there is no doubt that for those who value your 2nd Amendment rights would do well to keep an eye on this one lest we have another Democratic overreach!

H.R. 45
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.

Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.

Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:
***NONE***

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS:
1/6/2009:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2/9/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSOR(S):
***NONE***

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Judiciary Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Referral

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***

Official: Obama wants to halve budget deficit

2009-02-21T18:57:00.000-06:00

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years.

"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."

He's expected to outline some broad themes of his budget request Monday at a White House summit on fiscal policy and touch on it during his first speech to Congress on Tuesday evening. He is slated to officially send at least a summary of it to Congress on Thursday, barely a week after his $787 billion economic stimulus plan becoming law.

Obama's budget also is expected to take steps toward his campaign promises of establishing universal health care and lessening the country's reliance on foreign oil.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president has not yet released his budget, said Obama hopes to achieve his deficit-reduction goal by generating savings as he follows through on three core campaign promises over the next four years.

He has pledged to wind down the Iraq war by withdrawing most combat troops within 16 months of taking office. He also has said he would let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 for people making more than $250,000 a year, effectively raising taxes on those people. And, he has vowed to scale back spending and improve government efficiency by eliminating programs that don't work.

The budget projections suggest that Obama hasn't backed off of any of those priorities, despite relatively little movement on them and at least one misstep in his first month in office as he concentrated on lobbying for the economic stimulus plan and rescuing the housing, auto and financial sectors.

Pentagon officials still are trying to determine exactly how to scale back the U.S. troop commitment in Iraq. The president's sweeping economic plan didn't include any of the tax increases Obama, as a candidate, had said he would impose on wealthy taxpayers. And, Nancy Killefer, his selection for a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs, withdrew amid personal tax issues.

Cutting the deficit by half in a mere four years is a lofty goal at any time, let alone in such dire economic circumstances. The question is whether Obama can do it while also turning around a recession now well into its second year.

Obama has pledged to make deficit-reduction a priority both as a candidate and a president. But he also has said economic recovery must come first.

In his first month in office, he has overseen enormous amounts of spending aimed at stabilizing the economy, reversing the recession and heading off even more turmoil.

Last week, he signed into law the $787 billion stimulus measure that is meant to create jobs but certainly will add to the nation's skyrocketing national debt. He also is implementing the $700 billion financial sector rescue passed on Bush's watch; about $75 billion of it is being used toward Obama's plan to help homeowners facing foreclosure. At the same time, the administration is weighing requests by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC for an additional $21.6 billion. The ailing automakers already have received a combined $17.4 billion in federal loans.

Yet, even as he's spending a ton of taxpayer money, Obama also is pressing the need for getting "exploding deficits" under control.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that this year's budget deficit will be at least a record $1.2 trillion — about two times that of the year before. That total includes financial bailouts and rescue plans Congress approved since last Oct. 1, the start of the government's budget year, but not Obama's hefty stimulus package that's now law.

Some private economists are forecasting that the budget deficit for the current year will hit $1.6 trillion. And, the Treasury Department has said that the recession and massive costs for the $700 billion financial bailout have pushed the federal deficit to an all-time high for the first four months of the budget year.

Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, told lawmakers recently that even after the economy recovers, annual deficits could reach $750 billion or so and steadily exceed $1 trillion by the end of the next decade. And, Obama himself has said, without decisive action, "trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come."

The Boss Makes Layoff Decision

2009-02-20T20:12:00.001-06:00

This is one of those anonymous email jokes that are now circulating around the internet. Thought I would post here for your thoughts and edification.

Fellow Business Executives:

As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned
myself to the fact that Barack Obama is our President, and
that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have
to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot
increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we
will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been
eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't
know how to choose who will have to go.

So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found
Obama bumper stickers on six of our employees' cars and have decided these
folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way
to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.

If you have a better idea, let me know.

Sincerely,

The Boss

Obama’s Bipartisanship Is One Sappy Dream

2009-02-19T20:31:00.001-06:00

Commentary by Margaret Carlson

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- In his long and sometimes snarky campaign, John McCain took to ridiculing Barack Obama and his supporters for imputing messianic qualities to the upstart candidate, mockingly referring to the Democrat as “The One.”

New evidence suggests McCain was on to something. In less than a month, Obama has breathed life back into a Republican Party the whole world took for dead.

Skeptics will argue that the GOP wasn’t really deceased, only knocked unconscious by a devastating blow otherwise known as the November election. Yet even Republicans were heard to mutter about whether their party could be revived. Who knew they’d soon be given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation by the miracle worker himself?

With Obama’s pilgrimages to Capitol Hill, multiple cocktail parties at the White House, dinner at conservative columnist George Will’s house, and a bipartisan Super Bowl party, not to mention inserting tax cuts in the stimulus package, the president put courting Republicans on equal footing with economic revival. Getting the party on board came to be up there with putting Americans back to work.

Republicans responded with a characteristic display of good will, quickly making it clear they’d be satisfied with nothing less than complete capitulation to their demand for ever more tax cuts for the wealthy even if the wealthy are likely to stash the cash in one of the banks hoarding their government-bailout money.

Cut food stamps? Check. Cut school construction? Check. Add more ineffective tax cuts? You got it.

Deficits Do Matter

Suddenly, spending mattered after eight years in which it was out of control, with Vice President Dick Cheney’s pronouncement that “deficits don’t matter.” President Bill Clinton left George W. Bush a surplus of more than $230 billion. Bush left Obama a deficit that’s likely to exceed $1 trillion.

Republicans couldn’t deny the president a victory but they could deny him a bipartisan one. Party strategist and CNN analyst Alex Castellanos said only “wussy Republicans” would cooperate, a remark reminiscent of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s calling Democrats who urged caution on the now near-bankrupt California economy “girlie men.”

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina shouted on the floor, “This bill stinks!” The de facto leader of the party, Rush Limbaugh, said he had only four words for the new administration. “I hope Obama fails.”

If chasing bipartisanship with Republicans wasn’t enough, Obama also sought it with the other branch of government, known as congressional Democrats.

Pelosi Takes Charge

Rather than dictate legislation from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Obama gave over the drafting of the stimulus bill to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If ever there was an instance to trust but verify, this was it.

Did anybody flyspeck Pelosi’s first draft, the one that provided Republicans such irresistible targets as condoms. The so-called pork was trivial, but it hurt a $246 million grant to the movie industry, which provides substantial employment in Southern California, because nothing associated with Hollywood had a chance after Pelosi squandered her credibility on a $188,000 lobster-cam for the bottom of the ocean.

Obama didn’t fail, except by his own rules: He mustered only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House as the stimulus passed. The press, having applied Obama’s own standards, gave him lower marks than his triumph deserved. On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, was profiled as the conquering hero atop the Party of Zero.

Drawing on Lincoln

Obama draws much of his fervor for bipartisanship from Abraham Lincoln. But Bill Curry, former counsel in the Clinton White House, pointed out in a recent interview on public radio, that Lincoln chose his top three Cabinet secretaries from among former opponents in his own party, not the leaders of the Confederacy or supporters of slavery.

A correct reading of the book “A Team of Rivals” yields Hillary Clinton at the State Department. Misreading it gets you the fiasco of Judd Gregg pulling out as Commerce secretary.

When the bill finally passed, the White House was so annoyed with inside-the-Beltway thinking that it went outside the Beltway to Denver for its signing ceremony.

Only the most starry-eyed idealist would mistake Congress for a Quaker meeting for very long. In an interview on Air Force One, Obama began a course correction. While still taking the “long view” and being “optimistic” about everyone getting along, Obama added,’’ “That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.”

Thumbing Their Noses

Hardly. But he’s chasing a sappy dream. Yes, we want policy-making to be civil. When possible, we want it to be consensual. Yet bipartisanship as an overriding goal allows the policies chosen by voters to be thwarted by mere obstructionists. So now, gerrymandered House Republicans with nothing to worry about but a primary from the right can thumb their nose not only at a president but at the voters who rejected them.

Obama wants the economy to revive and the Republicans to be agreeable. Perhaps he should shoot for one miracle at a time.

(Margaret Carlson, author of “Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House” and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net

Automakers Dismiss Bankruptcy; U.S. Won’t Rule It Out

2009-02-18T21:57:00.001-06:00

By Keith Naughton and Alan Ohnsman

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, seeking up to $21.6 billion in additional federal aid to survive, said bankruptcy may cost the U.S. five times as much.

The two automakers, in their most detailed exploration of bankruptcy, said it could cost taxpayers as much as $110 billion to finance the companies’ Chapter 11 restructurings. In separate filings to the Treasury Department yesterday, they said filing may lead to liquidation, potentially costing millions of jobs.

Bankruptcy “would create unbearable stress not only for our suppliers, but also the suppliers of other automakers,” Chrysler Chief Executive Officer Bob Nardelli said in a conference call with reporters. “It would have a cataclysmic effect on the entire auto industry.”

President Barack Obama’s chief spokesman refused to rule out the possibility of the automakers restructuring through bankruptcy.

“I wouldn’t preclude policy choices, particularly since we haven’t seen details,” Robert Gibbs told reporters before the plans had been submitted. The auto companies “represent a huge part of our manufacturing base, and to have a strong and viable auto industry is tremendously important for the future.”

GM outlined three scenarios for bankruptcy in a progress report required under federal loans. If automakers fail to show by March 31 how they will become profitable, the Treasury Department can recall the money or require it be used as bankruptcy financing.

Risk ‘Remains High’

Standard & Poor’s said in reports on GM and Chrysler today that the “bankruptcy risk remains high” for both companies this year and next.

“The threat is still there,” GM CEO Rick Wagoner said of the bankruptcy possibility in a Bloomberg Television interview today. “Our assumption is that we can get this done out of court and it’s better for everybody.”

U.S. taxpayers currently take a backseat to prior creditors, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to loan agreements posted on the U.S. Treasury’s Web site. The government has hired a law firm to help establish its place at the front of the line for repayment, two people involved in the work said earlier this month. If federal officials fail to get a consensual agreement to change their position regarding repayment, they have the option to force the companies into bankruptcy as a condition of more bailout aid.

Billions at Stake

GM estimated the government would have to contribute $36 billion to $86 billion to finance its bankruptcy, compared with the $22.5 billion to $30 billion in federal aid it’s seeking to restructure outside of Chapter 11.

Chrysler said it would need $25 billion in bankruptcy financing, more than twice what it’s seeking from the government in low-cost loans.

Bankruptcy specialists said the automakers’ analysis was too pessimistic and failed to recognize the benefits of bankruptcy to force creditors, dealers and unions to accept concessions.

Taxpayers also would get priority to be paid back first in a government-sponsored Chapter 11, said Nancy Rapoport, bankruptcy law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“I don’t see how it’s better for the taxpayer for the auto companies to do this out of bankruptcy,” Rapoport said. “Right now, you can’t trace what they’re doing with these funds. There’s no guarantee they’ll be paid back and I don’t see the taxpayer getting a priority.”

Feeling Stigma

The stigma of bankruptcy risk is already being felt at GM and Chrysler, said Douglas Bernstein, a bankruptcy lawyer with the Detroit-based firm of Plunkett Cooney PC.

“Neither of these companies is in bankruptcy today, but who is buying their vehicles?” Bernstein said. “If they filed for bankruptcy, they could try to build a sense of patriotism about helping American auto companies recover.”

Chrysler said Chapter 11 may ultimately lead to an “orderly wind down” of the company that leads to as many as 3 million lost jobs across the economy.

“It’s a non-starter,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, told reporters yesterday, referring to a bankruptcy by either automaker. “The car company is not like the airline industry.”

GM cited a CNW Marketing Research survey in its filing yesterday showing 80 percent of potential car buyers would avoid a bankrupt automaker.

‘Blood in Pool’

“There will be blood in the pool: Everyone is going to want a severe discount to purchase vehicles from a bankrupt company,” said Dan Genter, president of Los Angeles-based RNC Genter Capital Management, which oversees a $2.7 billion bond portfolio, that doesn’t currently include GM or GMAC debt. “The bigger picture is what happens to all the dealers and suppliers?”

If the government doesn’t also bail out suppliers, which are requesting as much as $18.5 billion, bankruptcy for the automakers could be inevitable, Bernstein said.

“Bankruptcy is not a drop-dead failure,” Bernstein said. “A lot of what they’re doing now is no different than what they would do in bankruptcy.”

Given the size and complexity of the company’s operations, a bankruptcy proceeding won’t be quick or cheap, GM said in its report to the Treasury Department. The carmaker’s three bankruptcy scenarios include a “pre-packaged” Chapter 11 filing; a pre-negotiated “cram-down” plan and a conventional bankruptcy.

Under the first case, bondholders would have to vote in favor of any reorganization plan, and would require an advance agreement on how to handle Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association liabilities.

The cost, including expenses related to Delphi Corp., may total $45 billion, including $36 billion of U.S. government financing, GM said.

‘Cram-Down’ Approach

The “cram-down” approach would include the company converting bonds and VEBA obligations to equity, and cost as much as $70 billion and take six months to complete, GM said.

A traditional Chapter 11 filing may take GM two years to emerge from bankruptcy protection and cost as much as $103 billion, the company said. Total U.S. government financing costs for such a move may be as much as $86 billion, GM estimated.

In its report, Chrysler estimated that the U.S. would lose 40,000 direct jobs at the company and 3,300 auto dealerships with 140,000 employees and that $7 billion in supplier invoices wouldn’t be paid. Some 31 million Chrysler vehicle owners may also lose warranties and service, the company said.

“The consumer is smart enough to know that a company in bankruptcy probably isn’t going to be able to keep providing all the training classes for different maintenance techniques,” said Genter. “They’ll wonder who will be able to do vehicle servicing.”

To contact the reporters on this story:
Keith Naughton in Southfield, Michigan at Knaughton3@bloomberg.net;
Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at aohnsman@bloomberg.net

Obama's Broken Promises

2009-02-18T21:46:00.002-06:00

He hasn't even been President for a month, and here is a list of President Obama's broken promises. I'm sure this will grow in the ensuing 47 months of his Administration.

1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. We will put every pork barrel project online

Obama drops 'Car Czar' idea

2009-02-16T15:49:00.002-06:00

By Bill Vlasic
New York Times

DETROIT — President Obama has dropped the idea of appointing a single, powerful “car czar” to oversee the revamping of General Motors and Chrysler and will instead keep the politically delicate task in the hands of his most senior economic advisers, a top administration official said Sunday night.

Mr. Obama is designating the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers, to oversee a presidential panel on the auto industry. Mr. Geithner will also supervise the $17.4 billion in loan agreements already in place with G.M. and Chrysler, said the official, who insisted on anonymity.

The official also said that Ron Bloom, a restructuring expert who has advised the labor unions in the troubled steel and airline industries, would be named a senior adviser to Treasury on the auto crisis.

The unexpected shift comes as G.M. and Chrysler race to complete broad restructuring plans they must file with the Treasury by Tuesday. The companies’ plans are required to show progress in cutting long-term costs as a condition for keeping their loans.

The administration official said the president was reserving for himself any decision on the viability of G.M. and Chrysler, both of which came close to bankruptcy before receiving federal aid two months ago.

One of President Obama’s top advisers said Sunday that the administration had not ruled out a government-backed bankruptcy as a means to overhaul the automakers.

“We’re going to need a restructuring of these companies,” the adviser, David Axelrod, said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. He added that a turnaround of the companies would “require sacrifice not just from the auto workers but also from creditors, from shareholders and the executives who run the company.”

The automakers had been expecting the appointment of a car czar to break the logjam of negotiations with the United Auto Workers over the finances of a retiree health care trust, and with bondholders about reducing the companies’ debt.

Mr. Bloom is known for bringing his Wall Street experience as an investment banker to an advisory role as the “in-house” banker for the steel workers’ union. With the auto union locking horns with bondholders in the G.M. revamping deliberations, Mr. Bloom appears to bring credibility with both the union and the debtors. Mr. Bloom could not be reached for comment Sunday night.

Another senior administration official said that Mr. Obama had considered appointing a car czar, and among those considered for the job was the private equity executive Steven Rattner. It was not clear why the administration changed course or whether Mr. Rattner would have a role on the task force.

The panel, called the Presidential Task Force on Autos, will draw officials from several agencies including the departments of Treasury, labor, transportation, commerce and energy, according to the administration official.

Many members of the task force have already been working closely with G.M. and Chrysler on the viability plans they are preparing for the government.

G.M. and Chrysler are both expected to request more loans to stay solvent during what is shaping up as another miserable year for auto sales.

Chrysler’s chairman, Robert L. Nardelli, has said his company needs another $3 billion in addition to the $4 billion loan it received in January.

G.M. originally asked for $18 billion in aid in December. G.M. has borrowed $9.4 billion so far and is scheduled to receive another $4 billion, if the Treasury is satisfied with its revamping plan.

G.M. said in a statement that it welcomed the new task force and that it looked forward to sharing its plan “to restore our company to viability and to meet the requirements of its loan agreements.”

Representatives of Chrysler could not be reached for comment on Sunday night.

The administration official who disclosed the change in Mr. Obama’s plans for oversight of the auto industry said the group would review the companies’ submissions for a week or two before responding publicly. Until then, the auto makers are expected to continue talks with the union and other stakeholders.

On Sunday afternoon, G.M. and the U.A.W. resumed discussions in Detroit about reducing the company’s labor costs, a person with direct knowledge of the talks said. This person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, characterized the talks Sunday evening as “intense” but did not indicate that an agreement was imminent.

The U.A.W. had walked away from the bargaining table late Friday as the two sides clashed over how to cover retiree health care costs.

U.A.W. leaders in December agreed to help the automakers by delaying when the companies are required to make multibillion-dollar payments into a new trust fund designed to pay for retiree health coverage.

The Ford Motor Company is not taking federal aid, and therefore does not need to submit plans for approval. But Ford, which lost $14.6 billion in 2008, the most in its history, is expected to ask the U.A.W. for whatever concessions are granted to G.M. and Chrysler.

Both G.M. and Chrysler are likely to outline deep cuts in jobs, plants and models in their restructuring plans. One G.M. executive said the automaker is proposing a much smaller company with fewer brands and far fewer people.

G.M. and Chrysler recently extended buyout and early retirement offers to nearly all of their 90,600 hourly workers as they try to eliminate factory jobs and replace older workers making about $28 an hour with new hires who can be paid half as much.

G.M. announced plans last week to cut 10,000 white-collar jobs worldwide, including 3,400 in the United States. It said that salaries for those who remain on staff would be cut by as much as 10 percent through at least the end of 2009.

Over all, automakers are expected to sell between 10 million and 11 million vehicles in the United States this year, far below the 16.2 million they sold in 2007. G.M. said last week that the two-year drop is roughly equal to the capacity of 24 assembly plants.

Jackie Calmes contributed reporting from Washington, and Nick Bunkley from Detroit.

Obama Will Sign Stimulus Bill on Tuesday

2009-02-15T18:08:00.000-06:00

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post

President Obama will sign the $787 billion economic stimulus plan in Denver on Tuesday, the White House said today, as he continues his efforts to communicate directly to the American public about the economic crisis.

Obama had already announced a trip to Colorado and Arizona on Tuesday and Wednesday. He plans to announce his latest plans for reducing the number of housing foreclosures on Wednesday in Phoenix.

Obama's decision to sign the stimulus bill in Denver is a striking departure from his first few weeks in office, when he held several signing ceremonies in the East Room of the White House.

In the last week, however, Obama has spent less and less time in his new home. Last week he traveled to Indiana, Florida and Illinois and headed home to Chicago for a four-day weekend. He also announced his first foreign trip as president, a day trip to Canada next Thursday.

Who voted for and against the Stimulus Bill?

2009-02-14T18:44:00.003-06:00

According to Thomas, the Library of Congress' Congressional website, H.R. 1 (The Stimulous Bill) as amended through conference, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 13, 2009 with 246 yeas, 183 nays, 1 voted present and 3 not voting.

NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted for this legislation.

Seven courageous Democrats stood up and voted with their Republican colleagues in a true bi-partisan fashion - they are: Bobby Bright (AL-2), Peter DeFazio (OR-4), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Collin Peterson (MN-7), Heath Shuler (NC-11) and Gene Taylor (MS-4). Please send them a letter or email, or call their offices to voice your thanks and appreciation for their courageous stand. They will be under tremendous pressure by Nancy Pelosi and your voice of support will only help them make the right decision in the future.

Lipinski (D) voted Present.

Clyburn (D), Campbell (R) and Lee (R-NY) didn't vote.

On the Senate side, the bill passed by a vote of 60 yeas, 38 nays with 1 not voting.

Ted Kennedy (D-MA) did not vote and Minnesota currently only has one Senator until the Coleman/Franken lawsuit is settled.

Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine were Republicans who voted in favor (taking a major piece of pork called the medical records warehouse into their state for an inducement); Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) also voted in favor of this after receiving an earmark for a new cancer center for his state. Other than Kennedy not voting, all other Democrats and Independents (Lieberman and Sanders) voted in favor. President Obama is due to sign the bill soon in a ceremony in Denver. Here is the Feb. 13, 2009 Senate Roll Call Vote.

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Alaska:
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay

Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay

Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea

California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea

Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea

Florida:
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea

Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay

Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay

Illinois:
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea

Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay

Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay

Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay

Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

Minnesota:
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay

Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea

Nebraska:
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea

Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea

New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea

New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea

New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea

New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea

North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea

North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea

Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay

Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay

Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea

Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay

South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay

Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay

Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay

Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay

Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea

Virginia:
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea

Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea

West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Iran says change under Obama would be "happy news"

2009-02-12T06:01:00.000-06:00

Wed Feb 11, 2009

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A change in U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama would be "happy news," the foreign minister of arch-foe Iran said on Wednesday.

"We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said through an Arabic interpreter at a news conference during a visit to neighbouring Iraq.

"If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news."

Mottaki's remarks were the latest in a series of recent comments from Iranian leaders hinting at prospects of a thaw with a country that has been an arch enemy for nearly 30 years.

"We think these changes will provide good opportunities for the American administration in its relations with the countries of the world," Mottaki added. "As diplomats, we are destined to be optimistic, and we wish this would come true."

Obama has said he is willing to start talks with Iran, which the United States and its Western allies accuse of supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq and seeking nuclear weapons, all charges Tehran denies.

On Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was ready to hold talks "in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect."

(Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed; writing by Peter Graff)

Sean Hannity: President Obama's Earmark Amnesia

2009-02-12T05:58:00.000-06:00

By Sean Hannity
www.FoxNews.com

A quick trip around Hannity's America...

Say What?

Are there earmarks in the stimulus bill? Well, it depends which day you ask President Obama.

Just days ago he was arguing that no bill this size had ever gotten through Congress without a pesky earmark here and there, but Monday night he was singing a different tune.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not once. And, and when you start asking well, what is it exactly that is such a problem that you're seeing, where's all this waste in spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars. Well, why wouldn't we want to do that?

What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Let me guess, it depends on the definition of earmark?

Dem on Defense

Press secretary Robert Gibbs continued the administration's offensive for the pork bill, taking the case to the nation's morning shows earlier Tuesday.

After Matt Lauer pushed as hard as he could, Mr. Gibbs went to considerable lengths to defend the spending bill:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No, Matt, I think, as the president has eloquently said, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary.

LIBERAL TRANSLATION: After all, in a perfect world, they'd have a more capable press secretary.

GIBBS: Economists will tell us that if we wait too long, we'll miss that opportunity to get our economy going.

LIBERAL TRANSLATION: We need to jump start STD prevention and funding for dog parks and disc golf courses. That's what's going to get this economy out of the ditch.

GIBBS: Again, as he said, this bill isn't 100 percent perfect. We all may write it a little differently.

LIBERAL TRANSLATION: And by not perfect, I mean a total and unmitigated disaster.

GIBBS: But what's important is we get money into people's pockets, we start investing in our infrastructure and creating the millions of new jobs that we've seen our economy shed over the past.

MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, "THE TODAY SHOW": But don't you see any...

LIBERAL TRANSLATION: What's important is that the president not be embarrassed any further. What's really at stake here is image.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

It's OK, Robert -- I'm not a morning person either.

Doddering to Defeat

Chris Dodd has been a mainstay in the U.S. Senate since 1981, but his prospects for reelection are dimming in light of a new Quinnipiac Poll released today. A 51 percent majority of voters polled say they "probably won't" or "definitely won't" vote for Mr. Dodd when he is up for reelection next year.

The senator's fall from grace comes after he revealed that he received preferential mortgage rates from Countrywide Financial for his homes in Connecticut and Washington, D.C. because he was considered a friend of the company's former chairman and CEO.

You may recall Mr. Dodd was responsible for introducing the very bailout bill that came to the aid of lenders like Countrywide. Hey, who needs friends when you know the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee?

Welcome!

You may recall that on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama threw blame on the Bush administration for spawning an era of international hostility and promised a new era of global harmony. Well, the era of international cooperation he spoke of during the campaign season hasn't exactly come to pass.

As Washington Times reporters Eli Lake and Jon Ward noted, the Arab world has greeted the new administration with the following gestures of goodwill: First, Pakistan released A.Q. Khan, the scientist who sold nuclear weapons technology to U.S. adversaries including Iran and Libya. Then, Kyrgyzstan refused to renew the lease for a critical U.S. air base, Iran launched a satellite missile into space and Yemen released 170 suspected Al Qaeda terrorists from jail.

I guess Joe Biden was right when he said the world would test the new president. It remains to be seen whether President Obama will respond appropriately.

No Vacancy

A three judge-panel tentatively ruled Monday in favor of a group of California inmates that say the prison system in the state is so overcrowded they are unable to receive proper health care. The judges in the case — who were all appointed by Jimmy Carter — include Judge Lawrence Kolton, who once ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school is unconstitutional, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who happens to be married to the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.

A final ruling would require California to reduce its prison population by nearly 60,000 inmates. But don't worry, according to The Los Angeles Times, there won't be a mass exodus of current prisoners, the reduction will likely occur by limiting new admissions and changing rules so parole violators return to prison less frequently.

The state plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court when a final ruling is issued.

— Watch "Hannity" weekdays at 9 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

The Truth About Obama's Stimulus Package

2009-02-11T20:22:00.001-06:00

By Glenn Beck

There's the start of universal healthcare in this spending bill, and President Obama didn't even mention it in his speech last night. I'll explain in just a minute why if you're old you should get used to a little pain.

Here's the one thing: I agree with President Obama. We may not survive if we do not do the right thing. But that's where our agreement ends, because what he's proposing is exactly wrong.

Better get the duct tape, because when you hear what Obama said last night, and then the truth, your head may pop off.

Here's Obama talking about job creation:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

But wait! The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that about 90 to 95% of private sector job growth got us out of the recessions of late ‘70s and early ‘80s. Here's the president speaking about role in ending the Great Depression:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: You have some people — very sincere — who philosophically just think that government has no business interfering in the marketplace.
And in fact there are several who suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

No, actually a long time ago the history was written by the same economists who designed the new deal. Let's look at today. The non-partisan CBO says the spending package will actually lower GDP by .1 to .3 percentage points by 2019. Doing nothing, they say, would result in less debt and higher growth. But, of course, doing nothing isn't an option for this president.

Last night President Obama did not say much about TARP 2.0, which was rolled out today by new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Geithner said that this new plan is supposed to help mop up toxic assets. But isn't that exactly what President Bush and the Republicans said about the original TARP? This one could put us on the hook for another 1.5 trillion bucks.

Here's what President Obama said when it comes to the "experts":

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "Most economists almost unanimously recognize... That government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."
(END VIDEO CLIP)

Oh really? Doesn't this sound like Al Gore on global warming? The science is not settled, it's up to you. There are a couple hundred economists who disagree, and they aren't exactly slouches.

It's nice that Obama looks presidential and his words make people feel good, but we also have to listen to what he says and make sure he can back it up with actual facts — something that we'll try to do tonight.

What do you think? Send your comments to: glennbeck@foxnews.com
— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel

Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate

2009-02-09T17:03:00.001-06:00

Sen Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says the president has not been providing leadership and criticizes him for giving TV interviews and writing an editorial touting the package rather than addressing the complaints of lawmakers.

FoxNews

President Obama has been "AWOL" in negotiations over the economic stimulus package, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday in a scathing rebuke of the new president.

The South Carolina Republican told FOX News that Obama has not been providing leadership, and he criticized the president for giving TV interviews and writing an editorial touting the package, rather than addressing the complaints of lawmakers.

"This process stinks," Graham told FOX News, before repeating a lot of his criticisms on the Senate floor. "We're making this up as we go and it is a waste of money. It is a broken process, and the president, as far as I'm concerned, has been AWOL on providing leadership on something as important as this."

Republican senators and congressmen have been reluctant to direct any criticism at the president since his inauguration. They mostly have fired shots at Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, saying they have obstructed the bipartisan process Obama sought.
But Graham broke that practice after Obama granted a round of interviews defending his plan Tuesday and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Thursday in which he warned of disastrous consequences if Congress does not pass the stimulus bill.

"Scaring people is not leadership. Writing an editorial that if you don't pass this bad bill we're going to have disaster -- we've had enough presidents trying to scare people to make bad decisions," Graham said.

"I like President Obama, but he is not leading. Having lunch is not leading ... and doing TV interviews is not leading."

Obama renewed his plea for the bill at the Energy Department Thursday, shortly after Graham spoke.

"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now," Obama said.

Obama, in his op-ed, wrote that inaction could lead the economy into an irreversible decline.

"Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes," he wrote. "And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."

How much has the National Debt increased under Obama's watch?

2009-02-06T22:59:00.002-06:00

Information is cross-posted from National Debt Busters

Obama Adminstration took office Jan. 20

National Debt as of Feb. 5, 2009 is:
$10,717,998,123,287.70

National Debt as of Jan. 16, 2009 (last date calculated before Inauguration):
$10,628,881,485,510.23

Increase in debt since Obama took over:
$89,116,637,777.47

Ethics debacle offers painful lesson for Obama

2009-02-06T22:42:00.002-06:00

The following appeared in the Feb. 6, 2009 issue of the Arizona Republic.

Ethics. Integrity. Post-partisanship.

These were among the promises that got Barack Obama elected president.

Voters liked the idea of ending politics as they have come to know and dislike it.

Candidate Obama set the bar unusually high. President Obama is going to have to live up to that standard or risk losing the public support he needs to succeed.

By admitting - in numerous same-day interviews - that he did "screw up" in regard to the Daschle debacle, Obama demonstrated his desire to make government more transparent and accessible. His instincts are also correct in wanting to admit his mistake and move on.

But the president cannot dismiss the widespread impression that some of his failed appointments have dulled his image and given his opponents tools with which to begin undermining confidence in his administration.

Even the perception of a cloud over the White House could cost Obama popularity and contribute to business-as-usual gridlock in Washington, stalling progress on the huge challenges facing the nation.

President Obama needs to make sure that friendship does not again cloud his judgment.
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's credentials and experience may have made him look like a good pick for secretary of Health and Human Services.

As one of Obama's mentors in the Senate and an early supporter of Obama's race for president, Daschle also looked like a natural for a high-level appointment. A little patronage is to be expected.

What's more, Obama has balanced patronage with a "Team of Rivals" approach that is robust enough to rankle some Democrats.

His choice of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as Commerce secretary was facilitated by an agreement that Gregg's replacement in the Senate would be a Republican. Some Democrats were unimpressed with both the appointment and the deal.

To the dismay of some in his own party, President Obama gets points for making good on his promise to pursue a post-partisan government and listen to a variety of voices.

But as the president learned the hard way, people are in no mood to overlook something like Daschle's failure to pay a tax bill that far exceeds the annual income of many Americans.

This is especially true after Timothy Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite his tax problems, and as Nancy Killefer, Obama's first choice for chief performance officer, was forced to step aside because of her own tax problems.

The Daschle debacle was a tin-ear moment that President Obama dare not repeat.

Will Leon Panetta be the next body under Obama's bus?

2009-02-05T07:55:00.000-06:00

by Andrew Malcolm
Los Angeles Times

It's been a bumpy few days on the new Obama administration bus, what with all the bodies throwing themselves under the shiny chassis -- Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and the ones yet to come from the transition team that missed the bones in Bill Richardson's closet and Daschle's and Geithner's and Killefer's tax returns.

In public, stand-up political bosses like Barack Obama are, well, stand-up, obediently shouldering the full blame like medicine from Mom. Americans like that and turn very forgiving when they hear it. So, Obama did that so sincerely and stoically on every TV network last night.
The buck stops here and all that, which drew hearty praise today from Robert Gibbs, Obama's own press secretary. But, in private, those bosses really, really don't like to have to do that. And someone will pay. If he/she hasn't already.

Meanwhile, word outta Washington late today that the congressional confirming committees, also embarrassed, are taking a closer look at the documents of some preexisting Obama nominees such as, oh, say, former California representative, Bill Clinton chief of staff and proposed CIA chief Leon Panetta. The Senate Intelligence Committee (no, that's not being sarcastic) takes up Panetta on Thursday morning.

Apparently, his reports to ethics officials indicate the onetime congressman who hung around Washington anyway is now worth nearly $4 million, which makes hanging around Washington seem a worthy pastime for washed-up pols. Last year Panetta took in about $1.2 million in investments, consulting and speaking fees, plus other income from corporate boards like BP and banks that have now failed or taken bailout money like Wachovia. Let's all do that.
All this despite being so intimately involved in the Obama campaign.

Panetta also got thousands of dollars from at least one security-related company that he might be dealing with from his secret CIA director's office in the Langley Batcave that carries the annoyingly Republican Bush name on it.

Panetta's appointment hit its first bump minutes after the announcement when committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein revealed in one of those too-controlled voices that she had not been informed in advance, a very serious breach of political manners in the Washington world that's akin to loud burping at the queen's dinner.

Now our blogging pal Mark Silva in the Swamp has more details on the developing Panetta problems, indicating some senators may have more questions in the morning.

Obama: 'I Screwed Up'

2009-02-04T06:40:00.002-06:00

Obama told CBS he is not frustrated in his efforts to change Washington. "I never thought it was easy," he said. "Change is hard. We're going to make some mistakes. I'm going to screw up sometimes." By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

For Obama, nominees' exits take off some of the glow
By Mimi Hall, Fredreka Schouten and John Fritze,
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after he stood before the nation and pledged "a new era of responsibility," President Obama confronted the biggest crisis of his young presidency Tuesday as two of his key nominees withdrew over their failure to pay their taxes.

"I screwed up," Obama told NBC News in one of five network interviews he did Tuesday as questions swirled about his administration's vetting of nominees and his judgment. "Part of the era of responsibility is not never making mistakes, it's owning up to them."

It was a disquieting day for a president who came into office with soaring approval ratings and a promise to have the most ethical administration in history.

First, he lost former Treasury official Nancy Killefer, the woman he'd tapped to root out waste as the government's first chief performance officer. Then, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle withdrew his appointment as Health and Human Services secretary. Obama had wanted Daschle to engineer an overhaul of the nation's health care system.

"It's a really rocky start," said Melanie Sloan, director of the liberal-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "He said this would be the most ethical administration ever, but to people outside the Beltway it looks like it was just words."

Daschle dropped out after revelations that he failed to pay $128,203 in taxes for consulting income and several years' use of a car and driver provided to him by a wealthy Democratic contributor after Daschle lost his Senate re-election bid in 2004. Daschle filed amended tax returns last month and paid the taxes plus $11,964 in interest.

Killefer withdrew over her failure to pay taxes for household help and a $946 tax lien that was placed on her home in an upscale Washington neighborhood in 2005.

For Obama, the departures of Daschle and Killefer became a distraction on a day when he had planned to use the TV interviews to promote the nearly $900 billion economic stimulus package he is trying to get through Congress. Also overshadowed was Obama's latest effort to reach out to Republicans, this time by nominating Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., as Commerce secretary.

In Congress and on cable talk shows Tuesday, questions about the new administration dominated the day. Among them: Should Obama's self-described mistakes be attributed to the usual growing pains of a new White House, or do they underscore a fundamental weakness that could have ramifications for future appointments and legislation at a critical time?

"Right now, he looks very much on the defensive," said Merle Black, an Emory University political scientist. "Anytime you have two people quit on the same day over tax problems it's a bad day. But the presidency is four years."

'Can't afford glitches'

In a series of mea culpas Tuesday, Obama said he was concerned about how Americans would view what went on with Daschle's nomination.

"I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics," he told CNN. "I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes."

On ABC, he called the tax errors "honest mistakes" but said he "can't afford glitches" such as those if he is to get his economic stimulus package through Congress.

They weren't the president's first problems with nominees. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination to be Commerce secretary last month because of an investigation into possible connections between contributions to his political committees and state contract awards.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's confirmation was delayed last month amid questions about why he initially failed to pay more than $34,000 in self-employment taxes.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to say Tuesday how — or even whether — the vetting process had gone wrong. "I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking in the rear-view mirror," Gibbs said.

Transition analysts didn't hold back. Some questioned Obama's judgment.

"At first, I thought this was a vetting problem, but now I think it's hubris — that they somehow think they're so powerful and so popular that the normal rules don't apply," said Paul Light, an expert on presidential transitions and a professor at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

Others said such problems were inevitable if Obama is going to look to old Washington hands for help.

Craig Holman, of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said Obama deserves credit for trying to set new standards for ethics in Washington. "But as he taps into appointees that have been spinning through the revolving door in Washington," Holman said, "he's going to find people who have been part of the business-as-usual culture."

Obama also has faced questions about why he's made an exception to his new lobbying rules by naming former Raytheon top lobbyist William Lynn to serve as deputy Defense secretary.

The president said an exception had to be made at the Pentagon because Lynn was the right person for the job. "Now, what I said in appointing Mr. Lynn was that this, along with maybe a handful, maybe three or four positions, may end up being so unique that we are going to make an exception," Obama said on CBS Tuesday evening.

Obama and others in the administration said Geithner's tax problem should be excused because he was the best person for the job at a critical time for the economy — and he was confirmed by the Senate.

Quick action lauded by some

With respect to Daschle and Killefer, some gave Obama credit for moving on quickly.

"Obama has done something smart here," said Matthew Dickinson, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "He hasn't let them dangle in the wind. … Every president dating back to Carter has lost a nominee or two. He's reacted the way you have to react as president."

Whether this has a long-term effect depends on "the performance going forward and the other nominees that come on board," Black said.

The latest troubles left the White House and Capitol Hill in turmoil Tuesday.

Senators who would have had to vote on his confirmation expressed remorse that a good man had fallen victim to tax errors.

"It was with regret but with respect for his decision that I learned of Sen. Daschle's request to withdraw his name," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which planned a hearing on the nomination next week.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he was sorry Daschle withdrew. "When the smoke clears and the frenzy has ended, no one will believe that this unwitting mistake should have erased 30 years of selfless public service and remarkable legislative skill and expertise on health care," he said.

Others complained not only about Daschle's tax problem but his work with a lobbying firm.

In addition to the taxes issue, Daschle had faced questions about his relationship with an industry he was asked to reform. He is not a registered lobbyist but has earned more than $2 million as a policy adviser on health care, climate change and other issues at a Washington law firm. He also earned nearly $500,000 for speeches before groups that included insurers and other health care organizations.

"I don't know how you get paid $2 million by a lobbying firm and not call yourself a lobbyist," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "That just seems disingenuous to me, and I don't think passes the smell test. So I personally think that Senator Daschle, you know, was going to face some tough questions and … I think he saved the president from being embarrassed next week in a public hearing."

Obama, in the ABC interview, called Daschle's nomination a "self-induced injury."

Long day at the White House

Shortly after news of Daschle's withdrawal broke, Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid a surprise visit to a local school.

"We wanted to get out of the White House," Obama told delighted second-graders at Capital City Public Charter School.

The president woke up Tuesday to editorials in The New York Times and four major regional news papers calling on Daschle to step aside. By the time breakfast was over, the cable TV news shows were featuring commentators who questioned Obama's commitment to ethics reform.

By mid-morning, a YouTube link to a grainy 1986 Daschle campaign commercial was circulating on Capitol Hill. It showed Daschle, then a House member running for the Senate, driving through Washington, D.C., in a rusted 1971 Pontiac.

"After 15 years and 238,000 miles, Tom Daschle still drives his old car to work every day," the narrator intoned. "Maybe he's sentimental or just cheap. Whatever the case, isn't it too bad that the rest of Washington doesn't understand that a penny saved is a penny earned?"

At a testy mid-day briefing for the news media, held as construction crews worked to dismantle the Inauguration Day parade viewing stand out front on Pennsylvania Avenue, Gibbs said Obama never thought change would come overnight.

"I think the president would say to you that he didn't believe that we were going to change the way Washington has worked the past three decades in the first two weeks of this administration," Gibbs said.

Gibbs said no one in the White House asked Daschle or Killefer to step down. In a letter to Obama, Killefer wrote that she had "come to realize in the current environment that my personal tax issue … could be used to create exactly the kind of distraction and delay" that would harm efforts to revive the sinking economy.

She didn't elaborate.

Gibbs said Daschle called and spoke with Obama about his decision to withdraw.

"We had a conversation and obviously that conversation's private, but, it's frustrating for me and it's something I take responsibility for," Obama told CBS. "Tom, I think, is an outstanding individual. I am absolutely convinced he would've been the best person to help shepherd through what's going to be a very difficult process to get health care for American families."

Obama has said he plans an overhaul that would cut health care costs by $2,500 a year for the average family and would require health care coverage for all children.

Obama told CBS he is not frustrated in his efforts to change Washington. "I never thought it was easy," he said. "Change is hard. … We're going to make some mistakes. I'm going to screw up sometimes."

Dave Ramsey's thoughts on the Obama Stimulus

2009-02-04T00:44:00.002-06:00

The following was written by Dave Ramsey, founder of "Financial Peace University," and host of the "Dave Ramsey Show" a nationally syndicated radio show and host of a television show by the same name on the Fox Business Network.

Well, we the people have a new president. It’s an exciting time for Americans, whether or not you agree with President Barack Obama’s plans. My hope is that our new president will instill some confidence in people, not necessarily set out to fix everybody and everything.

There are some bogus government strategies floating around to stimulate the economy and "save us from ourselves." Just because they’re all everyone talks about doesn’t make them true! Here are a few of the big issues:

Tax BreaksThese aren’t bad, and I would never turn them down. But to think that tax breaks single-handedly stimulate the economy is laughable. Remember last fall? Those stimulus checks didn’t fix the problem, so what makes us think it’s going to fix everything this time? Did you know it was your money to start with? They’re just giving it back to you and making you feel good about it. If you’re looking for $1,000 to change your life this year, you obviously don’t have a life to start with!

It may help you today or this month, but $1,000 will do very little for you in the long run. To win with money, you've got to think long term.

Patriotic DutyThe government wants you to spend, spend, spend—and many Americans are taking this advice while still in debt! No matter what the talking heads say, it is not your patriotic duty to spend money you don’t have. Your duty is to take care of yourself and your household with the money you earn from an honest day’s work.

If you have your full emergency fund and are in a position to buy something, now is the perfect time! You can get some fabulous deals, but don’t let the deals entice you if you haven’t planned ahead and don’t have the cash!

National DeficitThe dog is still chasing its tail.

Debt started the problem, so what is the current plan to fix the problem? More debt!What really drives the economy? Is it D.C.'s programs or small-business people scattered throughout the country? This down economic time will begin to heal itself. Do we have to go $1 trillion in debt to do that? No way!

The good news is that our future as an economy isn’t coming out of Washington. Our future prosperity is coming out of the hopes, dreams and individual freedoms of the American people. When left alone, we have a tendency to prosper.

The healing of the economy will begin and end with you. Yes, you, the person you see in the mirror! You have to make your decision as to whether or not you’re going to take part in the recession.
As for our new president, if you’re not a fan, pray for him. He’s your president. If you are a fan, pray for him. He’s your president, not your savior. Your hope will be crushed if you wait for him and his administration—or anyone else—to fix your life and give you money.

Obama’s Vietnam

2009-02-01T21:55:00.002-06:00

The analogy isn't exact. But the war in Afghanistan is starting to look disturbingly familiar.

By John Barry and Evan Thomas
NEWSWEEK

About a year ago, Charlie Rose, the nighttime talk-show host, was interviewing Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the military adviser at the White House coordinating efforts in and Iraq. "We have never been beaten tactically in a fire fight in Afghanistan," Lute said. To even casual students of the War, his statement has an eerie echo. One of the iconic exchanges of Vietnam came, some years after the war, between Col. Harry Summers, a military historian, and a counterpart in the North Vietnamese Army. As Summers recalled it, he said, "You never defeated us in the field." To which the NVA officer replied: "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."

Vietnam analogies can be tiresome. To critics, especially those on the left, all American interventions after Vietnam have been potential "quagmires." But sometimes clichés come true, and, especially lately, it seems that the war in Afghanistan is shaping up in all-too-familiar ways. The parallels are disturbing: the president, eager to show his toughness, vows to do what it takes to "win." The nation that we are supposedly rescuing is no nation at all but rather a deeply divided, semi-failed state with an incompetent, corrupt government held to be illegitimate by a large portion of its population. The enemy is well accustomed to resisting foreign invaders and can escape into convenient refuges across the border. There are constraints on America striking those sanctuaries. Meanwhile, neighboring countries may see a chance to bog America down in a costly war. Last, there is no easy way out.

True, there are important differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam. is not as powerful or unified a foe as the Viet Cong. On the other hand, Vietnam did not pose a direct national-security threat; even believers in the "domino theory" did not expect to see the Viet Cong fighting in San Francisco. By contrast, while not Taliban themselves, terrorists who trained in Afghanistan did attack New York and Washington in 2001. Afghanistan has always been seen as the right and necessary war to fight—unlike, for many, Iraq. Conceivably, , the architect of the successful surge in Iraq and now, as the head of Central Command in charge of the fight in Afghanistan, could pull off another miraculous transformation.

Privately, Petraeus is said to reject comparisons with Vietnam; he distrusts "history by analogy" as an excuse not to come to grips with the intricacies of Afghanistan itself. But there is this stark similarity: in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we may now be facing a situation where we can win every battle and still not win the war—at least not within a time frame and at a cost that is acceptable to the American people.

A wave of reports, official and unofficial, from American and foreign (including Afghan) diplomats and soldiers, present and former, all seem to agree: the situation in Afghanistan is bad and getting worse. Some four decades ago, American presidents became accustomed to hearing gloomy reports like that from Vietnam, although the public pronouncements were usually rosier.

John F. Kennedy worried to his dying day about getting stuck in a land war in Asia; LBJ was haunted by nightmares about "Uncle Ho." In the military, now as then, there are a growing number of doubters. But the default switch for senior officers in the U.S. military is "can do, sir!" and that seems to be the light blinking now. In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, when in doubt, escalate. There are now about 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration appear to agree that the number should be twice that a year or so from now.

To be sure, even 60,000 troops is a long way from the half million American soldiers sent to Vietnam at the war's peak; the 642 U.S. deaths sustained so far pale in comparison to the 58,000 lost in Vietnam. Still, consider this: that's a higher death toll than after the first nine years of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. And what is troubling is that no one in the outgoing or incoming administration has been able to say what the additional troops are for, except as a kind of tourniquet to staunch the bleeding while someone comes up with a strategy that has a chance of working. The most uncomfortable question is whether any strategy will work at this point.

It's still too early to say exactly what President Obama will do in Afghanistan. But there are some signs—difficult to read with certainty, yet nonetheless suggestive—that reality is sinking in, at least in some important corners of the new administration. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the one Bush cabinet holdover, worries that increasing the size of the U.S. military's footprint in Afghanistan will merely fan the locals' antipathy toward foreigners. "We need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan," he told a congressional committee last week. "My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of the problem, rather than as part of the solution. And then we are lost."

Vietnam, half a world away, seemed alien to many Americans and to Westerners generally. Afghanistan might as well be the moon. At least Vietnam had been a French colony, albeit a troubled one. Afghanistan resisted colonization, dispatching 19th-century British and 20th-century Russian soldiers with equal efficiency. "Afghanistan is not a nation, it is a collection of tribes," according to a Saudi diplomat who did not wish to publicly disparage a Muslim neighbor.

In Vietnam, the Ngo Dinh Diem government was seen as illegitimate because Diem was a Roman Catholic in a mostly Buddhist country and because it was propped up by the United States. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai's government was essentially created by the United States after local warlords, backed by American airpower, ousted the Taliban in 2001. (Karzai was elected in his own right in 2004, but at a time when he was clearly favored by America and faced no serious rivals.)

As in Diem's Vietnam, government corruption is epic; even Karzai says so. "The banks of the world are full of the money of our statesmen," he said last November. His former finance minister, Ashraf Ghani, rates his old government as "one of the five most corrupt in the world" and warns that Afghanistan is becoming a "failed, narco-mafia state." In a country where seven out of 10 citizens live on about a dollar a day, the average family each year must pay about $100 in baksheesh, or bribes (in Vietnam, this was known as "tea" or "coffee" money). Foreign aid is, after narcotics, the readiest source of income in Afghanistan. But it has been widely estimated that because of stealing and mismanagement in Kabul, the capital, less than half of the money actually finds its way into projects, and only a quarter of that makes it to the countryside, where 70 percent of the people live.

To Afghans now, as to Vietnamese then, the government is more often an arbitrary force to be feared than a benevolent protector. Ordinary Vietnamese lived with the fear of crossing someone more powerful, who could always turn them over to the Americans as an enemy sympathizer; a similar fear pervades Afghanistan now. When U.S. forces quickly crushed the Taliban after 9/11, many Afghans welcomed them, thinking the all-powerful Americans would transform their streets and schools and the economy. Now bitterness has set in. "What have the people of Afghanistan received from the Coalition?" asks Zamir Kabulov, the Russian ambassador to Afghanistan. "They lived very poorly before, and they still live poorly—but sometimes they also get bombed by mistake."

Nation-building in Afghanistan may be a hopeless cause. Periods of peace under centralized rule have been few and far between. Violence has been the norm: in the 18th century a Persian king, Nadir Shah, suppressed a revolt and beheaded 6,500 tribesmen (chosen by lot). He stacked their heads in a pyramid—with one of the instigators of the revolt entombed inside. And the Saudi diplomat is right in this sense: especially across the Pashtun belt in southern Afghanistan, local leaders have traditionally held more sway than whoever's in power in Kabul. The Taliban may not be fighting in a nationalist cause per se, as the Viet Cong were. But they certainly are more local, better rooted than the U.S.-led coalition.

The basic mantra of counterinsurgency is "clear, hold and build." Clear the area of insurgents. Hold it so the insurgents cannot return. Build the civic works and government structures so that the community decides to back the government. That's a coherent approach. But while foreign troops can clear better than the Taliban, they simply can't hold as well. In fact, the Taliban are getting pretty good at counterinsurgency themselves—"clear, hold and build" is what they're doing across southern Afghanistan. Their strict brand of justice is appealing to some Afghans, who crave order and security.

In some areas Taliban commanders have even relaxed some of their more unpopular dictates, allowing girls to go to school, for instance. Last month, the sober and respected International Council on Security and Development reported that the Taliban "now holds a permanent presence in 72 percent of Afghanistan, up from 54 percent a year ago." They are moving in on Kabul; according to the ICOS report, "three of the four main highways in Kabul are now compromised by Taliban activity."

The Taliban also has one resource that the Viet Cong never enjoyed: a steady stream of income from Afghanistan's massive heroin trade. Afghan poppies produce roughly 93 percent of the world's opium. Although, nominally, eradication has been a high priority since 2004, poppy cultivation has more than doubled. Farmers can't be persuaded to switch to other crops unless they feel confident that the Taliban won't return to kill them as punishment.

And besides, they'd need passable roads to move more legitimate crops to functioning markets. The Americans don't have anywhere near enough troops—their own or those of increasingly disillusioned NATO allies—to secure the roads and the farm areas. That's not only because of Afghanistan's size (similar to Texas), but also because of a failure of strategy reminiscent of Vietnam.

America has been trying to pacify Afghanistan essentially through a counterterrorist campaign. The consequence has been that some of the military's most valuable warriors—its Special Forces—have been largely misused. Most people think of Special Forces as jumping out of helicopters on secret and dangerous missions.

Actually, until George W. Bush launched his Global War on Terror—and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave the Special Operations Command the lead role—their normal (and arguably more useful) mission was to train up the armies of developing countries. In Vietnam, the Green Berets were initially (and successfully) sent into the highlands to train indigenous tribesmen as guerrilla fighters.

After 1962, however, they were diverted to fruitless efforts to seal Vietnam's frontiers.

Similarly, the Special Forces in Afghanistan have been used mostly as strike teams to go after Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders—or deployed along the 1,400-mile border in an effort to stop insurgents from —rather than to train Afghanistan's own forces. "The development of Afghan security forces has been a badly managed, grossly understaffed and poorly funded mess," concluded Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst Anthony Cordesman in a briefing to Democratic congressional leaders in January. The United States didn't even seriously fund the development of Afghanistan's own forces until 2007.

Even now, America and its NATO allies have provided fewer than half the trainers the Afghans need; and many of those are unskilled. As a result, the Afghan Army is too small and too poorly trained to take over the counterinsurgency missions that constitute the real battle in Afghanistan. The Afghan Army is getting better, but slowly.

U.S. commanders privately think it may be five years before most units are able to operate on their own. The Afghan police remain a disaster—leaving U.S. forces to fill the vacuum.

As in Vietnam, efforts to seal the frontier have failed. The Taliban, like the North Vietnamese, has depended crucially on supply routes and sanctuaries just over the border. Just as NVA units were able to slip up and down the Ho Chi Minh trail running through Laos, the Taliban can fade away into the mountains and over the border into the lawless regions of Pakistan. These safe havens give them an invaluable space in which to train and resupply.

Taliban fighters are much more willing to return to the fight knowing that their families are parked safely in Pakistan, and that they themselves can retreat there if wounded. One Taliban commander based in Pakistan even gave his men five cell-phone numbers to call for help if they got shot fighting U.S. troops across the border, promising they'd be evacuated and treated quickly.

The Americans have to be careful about chasing after the Taliban into their sanctuaries. In Vietnam, American strategists worried about bringing Russia or China into the war if they bombed too freely in and around Hanoi (by, say, sinking a Russian freighter in Haiphong Harbor). In Pakistan, the Americans worry that a heavy-handed intervention could destabilize the government, a risky move in a country with nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis have shared intelligence on Qaeda targets—and have from time to time launched offensives against Pakistani Taliban fighters along the border—but meanwhile, members of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, have formed covert alliances with some Afghan Taliban factions.

The Pakistanis have a strategic interest in keeping Afghanistan—which has developed close ties to archenemy India—weak. Since many Pakistani leaders are convinced that America will eventually leave, they're covering their bets for the future.

In Vietnam, America worried about covert Russian and Chinese backing for the North Vietnamese (some would say too much). Here, Pakistan may not be the only country playing a double game. While neighboring Iran is predominantly Shiite, and has traditionally backed the Sunni Taliban's foes in the Northern Alliance, Tehran may also be the source of some of the more sophisticated IEDs turning up on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Certainly Iran has some interest in seeing the American forces on its border bleed a little.

At times, though, the United States can seem like its own worst enemy in Afghanistan. Lacking enough troops, forced to cover vast areas, U.S. forces depend far too heavily on strikes by A-10s, F-15s, even B-1 bombers. In 2004, the U.S. Air Force flew 86 strike sorties against targets in Afghanistan. By 2007, the number was up to 2,926—and that doesn't count rocket or cannon fire from helicopters. U.S. commanders have become much more careful about collateral damage since Vietnam.

There are no more "free fire zones" or Marines using Zippo lighters to torch villages. But innocents die in the most carefully planned raids, especially when the enemy cynically uses civilians as cover—as the Viet Cong did, and the Taliban does. Already, civilian casualties have climbed from 929 in 2006 to close to 2,000 in 2008, according to the United Nations. "When we kill innocents, especially women and children, you lose that village forever," says Thomas Johnson of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

In the dominant Pashtun tribe, revenge is a duty. Kill one Pashtun tribesman, sadly observes a U.S. Special Forces colonel who spoke anonymously to be more frank, and you make three more your sworn enemy.

This, then, is the mess that faces General Petraeus. He was a near–miracle worker in Iraq, and it may be that just as Lincoln eventually found Grant, Obama will have been lucky to inherit Petraeus. So far, Petraeus is not signaling a new grand strategy, instead letting various policy reviews go forward. A shrewd politician, he may be seeking to quietly educate the new president on the high cost and many years required to "win" in Afghanistan—if such a thing is even possible.

It is a sure bet that Petraeus will want to unify the different commands now muddling the situation in Afghanistan. (Divided command was a chronic problem in Vietnam, too.) Some soldiers report to the Special Operations Command, some to the regular military; some to the U.S. Central Command and some to NATO; and, within NATO, to their own national governments. There are some 37,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan but many are more concerned with "force protection"—not sustaining casualties—than seeking out and engaging the enemy.

Petraeus will work closely with Richard Holbrooke, a veteran diplomat who helped broker peace in the Balkans. Holbrooke is being sent by the State Department to coordinate the scattered and easily corrupted foreign-aid programs and to knock heads to make sure the diplomats, politicians and soldiers are on the same page. Holbrooke is a force of nature; still, he could wind up like Robert (Blowtorch Bob) Komer in Vietnam in the late 1960s —brilliant, capable and too late.

In some ways, there is no mystery to what must be done to fight a successful counterinsurgency. As Petraeus himself has said, the United States cannot kill its way to success. Foreign troops cannot defeat insurgents. Only local forces with popular support can do that. (A RAND study of 90 insurgencies since World War II showed that "governments defeated less than a third of the insurgencies when their competence was medium or low.")

It is a good bet that Petraeus will want American soldiers to train local village militias to fight the Taliban. The catch is that the Soviets already tried this (nothing is really new in counterinsurgency) and failed. In Afghanistan, local warlords quickly turn to fighting each other. The local saying is that they can be rented, not bought. And who wants to kill a Taliban fighter if the result is a blood feud?

Americans are appropriately skeptical about the chances of success in Afghanistan. A recent NEWSWEEK Poll shows that while 71 percent of the people believe that Obama can turn around the cratering economy, only 48 percent think he can make progress in Afghanistan. Deploying a U.S. force of 60,000 will cost about $70 billion a year. Training and supporting the 130,000 to 200,000 troops required for a proper Afghan Army would take another decade and could cost at least $20 billion.

Petraeus has consistently warned that Afghanistan will be "the longest campaign in the long war" against Islamic extremism. But it's far from clear that Americans have the appetite for such a commitment: after the economy, their top priority is health care (36 percent). Only 10 percent put Afghanistan at the top of their list, even fewer than nominate Iraq. If there is no real improvement on the ground, by the 2010 midterm elections, candidates for office may be decrying "Obama's war."

So why not just get out? As always, it's not so simple. If the Americans pull their troops out, the already shaky Afghan Army could collapse. (Once they lost U.S. air support, South Vietnamese troops sometimes refused to take the field and fight.) Afghanistan could well plunge into civil war, just as it did after the Soviets left in 1989.

Already, the Pashtuns in the south regard the American-backed Tajiks who dominate Karzai's administration as the enemy. The winning side would likely be the one backed by Pakistan, which may end up being the Taliban—just as it was in the last civil war.

Some argue this wouldn't be such a bad outcome, if the Taliban could be bribed or persuaded to not let Al Qaeda set up terrorist training bases on Afghan territory. According to one senior Taliban leader, a former deputy minister in Mullah Mohammed Omar's government who would only speak anonymously, some Pakistani officials are urging the insurgents to do something like this now—in return for talks with the Americans.

On the other hand, Islamabad could be playing with fire. Given the longstanding ties between the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban, a jihadist state on its border is a threat to Pakistan, too. And here, U.S. national-security interests definitely do come into play.

Some problems do not have a solution, or any good solution. Two studies of the Afghanistan mess cochaired by retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones, now President Obama's national-security adviser, asserted last year that America cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan.

Who wants to be the American president who allows jihadists to claim that they defeated and drove out American forces? Daniel Ellsberg, the government contractor who leaked the Pentagon papers, used to say about Vietnam, "It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam." The same is all too true for Afghanistan.

With Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai

Obama’s Oval Office Hypocrisy

2009-01-31T18:13:00.001-06:00

By Steven Milloy
FOXNews.com

As reported on JunkScience.com on Thursday…
The New York Times reported on Thursday, January 29 that:
“…the capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
Could this be the same Barack Obama who said last May that:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say ‘OK.’ … That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

And could this be the same Barack Obama who is looking to sign a stimulus bill that would spend billions of dollars installing millions of “smart meters” that would enable your power company to prevent you from being as comfortable as he is on hot and cold days?

While our new president is warm-and-toasty in the Oval Office, is he considering the plight of Michigan’s Marvin Schur, a 93-year World War II veteran, who was recently found frozen to death courtesy of a malfunctioning electricity “limiter” device installed by his power company?
Change has come to Washington. Elitism is dead. Long live elitism.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and manages the Free Enterprise Action Fund. He is a junk science expert, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Maryland GOP wins election as RNC chair

2009-01-30T15:44:00.002-06:00

This is the best coverage I've seen of the RNC Chairs race today. Here's a wrap up from the Detroit Free Press. - Ed.

By TODD SPANGLER
Detroit Free Press

UPDATED AT 4:13 p.m.

WASHINGTON - Michael Steele, the first African American elected to statewide office in the state of Maryland, wins election as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
A former lieutenant governor in Maryland, Steele beat South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson 91 to 77.

He replaces Mike Duncan, who dropped out of the balloting earlier today.

UPDATED AT 3:53 p.m.

Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis dropped out of the race for Republican National Committee chairman for the best of reasons.

"Can't win," he said. "I know how to count."

It leaves two candidates for the job: Michael Steele, the first African American to win statewide office in Maryland as lieutenant governor, and South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson who once belonged to an all-white country club.

The race was headed into a sixth ballot with 85 votes needed to win. On the fifth ballot, Steele led Dawson, 79 to 69. Anuzis was third with 20 and dropped out without endorsing either of the remaining candidates.

He said he'll work with whoever gets elected and has no plans to take a position with the winner.

"I"ll move on," said Anuzis, who steps down as Michigan's Republican Party chair next month.

UPDATED AT 3:48 p.m.

Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis drops out of race to be Republican National Committee chairman.

That leaves South Carolina's Katon Dawson and Maryland's Mike Steele 79 to 69 with 85 votes needed to win. Anuzis had 20.

UPDATED AT 3:18 p.m.

Ohio's Ken Blackwell, one of two African Americans in the race to become the next chairman of the Republican National Committee, dropped out after the fourth ballot and threw his weight behind the other, Maryland's Michael Steele.

Michigan's Saul Anuzis and South Carolina's Katon Dawson remain the other candidates in the race going into the fifth ballot.

UPDATED AT 3:00 p.m.

With the departure of current chair Mike Duncan from the race, South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson has taken the lead to become the next head of the Republican National Committee.

In the fourth round of balloting, Dawson took a 62-to-60 lead over Maryland's Michael Steele. Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis was third with 31 votes.

Ohio's Ken Blackwell was fourth with 15 votes. To win, one of the candidates must get 85 votes.
Even though Anuzis remained well behind the others, his numbers did improve with the departure of Duncan from the race. Should his and Steele's forces come behind one or the other, they could propel their candidate to the chairmanship.

The contest is largely about change, with Duncan being criticized in some quarters for losses in congressional races and the presidency. Meanwhile, race has also played a role. Dawson was once a member of an all-white country club. Steele, a former lieutenant governor in Maryland, is African American.

RNC chairman Duncan abandons re-election bid

2009-01-30T14:44:00.001-06:00

Even though this doesn't have anything to do with President Obama per se, I felt obliged to include it due to it's importance on the Presidential political process. - Ed.

By LIZ SIDOTI,
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Mike Duncan, former President George W. Bush's hand-picked national party chairman, abandoned his re-election bid Friday after his support steadily erode over three rounds of balloting, ensuring a fresh face at the beleaguered GOP's helm.

"Obviously the winds of change are blowing," Duncan said as he withdrew from the race and got a standing ovation. The Kentucky Republican thanked Bush and said of his two-year tenure: "It truly has been the highlight of my life."

The move scrambled a field now down to four as the Republican National Committee moved ahead with a fourth round of balloting, with candidates seeking to reach the 85-vote majority threshold to become the new chairman. Whoever wins will inherit a party trying to recover after crushing defeats in back-to-back elections that saw Democrats take control of Congress and the White House.

Duncan dropped out without endorsing a candidate.

After three rounds, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson had momentum on their side, having gained votes with each tally. Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis' support was holding steady, while former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was trailing.

Thus far, only Duncan has dropped out and thrown his support behind another, though behind-the-scenes negotiations among aides to all the candidates were in full swing. The field is expected to narrow further the more rounds of voting there are, and that means seemingly anyone could end up with a majority.

The results of the first three rounds boded poorly for Duncan, whose lost votes at every turn while Steele and Dawson gained. From the start of the voting, the majority of the RNC cast votes that indicate members want a new direction under a fresh leader, rather than a chairman who is linked to the unpopular former president.

Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation

2009-01-30T05:28:00.001-06:00

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, approving equal-pay legislation that he said would “send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody.”

Mr. Obama was surrounded by a group of beaming lawmakers, most but not all of them Democrats, in the East Room of the White House as he affixed his signature to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law named for an Alabama woman who at the end of a 19-year career as a supervisor in a tire factory complained that she had been paid less than men.

After a Supreme Court ruling against her, Congress approved the legislation that expands workers’ rights to sue in this kind of case, relaxing the statute of limitations.

“It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness,” the president said.

He said was signing the bill not only in honor of Ms. Ledbetter — who stood behind him, shaking her head and clasping her hands in seeming disbelief — but in honor of his own grandmother, “who worked in a bank all her life, and even after she hit that glass ceiling, kept getting up again” and for his daughters, “because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams.”

The ceremony, and a reception afterward in the State Dining Room of the White House, had a celebratory feel. The East Room was packed with advocates for civil rights and workers rights; the legislators, who included House and Senate leaders and two moderate Republicans — Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine — shook Mr. Obama’s hand effusively (some, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, received presidential pecks on the cheek) as he took the stage. They looked over his shoulder, practically glowing, as Mr. Obama signed his name to the bill, using one pen for each letter.

“I’ve been practicing signing my name very slowly,” Mr. Obama said wryly, looking at a bank of pens before him. He handed the first pen to the bill’s chief sponsor, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, and the last to Ms. Ledbetter.

The ceremony also marked First Lady Michelle Obama’s policy debut; she spoke afterward in a reception in the State Dining Room, where she called Ms. Ledbetter “one of my favorite people.”

Mr. Obama told Ms. Ledbetter’s story over and over again during his campaign for the White House; she spoke frequently as an advocate for him during his campaign, and made an appearance at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Now 70, Ms. Ledbetter discovered when she was nearing retirement that her male colleagues were earning much more than she was. A jury found her employer, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Gadsden, Ala., guilty of pay discrimination. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court threw out the case, ruling that she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her peers.

Congress tried to pass a law that would have effectively overturned the decision while President George W. Bush was still in office, but the White House opposed the bill; opponents contended it would encourage lawsuits and argued that employees could delay filing their claims in the hope of reaping bigger rewards. But the new Congress passed the bill, which restarts the six-month clock every time the worker receives a paycheck.

Ms. Ledbetter will not see any money as a result of the legislation Mr. Obama signed into law. But what she has gotten, aside from celebrity, is personal satisfaction, as she said in the State Dining Room after the signing ceremony.

“Goodyear will never have to pay me what it cheated me out of,” she said. “In fact, I will never see a cent. But with the president’s signature today I have an even richer reward.”

Obama May Seek Republican for Cabinet

2009-01-30T05:24:00.001-06:00

By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama and his advisers have approached Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, about becoming commerce secretary, a step that could open the way to significant shift in the balance of power in Congress.

If Mr. Gregg accepted the post, he would probably be replaced by a Democrat. Now, there are 58 Democrats in the Senate, with the number rising to 59 if Al Franken of Minnesota is seated after the court challenge to his race is completed. The replacement of Mr. Gregg could give Democrats 60 seats, the number needed to control the legislative agenda without the threat of Republican filibusters.

Earlier this week, Mr. Gregg was quoted praising the president as “a tour de force.” Asked Thursday about his interest in the commerce job, Mr. Gregg said he would not discuss it.

“I can’t tell you anything,” said Mr. Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. “I have no comment.”

Mr. Gregg is nearing the end of his third term in the Senate, and faces re-election in 2010. Should he accept the position, New Hampshire’s governor, John Lynch, a Democrat, would appoint his successor and would be likely to pick a Democrat.

The possibility was a surprise to some of Mr. Gregg’s Republican colleagues, who at the moment have the bare minimum number of senators to raise procedural hurdles to Democratic measures. If Democrats captured a 60th seat, it would give them added muscle to push Mr. Obama’s agenda.

The post of commerce secretary is the only remaining position in Mr. Obama’s cabinet for which there is no nominee. It became vacant last month after Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico withdrew his name in the wake of a federal investigation into state government contracts.

Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, said Thursday evening that “the president has still not made his pick.” A senior administration official said the commerce secretary position had not been narrowed down to a sole finalist.

House Passes Stimulus Package - List of Roll Call Vote

2009-01-30T02:13:00.004-06:00

In response to an overwhelming number of inquiries on who voted for and against the Stimulus Bill, I found the information over at thomas.loc.gov

The information is as follows for H.R. 1 as introduced by Rep. David Obey (D-WI)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 46
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined) H R 1

YEA-AND-NAY 28-Jan-2009 6:11 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year ending 2009

Democratic
244 YEAS
11 NAYS

Republican

0 YEAS
177 NAYS
1 NOT VOTING

TOTALS
244 YEAS
188 NAYS
1 NOT VOTING

Abercrombie Ackerman Adler (NJ)Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Barrow Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boccieri Boren Boswell Boucher Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine; Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson (IN) Castor (FL) Chandler Childers Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly (VA) Conyers Costa Costello Courtney Crowley Cuellar Cummings Dahlkemper Davis (AL); Davis (CA); Davis (IL); Davis (TN); DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly (IN) Doyle Driehaus Edwards (MD); Edwards (TX); Ellison Engel Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Foster Frank (MA) Fudge Giffords Gonzalez Gordon (TN) Grayson Green, Al; Green, Gene; Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Halvorson Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Heinrich Herseth Sandlin; Higgins Hill Himes Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL); Jackson-Lee (TX); Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B.; Kagen Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick (MI); Kilroy Kind Kirkpatrick (AZ); Kissell Klein (FL); Kosmas Kucinich Langevin Larsen (WA); Larson (CT); Lee (CA); Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe; Lowey Luján Lynch Maffei Maloney Markey (CO); Markey (MA); Marshall Massa Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY); McCollum McDermott McGovern McIntyre McMahon McNerney Meek (FL); Meeks (NY); Melancon Michaud Miller (NC); Miller, George; Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS); Moore (WI); Moran (VA); Murphy (CT); Murphy, Patrick; Murtha Nadler (NY) Napolitano Neal (MA) Nye Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ)Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Perriello Peters Pingree (ME) Polis (CO) Pomeroy Price (NC)Rahall Rangel Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Ross Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Salazar Sánchez, Linda T.; Sanchez, Loretta; Sarbanes Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA); Scott (VA); Serrano Sestak Shea-Porter Sherman Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (WA) Snyder Solis (CA)Space Speier Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tanner Tauscher Teague Thompson (CA); Thompson (MS); Tierney Titus Tonko Towns Tsongas VanHollen Velázquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman SchultzWaters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch Wexler Wilson (OH) Woolsey WuYarmuth

NAYS

Aderholt Akin Alexander Austria Bachmann Bachus Barrett (SC); Bartlett Barton (TX)Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Mack; Boozman BoustanyBoyd Brady (TX) Bright Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN)Buyer Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Cao Capito Carter Cassidy Castle Chaffetz Coble Coffman (CO)Cole Conaway Cooper Crenshaw Culberson Davis (KY) Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L.;Diaz-Balart M.; Dreier Duncan Ehlers Ellsworth Emerson Fallin Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ); Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gingrey (GA)Gohmert Goodlatte Granger Graves Griffith Guthrie Hall (TX) Harper Hastings (WA)Heller Hensarling Herger Hoekstra Hunter Inglis Issa Jenkins Johnson (IL); Johnson, Sam; Jones Jordan (OH)Kanjorski King (IA); King (NY); Kingston Kirk Kline (MN) Kratovil Lamborn Lance Latham LaTourette Latta Lee (NY); Lewis (CA); Linder LoBiondo Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Lungren, Daniel E.; Mack Manzullo Marchant McCarthy (CA)McCaul McClintock McCotter McHenry McHugh McKeon McMorris-Rodgers; Mica Miller (FL); Miller (MI); Miller, Gary; Minnick Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim; Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Olson Paul Paulsen Pence Peterson Petri Pitts Platts Poe (TX); Posey Price (GA); Putnam Radanovich Rehberg Reichert Roe (TN) Rogers (AL); Rogers (KY); Rogers (MI); Rohrabacher Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Royce Ryan (WI)Scalise Schmidt Schock Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Smith (NE); Smith (NJ); Smith (TX); Souder Stearns Sullivan Taylor Terry Thompson (PA)Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walden Wamp Westmoreland Whitfield Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Young (AK); Young (FL)

---- NOT VOTING 1 ---
Brown-Waite, Ginny

Here is a list of the 11 Democrats who cross-over in a true bi-partisan manner and voted NAY:

Boyd, Allen (FL-2)

Bright, Bobby (AL-2)

Cooper, Jim (TN-5)

Ellsworth, Brad (IN-8)

Griffith, Parker (AL-5)

Kanjorski, Paul (PA-11)

Kratovil, Frank Jr., (MD-1)

Minnick, Walt (ID-1)

Peterson, Collin (MN-7)

Shuler, Heath (NC-11)

Taylor, Gene (MS-4)

These 11 members are going to be under a lot of pressure from Nancy Pelosi and Democratic House Leadership, two of whom are pictured below. Please take the time to thank the 11 bi-partisan democrats for their courageous stand. I have linked their websites to their names in the above list.

AP: IMPEACHED! Blagojevich Out, Quinn In

2009-01-29T18:33:00.002-06:00

Ill. Gov Unanimously Convicted, Tossed from Office

By Christopher Wills
Associated Press

Gov. Rod Blagojevich was unanimously convicted at his impeachment trial and thrown out of office Thursday, ending a nearly two-month crisis that erupted with his arrest on charges he tried to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat. Blagojevich becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.

After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat. Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, one of his critics, immediately became governor.

In a second 59-0 vote, the Senate further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in Illinois again.

"He failed the test of character. He is beneath the dignity of the state of Illinois. He is no longer worthy to be our governor," said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Republican from suburban Chicago.

Blagojevich's ordeal is far from over. Federal prosecutors are expected to bring a corruption indictment against him by April, after which a trial date will be set.

Blagojevich, 52, had boycotted the first three days of the impeachment trial, calling the proceedings a kangaroo court. But on Thursday, he went before the Senate to beg for his job, delivering a 47-minute plea that was, by turns, defiant, humble and sentimental.

He argued, again, that he did nothing wrong, and warned that his impeachment would set a "dangerous and chilling precedent."

"You haven't proved a crime, and you can't because it didn't happen," Blagojevich (pronounced blah-GOY-uh-vich) told the lawmakers. "How can you throw a governor out of office with insufficient and incomplete evidence?"

The verdict brought to an end what one lawmaker branded "the freak show" in Illinois. Over the past few weeks, Blagojevich found himself isolated, with almost the entire political establishment lined up against him. The furor paralyzed state government and made Blagojevich and his helmet of lush, dark hair a punchline from coast to coast.

In a solemn scene, more than 30 lawmakers rose one by one on the Senate floor to accuse Blagojevich of abusing his office and embarrassing the state. They denounced him as a hypocrite, saying he cynically tried to enrich himself and then posed as the brave protector of the poor and "wrapped himself in the constitution" by decrying the impeachment process as unfair.

They sprinkled their remarks historical references, from Pearl Harbor's "day of infamy" to "the whole world is watching" chant from the riots that broke out during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. They cited Abraham Lincoln, the Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus as they called for the governor's removal.

"We have this thing called impeachment and it's bleeping golden and we've used it the right way," Democratic Sen. James Meeks of Chicago said during the debate, mocking Blagojevich's expletive-laden words as captured by the FBI on a wiretap.

Not a single legislator rose in Blagojevich's defense.

Blagojevich did not stick around to hear the vote. He took a state plane back to Chicago. Returning to his North Side home, he told reporters he planned to go jogging. But he had not left the house when the vote came down.

The verdict capped a head-spinning string of developments that began less than two months ago. It was widely known that federal prosecutors had been investigating Blagojevich's administration for years - some of his closest cronies have already been convicted - but his Dec. 9 arrest by the FBI caught nearly everyone off guard.

The most spectacular allegation was that Blagojevich had been caught on wiretaps scheming to sell an appointment to Obama's Senate seat for campaign cash or a plum job for himself or his wife.

"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it," he was quoted as saying on a government wiretap.

Prosecutors also said he illegally pressured people to make campaign contributions and tried to get editorial writers fired from the Chicago Tribune for badmouthing him in print.

Obama himself, fresh from his historic election victory, was forced to look into the matter and issued a report concluding that no one in his inner circle had done anything wrong.

In the brash and often theatrical style that has infuriated fellow politicians for years, Blagojevich repeatedly refused to resign, reciting the poetry of Kipling and Tennyson and declaring at one point last month: "I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong."

Even as lawmakers were deciding whether to launch an impeachment, Blagojevich defied the political establishment and stunned everyone by appointing a former Illinois attorney general, Roland Burris, to the very Senate seat he had been accused of trying to sell. Top Democrats on Capitol Hill eventually backed down and seated Burris.

As his trial got under way, Blagojevich launched a media blitz, rushing from one TV studio to another in New York to proclaim his innocence. He likened himself to the hero of a Frank Capra movie and to a cowboy in the hands of a Wild West lynch mob.

The impeachment case included not only the criminal charges against Blagojevich, but allegations he broke the law when it came to hiring state workers, expanded a health care program without legislative approval and spent $2.6 million on flu vaccine that went to waste. The 118-member House twice voted to impeach him, both times with only one "no" vote.

By making a speech in the Senate chamber instead of testifying, Blagojevich did not have to take an oath or answer any questions.

In his plea, Blagojevich portrayed himself as a victim of retaliation from the Legislature for his efforts to help the poor.

He acknowledged the truth about his conduct is "maybe not flattering in some cases," referring to the secretly recorded conversations. But he said the tapes captured something that "all of us in politics do in order to run campaigns and win elections."

Seven other U.S. governors have been removed by impeachment, the most recent being Arizona's Evan Mecham, who was driven from office in 1988 for trying to thwart an investigation into a death threat allegedly made by an aide. Illinois never before impeached a governor, despite its long and rich history of graft.

Blagojevich grew up in a working-class Chicago neighborhood, the son of a Serbian immigrant steelworker. He graduated from Northwestern University and earned a law degree from Pepperdine University in California.

Schooled in the bare-knuckle, backroom politics of the infamous Chicago Machine, he got elected to the Illinois House in 1992 and Congress in 1996.

In 2002, he was elected governor on a promise to clean up state government after former GOP Gov. George Ryan, who is serving six years in prison for graft. But he soon wound up in open battles with lawmakers from his own party, leading to gridlock. And scandal followed as well.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a former top fundraiser for Blagojevich, was convicted of shaking down businesses seeking state contracts for campaign contributions. Witnesses testified that Blagojevich was aware of some of the strong-arm tactics. Rezko is said to be cooperating with prosecutors.

Quinn, the new governor, is a 60-year-old former state treasurer who has a reputation as a political gadfly and once led a successful effort to cut the size of the Illinois House.

Obama-Limbaugh battle a sign of GOP leadership vacuum

2009-01-29T18:27:00.001-06:00

by Joe Garofoli,
San Francisco Chronicle

President Obama has made his first tactical error of his young presidency: He called out conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

It happened the other day while Obama was visiting with congressional Republicans in an effort to get them to support his economic stimulus package. Said Obama to the lawmakers: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

On his Monday program, Limbaugh shot back that the president was "obviously more frightened of me than he is of (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me than he is of, say, (House Minority Leader) John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

It wasn't that Obama's mention was mean or personal, analysts said. But in citing Limbaugh as influential, the president of the United States elevated a talk show host to his level - the leader of the free world. And in a leadership vacuum like the one that conservatives find themselves in after last November's devastating electoral losses, loud voices - like Limbaugh's with his 13 million weekly listeners - echo even louder.

On Wednesday, Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., apologized to Limbaugh on his program for telling Politico.com the day before that "it's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks," referring to their criticizing Republicans for not challenging the stimulus package.

Taking credit

Surely on today's program, Limbaugh will take credit for not a single Republican House member supporting the stimulus package that passed Wednesday. On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh called it the "porkulus" package, for all the pork-barrel projects he saw in it.

But while an Oval Office shout-out may temporarily elevate a man who refers to himself as El Rushbo, it doesn't make Limbaugh the de facto leader of the Republican Party or the conservative movement. He is, analysts say, a "conveyer belt" of information, influencer of the wider talk radio universe and an outside-the-Beltway party whip who reins in wayward Republicans - as in those veering toward political moderation.

"Whenever a national party is in search of its identity, its mojo, figures like Rush will fill the vacuum," said Mike Franc, a vice president for government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "But in this situation, he doesn't fill the idea. He's more of an idea aggregator."

New party chair

The real rebuilding of the conservative brand begins Friday when the Republican Party chooses who will be its new party chair. In the absence of a GOP president, House speaker or Senate majority leader, that person will become the face of Republicanism on cable and network chat shows, the party's chief fundraiser and one of conservatism's leaders at a time in which the movement is desperately searching for some leadership.

That quest will continue next month, when hard-core conservatives gather at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference, a coming-to-Mecca type of conference featuring the party's up-and-comers, such as Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

But while the official search goes forward, there is little question that the subtle backhand from Obama gave Limbaugh manna from heaven in talk radio terms.

"Oh, it doesn't get any better than that," said Melanie Morgan, a conservative activist and commentator who used to be part of a highly rated talk show on San Francisco's KSFO-AM. "To have the president of the United States mention you by name, wow."

Champagne time

"The Champagne is flowing in Rush Limbaugh's house," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, which chronicles the estimated 3,000 talk radio personalities. Its estimate of Limbaugh's audience at 13 million weekly listeners is based on a combination of Arbitron ratings and its own metrics. "Obama gave Limbaugh the most fabulous gift you can give a talk radio host."

Obama's comment came not long after Limbaugh told his listeners that he hopes Obama fails. "We are being told we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to grab our ankles ... because his father was black, because he's the first black president, we've got to accept this."

And as for Obama, "He's probably made the first blunder since he took office," Harrison said. "He's the president of the United States, and anytime you tell people not to listen to someone, you're elevating that person to your level."

"Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than an influential talk radio host. He doesn't represent anyone but himself," Harrison said. In 2002, Talkers named Limbaugh its "Greatest Radio Talk Show Host of All Time."

Big audience, salary

While liberals have compiled 20 years worth of Limbaugh's misinformation and truth-bending rants, he brings home big audiences at a time when media is fragmenting into smaller ones. Last year, he signed a contract extension to continue doing his nationally-syndicated program through 2016 for a reported $400 million.

Limbaugh led the national talk radio revolution in the late 1980s and early 1990s and became a force in rallying support for former Rep. Gingrich, R-Ga., to lead a Republican takeover of the House in 1994. That year, the conservative standard-bearer magazine National Review anointed him on its cover "The Leader of the Opposition."

That said, Limbaugh "is not a leader in the party," said David Keane, chairman of the American Conservative Union, the nation's largest and oldest grassroots conservative lobbying organization and the host of CPAC. "He can't fulfill that role because that's not where he works."

"He's very influential on issues because he becomes sort of a conveyer belt of information to all of these people out there. Everyone else in the talk radio world sort of spins off him, the Sean Hannity's and such of the world," Keane said.

In Congress, Franc of the Heritage Foundation said, many lawmakers pine for Limbaugh's ability to translate complicated policy into simple language and place it in a conservative framework. "There is a lot of Rush-envy there," said Franc, a former staffer for former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a leader of the mid-1990s Republican revolution.

As for Democrats, "They wish that I would just vanishhhhhhh," Limbaugh said on his Wednesday show, stretching out the last syllable as he often does in his corner of the theater of the mind.

But not every conservative is a fan. Last October, shortly after announcing his support for Obama for president, conservative commentator Christopher Buckley took umbrage at Limbaugh replacing his father, the late William F. Buckley, as a conservative icon.

"Rush, I knew William F. Buckley Jr. William F. Buckley Jr. was a father of mine," Christopher Buckley wrote. "Rush, you're no William F. Buckley Jr."

E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Obama holds GOP-only talks on stimulus package

2009-01-28T06:49:00.002-06:00

by Carolyn Lochhead,
San Francisco Chronicle
Washington Bureau

It's a rare sight in Washington to see the president walking the halls of the Congress, stopping to talk to reporters in the usual hallway haunts, and rarer still to see him meet with the opposition party to hear their ideas on the first big legislation of his presidency.

Still stranger was this: The leaders of the out-of-power party, thrashed in two consecutive elections and the subject of all this presidential courting, told their members to vote against the president before he even arrived to hear their grievances.

Hours before President Obama arrived Tuesday for GOP-only talks in the House and Senate on the $825 billion economic stimulus bill, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio and his deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, told a closed-door meeting of Republicans to vote against the bill because it has too much government and will not revive the economy.

To be sure, Republicans sounded less churlish when they came out of their meetings with Obama. They sang his praises for reaching out to them and instead blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and other Democratic leaders for writing the legislation without them.

Surprised by openness

Some seemed surprised at how friendly and open Obama was. Others noted the advantages he brought as a former Senate colleague.

"One of his great strengths is, he's very comfortable with himself, and therefore others are comfortable with him," said Senate Republican conference chair Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. "I think he has a certain ease about him. He did as a senator, and I think he's made an easy transition to the presidency. After all, as he did remind us, he's only been there five days."

Even the most conservative Republicans praised Obama as being genuine and open before denouncing the stimulus as a waste of money and a pile of new debt.

Republicans want more tax cuts. Economists argue that the problem with tax cuts is that in recessions, they are mostly saved, not spent, and so have very little stimulative effect. Republicans acknowledged that and so argued to make them permanent - essentially the policy of the Bush administration.

Obama said that part of his effort is to change politics as usual in Washington and break through the traditional partisan bickering over ideology to focus on what might work.

He argued that economic indicators are so bad - including plans to lay off tens of thousands more people announced on Monday by major companies such as Home Depot and Caterpillar - that Congress should pull together quickly behind a stimulus plan that can help stop the bleeding.

"I try to remind people that even with modifications made in the House, we still have $275 billion of tax cuts" in the stimulus Obama said. He said he reminded Republicans that he started out with $300 billion in tax cuts "that got a lot of praise from the Republican side and some grousing from my side of the aisle. I think we're still working through the process, but I'm very grateful" for the opportunity to listen.

The House is set to vote on the bill today. The Senate will take longer, and then the two different versions must be reconciled - a point at which House Republicans plan to make their presence felt.

Bipartisan hopes

The White House is hoping for a bipartisan vote to set the tone for much tougher battles to come over a new banking-system rescue, health care reform, energy and a host of other issues.

Obama asked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, to remove from the bill $200 million for family-planning services to low-income people that had become a hot Republican talking point. Waxman complied.

"The president took some very tough questions, didn't dodge them, gave very direct and specific answers," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. Nonetheless, Bennett, echoing many other Republicans, said he and others "are not completely convinced that it will, in fact, produce a stimulus."

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who recently suggested that Guantanamo Bay prisoners should be sent to Alcatraz, complained that "bailing out profligate states like California that have not been able to control their budget does not seem to me to be the highest priority for federal spending."

Republicans also pointed out Congressional Budget Office estimates for the stimulus that show an additional nearly $350 billion in interest payments over 10 years, bringing the total cost of the stimulus to nearly $1.2 trillion. They said Obama may want to make investments, but congressional Democrats added items that Bond said were "just thrown in at the last minute" and won't stop job losses.

President confident

Obama said he is confident that things can be worked out.

"But the key right now is to make sure that we keep politics to a minimum," he said. "There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have, and I respect that. In some cases, they may just not be as familiar with what's in the package as I would like. I don't expect 100 percent agreement from my Republican colleagues, but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, said she ran into a GOP colleague who had just come out of the meeting with Obama.

"He said, 'He's just so impressive,' " Tauscher said. "I said, 'He's the real deal, isn't he?' But will he vote with us tomorrow? Probably not."

She blasted Boehner and Cantor for urging their members to vote against the package before even listening to what Obama had to say.

"Are you really going to listen to the people who lost the House for you?" Tauscher commented. "At some point, you have to vote your conscience."

Chronicle staff writer Zachary Coile contributed to this report. E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.