Join The NRA

join_nra071

Celebration of American Values

http://www.nra.org/

California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics: Kevin Hassett

California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

July 6 (Bloomberg) — Last week, we discovered that the state of California will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

With California mired in a budget crisis, largely the result of a political impasse that makes spending cuts and tax increases impossible, Controller John Chiang said the state planned to issue $3.3 billion in IOU’s in July alone. Instead of cash, those who do business with California will get slips of paper.

The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

Bleak Picture

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.

Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn’t add up.

Character Deficit

Back in the 1980s, Reagan’s own economist, Martin Feldstein, spoke up when he felt that the Reagan administration was pushing the deficit too far. Where are the economists with such character today? Apparently, the job description for economists has transformed from recommending policies that are defensible to defending whatever policies that the political hacks in the West Wing dream up.

As bad as the California legislature has been over the years, it has never entered a fiscal crisis like the one that we face today and then doubled down with a massive spending increase. In the end, when times got tough, patriotic and sensible Californians of both parties stood up and began acting like adults.

Maybe the same thing is starting to happen in our nation’s capital. The key players in Washington are Senator Evan Bayh and 15 Senate Democrats who joined him this year in forming a coalition of moderates. One thing that has distinguished moderate Democrats from the garden variety of the species is heightened concern about fiscal responsibility.

Off a Cliff

With the price tag of Obama-care likely to exceed $1 trillion, moderate Democrats face a simple choice. They can jump off the cliff with the president, or they can stay true to the principles that they have espoused throughout their careers.

There are reassuring signs that principle is winning. One of the most expensive components of the Obama plan is the so- called public-insurance option, which opponents fear would result in massive government subsidies. Senator Mary Landrieu said that she is “not open” to a public option that will compete with private insurance.

Many other Democratic Senators, including Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Carper, also oppose the public option. As the cost estimates increase and support wanes, the Senate Finance Committee is even going as far as to pursue its own health-care plan, meaning that the health-care end game is now in sight.

Tax Bite

Moderates might support Obama’s health-care objectives if the bill also included tax increases to cover the spending increases. But those tax increases would likely be unpopular, making it almost impossible to pass a bill.

Given the increasing public concern about deficits that heightened significantly last week because of the California crisis, there are only two possibilities left. Either the Obama plan will come crashing down or Senate Democrats will concoct some bill that has health in the title but costs almost nothing and does even less. With Al Franken arriving in the Senate and providing Democrats with a crucial 60th vote, the latter seems most likely.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: July 6, 2009 00:01 EDT

Back to business: Stop the cap-and-tax bill

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

Back to business: Stop the cap-and-tax bill

By Michelle Malkin  •  July 6, 2009 11:21 AM


Photoshop: Leo Alberti

We celebrated our freedoms this Independence Day. Now, it’s time to fight for them. Hope you are feeling energized. There is much work to be done.

On the front-burner: Defeating the cap-and-tax bill.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearings on Tuesday.

Spruiell and Williamson have an excellent rundown of Waxman-Markey’s garden of piggish delights. The unions get a cap-and-pay-off. Heritage must-read research and analysis here.

Which senators to target? Here:

Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them control 60 Senate seats. But more than a dozen have expressed concern over costs. They include Democrats from industry-heavy Ohio and Michigan, coal-dependent Indiana and oil-rich Louisiana.

Only a few Republicans appear open to emissions limits, notably two moderates from Maine — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe — and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who championed emissions limits in his presidential campaign (though he has expressed reservations about the House bill).

The Senate bill will emerge from several committees — including the finance, foreign relations, commerce and agriculture committees — with dramatically different memberships and priorities.

The energy committee already has approved its chunk with wide bipartisan support. It includes a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources, but also expands drilling — a possible deal-breaker for environmentalists.

Boxer’s committee will center its work on cap and trade. The House bill would cut U.S. emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Environmentalists expect Boxer, who said she was “looking closely” at those limits, to strengthen them.

Yes, the fate of cap-and-tax is in the hands of Republicans like John McCain. As I warned last May, Sen. McCain has been a member of the global warming hysteria cult for years. A reminder:

Climatologist Patrick Michaels had McCain pegged four years ago, when The Maaaveerrick convened ridiculously, eco-Chicken Little-stacked hearings:

Recent U.S. Senate hearings into alleged global warming, chaired by Arizona Republican John McCain, were among the “most biased” that a noted climatologist has ever seen – “much less balanced than anything I saw in the Clinton administration,” he said.

Patrick J. Michaels is the author of a new book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.” He is an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia who believes that claims of human-caused “global warming” are scientifically unfounded.

Michaels spoke with CNSNews.com Thursday following a panel discussion sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where Michaels also serves as a senior fellow in environmental studies.

“John McCain, a Republican, has probably held the most biased hearing of all,” Michaels said. McCain is a big proponent of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which he believes are causing “global warming.” The Arizona senator also “is trying to define himself as an environmental Republican, which he is going to use to differentiate himself from his rivals for the (presidential) nomination in 2008,” according to Michaels.

You can bet McCain won’t be visiting with Michaels on his climate change tour anytime soon. The truth would get in the way of his crusade:

Citing a visit he had to the Arctic with several U.S. senators last summer, McCain made it clear that he believed human-caused “global warming” was a certainty.

“It was remarkable going up on a small ship next to this glacier and seeing where it had been just 10 short years ago and how quickly it’s receded,” McCain told the New York Times…

…McCain also warned about what he saw as the rapid pace of Arctic warming, evidenced by the arrival of wildlife that had never previously been seen in the region. “The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin and now there are robins all over their villages,” he told the Times.

Michaels refuted McCain’s assertions about the North Pole, noting that the Arctic has actually been warmer in the past than it is now.

“It was warmer 4 to 7,000 years ago [in the Arctic.] Every climatologist knows that. I saw no mention of that in the Arctic report that was paraded in front of McCain,” Michaels said. He added that the past warming of the Arctic couldn’t possibly be blamed on greenhouse gas emissions since it occurred long before the industrial era.

In 2003, Iain Murray debunked McCain’s anecdote about how he got interested in global warming:

He is on record as saying that the reason he became interested in global warming in the first place is because he recognized how much hotter it was getting at his home in Sedona, Ariz. Unfortunately, the data don’t back him up on this. If we look at the temperature records from the nearby Childs weather station, we can actually see a downward trend in temperature of slightly over 1° F. since 1986, when McCain was elected to the Senate. Another nearby station, Fort Valley, shows a very slight upwards trend. You can see these trends for yourself by looking at the official records available at the CO2science.org website. Certainly there are upward trends elsewhere in Arizona, but these are balanced by downward trends — Tucson has cooled while Tombstone has warmed. Arizona makes a poor poster boy for global-warming theory.

Like Barack Obama, McCain touts a “cap-and-trade” system as the free-market answer to reducing carbon emissions. Analysts who haven’t been bitten by the global warming alarmist bug beg to differ–and evidence from cap-and-trade systems already in operation back them up:

….the world has already witnessed many unpleasant surprises with Europe’s ongoing efforts to impose a cap and trade program under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions. Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. Further, despite ongoing criticism of the United States from Kyoto parties for failing to ratify the treaty, emissions in many of these nations are actually rising faster than in the United States.

The European experience also shows the problem of cap and trade fraud.[6] None other than Enron’s Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade when the idea was first floated in the 1990s, saying that it could “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative.” These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business. Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade–often at public expense–are not.

Sen. McCain needs to hear from folks other than Al Gore acolytes. Someone might want to introduce him, for example, to Alan Carlin. Sen. McCain’s email form is here and phone contact info:

Phoenix Office:
5353 North 16th Street
Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Main: 602-952-2410
Fax: 602-952-8702

Tempe Office:
4703 South Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1
Tempe, AZ 85282
Main: 480-897-6289
Fax: 480-897-8389

Tucson Office:
407 West Congress Street
Suite 103
Tucson, AZ 85701
Main: 520-670-6334
Fax: 520-670-6637

Washington Office:
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2235
Fax: 202-228-2862

Obama: ‘I am not naïve’

Obama: ‘I am not naïve’

Rosslyn Smith
That brief statement of Barack Obama’s last month seems every bit as risible as Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook”, after one reads the article on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Obama wrote for the student newspaper his senior year at Columbia.  The New York Times rediscovered  the student article  on Independence Day and seems to want to spin it as a sign of the president’s deep nature.

He railed against discussions of “first- versus second-strike capabilities” that “suit the military-industrial interests” with their “billion-dollar erector sets,” and agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads.

The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.” But his article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream.

 

Unfortunately that sorting out process hasn’t exactly progressed in 26 years.  Obama’s plans for a nuclear free world today are just as chock full of high sounding rhetoric and wishful thinking and just as bereft of details as they were when he was a senior at Columbia as to exactly how one is to accomplish such a lofty goal in a world of rogue nations. Conveniently forgotten by The Times is that all the nuclear freeze movement predictions Obama supported about the shape of the future were wrong.  Instead of leading to a nuclear Armageddon, the increases in defense spending under Reagan led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern block. 

 

Obama seems determined to continue to pursue the policy goals he held as a student instead of learning from two decades of subsequent real world events. What is even more disturbing is how people like Richard Lugar continue to give Obama high marks for “being a good listener” and a “serious student” as they patronizingly give him a pass on the implementation of workable plans. 

 

Most Americans outgrew their student mode shortly after they had to earn a living for themselves in jobs that had more quantifiable performance criteria than community organizing,  Obama naive? Throw in sophistic, jejune and purblind to everything isn’t a neat fit into ideological cubby holes that haven’t change in two decades and you’ll be on the right track. Frank Gaffney sums it up in Commentary:

 

“If the implications were not so serious, the discrepancy between Mr. Obama’s plans and real-world conditions would be hilarious,” said Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a Reagan-era Pentagon official who directs the Center for Security Policy, a private group in Washington.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_i_am_not_naieve.html at July 06, 2009 – 12:33:22 PM EDT

Sarah Palin: The Best is Yet to Come

Sarah Palin: The Best is Yet to Come

By J.R. Dunn

The response to Sarah Palin’s surprise resignation last Friday clearly reveals the limitations of the American political class, right, left, or what have you.

There’s an old academic joke, probably apocryphal, about Count Metternich, Austria’s foreign minister during the Napoleonic era. While attending the Congress of Vienna, Metternich is sleeping off a banquet when one of his aides bursts in at three in the morning. “Your excellency! Count Nesselrode, the Russian ambassador, just died.”

 

Metternich jerks awake. “Died, you say? What a terrible thing! I was speaking to him only tonight… Uhh… send a message to the Tsar — Austria regrets, and so forth…”

 

The aide leaves. Metternich gets up and paces the floor. After a moment he stops and rubs his chin. “So… Why did Nesselrode decide to do that now…”

 

We’re seeing the same thing today. Obsessive figures confronted with a simple human contingency and, unable to comprehend what’s right in front of their eyes, retreating instead into irrelevant speculation about whatever they know best. Simply put, in resigning her governorship and stepping away from active politics, Sarah Palin is not pulling any tricks, carrying out any maneuvers, or putting in motion any long-range plans. She is doing exactly what any normal, rational, un-driven human being would do under the same circumstances.

 

What are those circumstances? Consider her situation at the moment. By which we mean, her situation. Not the country’s situation, not the GOP’s situation, not the political situation in any sense at all. 

 

Her eldest son is serving in the military, in the war zone, at a particularly dangerous and violent moment, when the U.S. is transferring responsibility to the new and still untried Iraqi army.

 

Her eldest daughter is dealing with the twin burdens of a failed relationship and single motherhood, while also serving as a national joke for the same type of people who insisted that Chelsea Clinton and the Obama girls are off limits. This is a state of affairs that undoubtedly requires much in the way of TLC from Palin.

 

Her second youngest daughter has recently come under the gun thanks to that epitome of class, David Letterman. All excuses aside, the A-Rod joke was a transparent attempt at seeing if it was now safe to go after Willow, the rest of the Palin family having been run through the mill one after the other. It occurred at an awkward age for a girl, when events such as this can leave a serious mark. Another instance where mom must be available.

 

And lastly, Palin has a disabled infant child, one who has already been victimized by the left-wing blogosphere and the mass media. Downs children are very high-functioning. It’s easily possible for Trig to have a golden life as long as close attention is paid to his upbringing and education. His mother will be the crucial figure here.

 

So what does a woman do under such circumstances? A real woman, not a pol in a skirt.  A wife and a mother, someone with a clear hierarchy of values. Why, she steps out. She removes herself from the firing line. Returns to what matters. She retreats from the public world for the verities of family and community.

 

There’s nothing difficult to understand here. All the comments we’ve heard from the mass media, from the political experts, and from the operatives, merely reveal the limitations of the commentators.

 

But what about her greater obligations? To that of conservatism as a movement, for instance? It happens to have been the movement conservatives — at least those of the Northeast Corridor, who on the basis of tradition consider themselves to be the core of the movement — who led the charge against Palin on her selection as vice-presidential candidate. Not the left. Not the mass media. But conservatives (I won’t add quotes — not yet, anyway) such as Frum, Parker, and Brooks, who found her to be just the slightest touch déclassé. She did not understand the Modern Dance. Her taste in claret was undependable. Her reading of the Federalist No. 63 was, shall we say, idiosyncratic? These people have no call on her whatsoever.

 

And the GOP? Doesn’t she owe her party anything? Just a few short days after her youngest daughter was humiliated on one of the most widely-watched late-night shows in the country, an obvious hit piece appeared in that balanced journal of the higher intellect, Vanity Fair, in which certain unnamed GOP officials revealed the true Sarah Palin: Sarah as Michael Jackson, Sarah the narcissist, who lived in a dream world and was overwhelmed by “demons”.  The fact that GOP figures would cooperate with a rag like Vanity Fair in the first place puts a period to any talk of a party connection. The GOP obviously has an agenda. It is not Sarah Palin’s agenda. Nor, more than likely, ours either.

 

And what about Alaska? Palin is one of the outstanding governors of our time, possibly surpassed only by Rick Perry, infinitely superior to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jennifer Granholm, or Mitt Romney, to mention only a few members of a large crowd. She went a long way toward cleaning up the Juneau cesspool, wound up the negotiations for a gas pipeline that had been languishing for decades, and put her state on the national radar screen for the first time since 1958. But her usefulness as governor was probably drawing to an end. If she were to show interest in a 2012 run, she could depend on Obama’s crew doing everything possible to drag her down — and going through her state to do it.

 

Chicago would put Alaska through the grinder, a very easy thing to accomplish from Washington. In fact, it could be argued that this campaign has already begun, with the slow death-by-cuts action against the National Missile Defense center at Fort Greeley. Even as the ballistic missile threat from North Korea and Iran grows more urgent, Obama is dismantling the sole serious defense against it. (Am I implying that O would jeopardize the country’s safety to assure his political career? Well, what do you think?) In a real sense, Palin’s resignation at this time can be viewed as yet another service to her state.

 

So Sarah Palin has left the stage, for perfectly justifiable reasons, and taken her family with her. The mob still waits, unfamiliar with normal behavior from a public figure, eager for more cheap laughs. But there will be no encore. Not right away.

 

She will be back. Not for 2012. The GOP has its plans already worked out. Very clever ones, too. The Republicans will do what they always do when they’re up against it: grab an empty suit and run around shaking it in people’s faces while shouting, “Here’s the man!” By 2012, after his policies really hit home, as gas and home fuel prices triple and quadruple, as medical rationing begins, as the renewed Axis of Evil runs wild across Eurasia, Obama will be ready to drop. At that point he could be defeated by a ticket consisting of Charley Manson and Jojo the Dogface Boy. But the GOP will blow it all the same. Exactly as the party did in ‘96, following the same script to the letter. They will, to coin a phrase, Mitt it up.

 

That moment will mark the start of a new phase for Sarah Palin. The exquisite branch of conservatism will drift away, assuring each other that “It’s still possible to live well in a dying civilization.” The GOP operatives will, as always, be blaming the “legacy of Reagan” and looking for a RINO who can somehow fool the backwoods rubes. Obama will spend his entire second term racing back and forth trying to put out forest fires using buckets with holes in them. Palin’s enemies will have destroyed themselves, and her moment will come at last.

 

Democracies never stop halfway, no matter what it is: good or bad, intelligent or stupid, harmful or beneficial, they have to go the whole route before at last changing course. The U.S. could not abandon Great Society liberalism in 1976, it had to wait until 1980. The UK could not put aside postwar Labour policies until they were ground down to the last (the Brits went so far as to elect Harold Wilson to two nonconsecutive terms — something similar to re-electing Jimmy Carter in 1984. Talk about desperation moves!)

 

While that process unfolded, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan served long apprenticeships, learning all they had to know. Sarah Palin is embarking on the same course now.

 

Sarah Palin is not ready, they insist. It’s just as apt to say that we — the GOP, the conservative establishment, the country — are not ready for her. An electorate will always fall for the professional pol, slick, convincing, and empty, before turning in desperation to the truly human candidate. But the time will come.

 

In a few years her children will be settled, she will no longer have hostages to fortune, and the laughter will have long died away. That is when the lady will start shuffling the cards. We will all have further opportunity to wonder what Sarah Palin is up to.

J.R. Dunn is contributing editor of American Thinker.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/sarah_palin_the_best_is_yet_to.html at July 06, 2009 – 12:29:58 PM EDT

Palin’s Gambit

Palin’s Gambit
By: Gregory Gethard
Tuesday, July 07, 2009

 


Sarah Palin’s surprise resignation as governor may not be as crazy as it sounds.

Is she crazy? Or is she crazy like a fox? That’s the question being asked of former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin after her stunning announcement last Friday that she will resign as Alaska’s governor later this month.

 

From the left and the right, the puzzlement is the same: Why has Palin decided to leave her office so abruptly? Republican strategist Ed Rollins, noting that “everyone is shocked” by Palin’s decision, asserts that “everyone is going to assume there’s another story. You don’t just quit with a year and a half to go.” National Democrats, meanwhile, are licking their chops at Palin’s announcement, with some suggesting that she “simply can’t handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down.”

 

Palin certainly has had a tough go of it lately. Her children have been pushed into the political fray thanks to Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s baby, who recently posed shirtless in an issue of GQ magazine. Palin also became embroiled in a very public feud with late-night host David Letterman, who made crude jokes about her children. And Vanity Fair has just published an attack on Palin’s vice-presidential campaign, based on the complaints of disgruntled McCain staffers who always despaired at having the governor on the ticket and remain bitter even today.

 

Palin has also faced local trouble in Alaska. In particular, she has been the subject of a series of ethics complaints, all but two of which have been dismissed. Palin and her defenders argue that these complaints have been both frivolous and politically motivated. Just as significantly, they have drained the governor’s financial and political resources and distracted her from her job. On Sunday, Alaska’s Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, in line to replace Palin, revealed that she resigned due to the large sums of money being spent fighting the attempts to discredit her. According to the Wall Street Journal, up two $2 million may have been spent in public records requests, legal fees, and similar expenses required to combat the complaints.

 

One such complaint was filed by Alaskan blogger Linda Kellen Biegel, better known by her alias “Celtic Diva.” In her complaint, Biegel alleged that Palin abused her power by seeking personal gain. Her evidence? During the start of a snowmobile race, Palin wore a jacket adorned with the logo of “Arctic Cat,” a company that sponsors her husband, Todd, an avid contestant in these types of events. But as Palin supporters noted, showing solidarity with her husband in a snowmobile competition hardly rose to the level of corruption, and Palin’s administration pointed to the blogger-inspired contretemps as one of the numerous “bogus harassments” with which Palin has forced to contend.

 

While Palin’s opponents look for any excuse to savage her, and while even some Republicans question her decision to resign at this time, there’s a good case to be made that the move may actually work to her favor. Among conservatives, Palin still retains rock-star status. Indeed, John McCain’s decision to name her to the ticket was a bid to bolster his credibility with the right. Palin certainly did that and, as a result, she remains a sought-after by Republicans with political aspirations. She had been asked to be the keynote speaker at a major Republican fundraiser, although she declined the role, and Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman, has said that her “galvanizing voice” could be critical to the success of Republican campaigns in battleground states like Virginia and New Jersey.

 

By resigning the governorship, however reluctantly, Palin also helps to improve her national profile. No longer is she confined to perhaps the nation’s most isolated state, whose capital, Juneau, can only be reached by sea or air. “North to the Future” may be Alaska’s state motto, but Palin’s political future depends on a broader appeal.

 

The timing of her latest move is not as premature as many have made out. As proven in recent years, it is never too early to start to meet voters in Des Moines and Manchester. Some of her potential rivals for the presidential nomination, especially Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, already have an infrastructure in place in Iowa and New Hampshire, courtesy of their failed 2008 campaigns. Another potential rival, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, has announced that he would not see office in 2010. He has also started an attempt to build a national base, speaking at an Arkansas state fundraiser last week. If Palin does indeed begin a presidential bid, her name recognition alone is likely to make her a favorite. After all, how many people outside of his home state could even recognize Tim Pawlenty?

 

There are other signs that Palin will shortly reemerge onto the national scene. She recently signed a book deal with Harper-Collins, and the autobiography is scheduled to be released next Mother’s Day. Like all celebrity books, it will include a book tour that will draw large audiences, offering Palin a great way to sell herself in the world of “retail politics” just before the campaign season kicks off.  In the headlines once again, Palin could become a deciding factor in critical races, building up her support among the conservative base and rallying the Republican apparatus behind her.   

 

To be sure, Palin’s decision to leave office so soon is unconventional. But then the charismatic Republican governor, who burst onto the national scene only last year from relative anonymity, has never been a conventional politician. Only a few short years ago, she was the mayor of a “city” in Alaska with a population of less than 10,000. She fought through a brutal Alaskan political climate to the top office. And, despite some notable flubs during her vice-presidential campaign, she still remains arguably America’s most popular conservative politician. Can she retain that title when she is no longer governor? As Palin herself might put it: You betcha!


Gregory Gethard is a Philadelphia-based freelance writer.

$2.7 billion in TARP money went to British Rum maker

$2.7 billion in TARP money went to British Rum maker

Yep. We taxpayers now have “a little Captain in all of us.” Too bad it’s because our tax dollars went to the rum distiller who makes Captain Morgan rum.

Via Crooks and Liars we get the not surprising news that the $750 billion we shelled out in TARP to save American banks ended up lining the pockets of just about everyone else except our troubled financial institutions.

With that much free money floating around, it was bound to happen. Any idiot could have predicted it – which makes Paulson, Bush, Geithner, and Obama certifiable loons if they didn’t see this coming.

Ryan Donmoyer of Bloomberg has the incredible details:

In June 2008, U.S. Virgin Islands Governor John deJongh Jr. agreed to give London-based Diageo Plc billions of dollars in tax incentives to move its production of Captain Morgan rum from one U.S. island — Puerto Rico — to another, namely St. Croix. DeJongh says he had no idea his deal would help make the world’s largest liquor distiller the most unlikely beneficiary of the emergency Troubled Asset Relief Program approved by Congress just four months later.

Today, as two 56-foot-high (17-meter-high) tanks for holding fermenting molasses will soon rise from the ground on the Caribbean island of St. Croix, the extent to which dozens of nonbank companies benefited from last October’s emergency financial rescue plan is just beginning to come to light.

The hurried legislation adopted by a Congress voting under the threat of sudden global economic collapse led to hidden tax breaks for firms in dozens of industries. They included builders of Nascar auto-racing tracks, restaurant chains such as Burger King Holdings Inc., movie and television producers — and London’s Diageo.

“It’s kind of like the magician’s sleight of hand,” says former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman William Thomas, a California Republican who ran the committee from 2001 to 2007 and oversaw all tax legislation. “They snuck these things in a bill that was focused on other things.”

And this is the tip of the iceberg. Anyone know where the stimulus money is really going? How about the trillions the Federal Reserve has paid out to keep banks in the business of lending short term to corporations so they could pay their employees (supposedly)?

The problem with truly eyepopping amounts of money – besides the fact that it adds to the deficit and the long term debt – is that it is virtually impossible to keep track of. Untold billions – perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars – has been handed out to people and companies who don’t deserve it and had no business getting it in the first place.

It’s like piling up stacks and stacks of hundred dollar bills – perhaps several dozen stories high – and just lighting a match to it.

Oh well, not to worry. There’s more where that came from. The generosity of us taxpayers will see to that – or at least, the generosity of Obama and the Democrats who don’t believe your money is yours anyway. They think it is the government’s money and that it is their decision just how much of your money you get to keep rather than you deciding how much the government gets.

Next time you have a Mojito or a Cuba libra, remember: Your tax dollars are helping the world get sloshed.

 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/27_billion_in_tarp_money_went.html at June 29, 2009 – 12:38:23 PM EDT

Is Obama losing his political magic?

Is Obama losing his political magic?

Rick Moran
Byron York, writing in the New York Post , believes that if Obama’s health care bill fails to pass, he will be seen as just another politician and will have lost his “MoJo:”

If the public turns on Obama, it won’t be out of animus to him personally. People will always think him smart and charismatic — for the simple reason that he is. Nor are they ever likely to conclude that’s he’s a radical or cynic. His affect is too reasonable for the first and too earnest for the second.

No, the danger is that the public will conclude that he’s “a nice young man” — talented and well-meaning, but ineffectual and a little naive.

The fight over health care will be telling. Once again, people are being asked to believe that a trillion dollars in new spending is fiscally prudent. Once again, they’re being asked to believe that the government can manage an enormous, complex enterprise — even more so than the auto companies. Once again, they’re being asked by their audaciously ambitious, supremely self-confident president to suspend their disbelief.

If the public doesn’t go along this time, the Obama phenomenon will have experienced the end of its heroic period.

Obama will have failed to achieve a goal he defined as of paramount importance. His accomplishments will look small compared to the vast accumulation of new debt — especially if a rising unemployment rate continues to discredit the stimulus.

York is probably correct except there’s little chance some kind of health care bill won’t become a reality. The only chance it will be defeated is if liberals join with Republicans to defeat it – not impossible but very unlikely. This means there will also be some kind of “public option” since this is what the liberals are demanding at a minimum.

Obama too, wants a public option and will use the considerable power of his office to make sure it’s in the final bill. Even weak presidents know how to use the handles and levers of power against Congress if they step out of line. And given the outright thuggery the Obama administration has used elsewhere, it stands to reason they will not hesitate to threaten recalcitrant congressmen if they don’t toe the line on the public option.

But York, writing in the New York Post, is correct in his analysis – which is why the administration will fight tooth and nail to get something passed this year.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/is_obama_losing_his_political.html at June 29, 2009 – 12:31:29 PM EDT

The 8 cap-and-tax Republicans…and the 44 Democrats who voted no

Michelle Malkin 

Lead Story

The 8 cap-and-tax Republicans…and the 44 Democrats who voted no

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 26, 2009 10:52 PM

Introducing the GOP’s Cap-And-Tax 8…


Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

I listed them earlier tonight, but am breaking out a separate post to spotlight them again.

The 8 cap-and-tax Republican turncoats again are:

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385 (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!)
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

(Phone numbers h/t commenter rightwingmom)

Congrats, congresspeople, you helped the Democrats pass a junk science-based, massive national energy tax. Headed to Disney World now?

We still want to know: What were your payoffs/earmarks?

***

Stacy McCain’s message to the NRCC: Not one red cent.

***

In case you were wondering, here are the 44 Democrat NAY votes:

Altmire
Arcuri
Barrow
Berry
Boren
Bright
Carney
Childers
Costa
Costello
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Foster
Griffith
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kucinich
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Nye
Ortiz
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rodriguez
Ross
Salazar
Stark
Tanner
Taylor
Visclosky
Wilson (OH)

Reminder: The two Republicans who didn’t vote: Jeff Flake (AZ) and John Sullivan (OK).

Here’s why: Flake had a “family conflict” (his daughter is reportedly in a beauty pageant in Alabama tomorrow) and Sullivan is undergoing alcohol treatment. As I noted earlier today, Dem. Rep. Patrick Kennedy was pulled out of rehab to cast his vote.

And another reminder that the full roll call vote is here.

Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’

Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’

By Jack Cashill

Within days of my going public last September with the speculation that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers helped Barack Obama write his acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father, I learned that I was not alone in that intuition.

Since then, I have received helpful contributions from serious people in at least five countries and any number of states and have integrated many of their observations into my ongoing narrative, summarized here.  If you are unfamiliar with this research, please read this before going forward. 

 

About a week ago, however, I heard from a new contributor.  I will refer to him as “Mr. West.” Like most contributors, he prefers to remain anonymous.  The media punishment that Joe the Plumber received has much to do with this nearly universal reticence.

 

A week before that, I heard from another excellent contributor, Mr. Midwest.  Their collective contribution should dispel the doubts of all but the willfully blind that Ayers played a substantial role, likely the primary role, in the writing of Dreams.

 

As a reminder, there is no reliable computer science for determining authorship.  In assessing the value of the existing science, think polygraph, not DNA.  Polygraph-level scholarship may suffice for harmless speculation about the authorship of Midsummer’s Night Dream, but not for Dreams From My Father.  Too much is at stake for the latter.

 

The experts in the field have told me to stick with old-fashioned literary detective work, and I have done just that.  Mr, Midwest has helped.  His most recent contribution is a good example of keen-eyed detection. 

 

Going forward, I will be referring to five books.  These include Ayers’ 1993 To Teach, his 1997 A Kind and Just Parent (shorthand: Parent), his 2001 memoir Fugitive Days, and Obama’s 1995 Dreams From My Father (Dreams). Casual critics of this research have repeated the canard that I attributed both Obama books, Dreams and the 2006 Audacity of Hope (Audacity), to Ayers.  I never have.  From the beginning, I have asserted that the two books appear to have two different authors, and so I will leave Audacity out of the equation until the end.

 

What Mr. Midwest noticed recently is that both Ayers in Parent and Obama in Dreams make reference to the poet Carl Sandburg.  In itself, this is not a grand revelation.  Let us call it a C-level match. Obama and Ayers seem to have shared the same library in any case.  Both talk of reading the books of Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Langston Hughes, W.E.B. Dubois and Frantz Fanon among others.  In fact, each misspells “Frantz” as “Franz.”

 

Ayers and Obama, however, go beyond citing Sandburg.  Each quotes the opening line of his poem “Chicago.”  From Dreams:

 

He poured himself more hot water. “What do you know about Chicago anyway?”
I thought a moment. “Hog butcher to the world,” I said finally.

 

From Parent:

 

“At the turn of the century, Chicago had a population of a million people and was a young and muscular city – hub of commerce and industry, the first skyscraper city, home of the famous world exposition, “hog butcher to the world” – bursting with energy.”

 

This I would call a B-level match.  What raises it up a notch to an A-level match is the fact that both misquote “Chicago,” and they do so in exactly the same way.  The poem actually opens, “Hog butcher for the world.”

 

Last week, the first email I received from Mr. West had in the message box “759 striking similarities between Dreams and Ayers’ works.”  This claim seemed so outsized I did not take it seriously.  When I was unable to open the documents, I emailed Mr. West back, asked him to reformat, and then forgot about the email.  He resent his documents a few days later.

 

This time I was able to open them and was promptly blown away.  Mr. West’s analysis was systematic, comprehensive, and utterly, totally, damning.  Of the 759 matches, none were frivolous.  All were C-level or above, and I had no doubt of their authenticity.  I had been gathering many of them in my own reserve waiting for a book-length opportunity to make my case.  Mr. West had done the heavy lifting.  He even indexed his matches.  This represented months of works.  As I learned, he had been patiently gathering material since November when he first began building on my own research.

 

I read through all 759 matches and culled out those that I would consider B-Level or above.  There were 180 of these.  As a control, I tested them against my own 2006 book Sucker Punch, like Dreams and Fugitive Days a memoir that deals extensively with race.  In that I am closer to Ayers in age, race, education, family and cultural background than Obama is, our styles should have had more chance of matching.  They don’t.  Of the 180 examples, I matched, strictly speaking, on six.  Even by the most generous standard, we matched on only sixteen.

 

Let me just cite a few matches between Ayers’ work and Dreams that I found intriguing.  Rather astonishingly, as Mr. West points out, at least six of the characters in Dreams have the same names as characters in Ayers’ books: Malik, Freddy, Tim, Coretta, Marcus, and “the old man.” Many of the stories involving these characters in Dreams seem as contrived as their names.

 

In one instance, Obama reflects on his own first days as a ten year-old at his Hawaiian prep school, a transition complicated by the presence of “Coretta,” the only other black student in the class.

 

When the other students accuse Obama of having a girlfriend, Obama shoves Coretta and insists that she leave him alone.  Although “his act of betrayal” buys him a reprieve from the other students, Obama understands that he “had been tested and found wanting.”

 

Ayers relates a parallel story in Parent.  He tells of a useful reading assignment from the 1992 book, The Kind of Light That Shines on Texas, by black author Reginald McKnight.  The passage in question deals with the travails of Clint, the first black student in a newly integrated school, who repudiates Marvin, the only other black boy in the school.  Upon reflection, Clint thinks, “I was ashamed.  Ashamed for not defending Marvin and ashamed that Marvin even existed.”

 

As Mr. Midwest pointed out in a recent missive, Ayers’ interest in education bleeds into Dreams.  The tip-off once again is the contrived name, in this case “Asante Moran,” likely an homage to the Afro-centric educator, Molefi Kete Asante.  Moran lectures Obama and his pal “Johnny” on the nature of public education.

 

“The first thing you have to realize,” he said, looking at Johnnie and me in turn, “is that the public school system is not about educating black children. Never has been. Inner-city schools are about social control. Period.”

 

“Social control” is an Ayers’ bugaboo.  “The message to Black people was that at any moment and for any reason whatsoever your life or the lives of your loved ones could be randomly snuffed out,” he writes in Fugitive Days.  “The intention was social control through random intimidation and unpredictable violence.”

 

In Dreams, “Moran” elaborates on the fate of the black student,  “From day one, what’s he learning about? Someone else’s history.  Someone else’s culture. Not only that, this culture he’s supposed to learn is the same culture that’s systematically rejected him, denied his humanity.”

 

If this character were real, and Obama had actually met him, there would be no reason to phony up his name.  In fact, however, Moran is spouting exactly the same educational philosophy that Ayers does in To Teach. 

 

“Underneath it all,” Ayers says of standard school textbooks, “the social studies and literature texts reflected and promoted white supremacy.  There were no pictures or photographs of African Americans . . . there was throughout an assumed superiority and smug celebration of the status quo.” 

 

Both authors, by the way, use the phrase “beneath the surface” repeatedly.  And what they find beneath the surface, of course, is the disturbing truth about power disparities in the real America, which each refers to as an “imperial culture.”  Speaking of which, both insist that “knowledge” is “power” and seem consumed by the uses or misuses of power.  Ayers, in fact, evokes the word “power” and its derivatives 75 times in Fugitive Days, Obama 83 times in Dreams.

 

More exotically, both authors evoke images of a “boy” riding on the backs of a “water buffalo” and prodding the beast not just with sticks, but with “bamboo sticks.”  Ayers places his boy in Vietnam.  Obama puts his in Indonesia.

 

Both authors link Indonesia with Vietnam. In each case, clueless officials – plural — with the “State Department” try to explain how the march of communism through “Indochina” will specifically imperil “Indonesia.” The Ayers account, however, at least sounds vaguely real.  The Obama account sounds like an Ayers’ memory imposed on Obama’s mother.  She allegedly discussed these geo-political strategy sessions in Indonesia with her pre-teen son.

 

Ayers and his radical friends were obsessed with Vietnam.  It defined them and still does. To reflect their superior insight into that country, they have shown a tendency to use “Mekong Delta” as synecdoche, the part that indicates the whole.

 

In Fugitive Days, for instance, Ayers envisions “a patrol in the Mekong Delta” when he conjures up an image of Vietnam.  Ayers’ wife, Bernadine Dohrn, pontificated about “a hamlet called My Lai” in a 1998 interview, but to flash her radical chops, she located it “in the middle of the Mekong Delta,” which is in reality several hundred miles from My Lai.

 

Given Obama’s age, “Mekong Delta” was not likely a part of his vocabulary, but that does not stop him from writing about “the angry young men in Soweto or Detroit or the Mekong Delta.”  Ayers, of course, would also have had a much deeper connection than Obama to “Detroit,” whose historic riot took place shortly before Obama’s sixth birthday.  Ayers worked in Detroit the year after those same riots.

 

Returning to the exotic, in his Indonesian backyard Obama discovered two “birds of paradise” running wild as well as chickens, ducks, and a “yellow dog with a baleful howl.”

 

In Fugitive Days, there is even more “howling” than there is in Dreams.  Ayers places his “birds of paradise” in Guatemala.  He places his ducks and dogs together in a Vietnamese village being swept by merciless Americans.  In Parent, he talks specifically about a “yellow dog.”   And he uses the word “baleful” to describe an “eye” in Fugitive Days. For the record, “baleful” means “threatening harm.”  I had to look it up.

 

Ayers is fixated with faces, especially eyes.  He writes of “sparkling” eyes, “shining” eyes, “laughing” eyes, “twinkling” eyes, eyes “like ice,” and people who are “wide-eyed” and “dark-eyed.” 

 

As it happens, Obama is also fixated with faces, especially eyes.  He also writes of “sparkling” eyes, “shining” eyes, “laughing” eyes, “twinkling” eyes, and uses the phrases “wide-eyed” and “dark-eyed.” Obama adds “smoldering eyes,” “smoldering” being a word that he and Ayers inject repeatedly. Obama also uses the highly distinctive phrase “like ice,” in his case to describe the glinting of the stars.

 

If Ayers is fixated on eyes, about eyebrows he is positively fetishistic. There are six references to “eyebrows” in Fugitive Days – bushy ones, flaring ones, arched ones, black ones and, stunningly, seven references in Dreams – heavy ones, bushy ones, wispy ones.  It is the rare memoirist who talks about eyebrows at all.

 

On three occasions in Dreams, Obama speaks of people with “round” faces.  On four occasions in Fugitive Days, Ayers does the same.  Both speak of “grim-faced” people, people with “soft” faces, and, most unusually, people with “tight” faces. 

 

Both Ayers and Obama describe acquaintances who smile like a “Cheshire cat.”  Some of their characters have a countenance — grin, squint, or scowl — that is “perpetual.”  Others are “suppressing” their smiles or their grins.

 

To this point, I have just skimmed the 759 items in the bill of particulars in my case against Obama’s literary genius.   Not familiar with the term “bill of particulars?”  Uncertain myself, I looked that one up too.  It means a list of written statements made by a party to a court proceeding.  Ayers and Obama each refer knowingly to a “bill of particulars.” Doesn’t everyone?

 

The answer, of course, is no.  In Audacity of Hope, Obama does not use this phrase or most of the distinctive words or combinations of words in Dreams.  In Audacity, for instance, there are virtually no descriptions of faces or eyes, and the few that the author does use are flat and clichéd — like “brave face” or “sharp-eyed.” In Dreams, seven different people “frown,” twelve “grin,” and six “squint.”  In Audacity, no more than one person makes any of these gestures.

 

Mr. West independently came to the same conclusion that I did, namely that Ayers was not meaningfully involved in Audacity.  These two Obama books almost assuredly had different primary authors.   What should be transparent to any literary critic is that the author of Audacity lacked the style and skill of the author of Dreams.  There are a few pockets in Audacity that evoke the spirit of Dreams but without the same grace.

 

A likely suspect for these imitative passages, perhaps the whole of Audacity, is Obama’s young speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  Favreau joined the Obama team in 2005, time enough to play that role.  The London Guardian reports that Favreau carries Dreams wherever he goes and can “conjure up his master’s voice as if an accomplished impersonator.”  If so, in Audacity he played the classic role of the ghostwriter — one who absorbs his client’s thoughts and relates them in a refined version of his client’s voice.

 

Bill Ayers was no one’s ghostwriter.  The now overwhelming evidence strongly suggests that he used the frame of Obama’s life and finished it off with his own ideas, his own biases, his own experiences, his own passions, his own friends, even his own romances, all of this toned down just enough to keep Obama viable as a potential candidate. 

 

I would argue that Ayers played Cyrano to Obama’s Christian.  His personal history was too ugly for him to woo Roxane/America himself.  But Obama — “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” as Joe Biden reminded us — could and did make America’s heart melt.

See also:

Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?

Evidence Mounts: Ayers Co-Wrote Obama’s Dreams

The Odd Story of Romance in Dreams from my Father

Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matters

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html at June 28, 2009 – 10:20:37 PM EDT

Holy Ark Announcement Due on Friday

Holy Ark Announcement Due on Friday

Tammuz 3, 5769, 25 June 09 06:54

by Hillel Fendel

(Israelnationalnews.com) Ethiopian church leader says Friday, June 26, marks the right time to unveil the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, which he says has been hidden in his church for centuries.

Abuna Pauolos, Patriarch of The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, was in Rome this week to meet with Pope Benedict XVI. While there, he told reporters that the time had come to reveal before the world the Holy Ark. He said that the holy container has been in the custody of his church for hundreds of years.

Paulous said he would make the full announcement this Friday, June 26, 2 PM local time (3 PM Israel time, 8 AM New York time) at a press conference in Rome.

The claim that the Biblical Holy Ark has been kept at the Church, in the city of Axum, is an old one, but this is the first time that the Church plans to actually reveal the actual container, or news of it. It is not known whether the Church claims that the actual Tablets of the Law are inside it.

Copies of the alleged Ark are kept in many other churches in Ethiopia.

The news of the impending announcement was first reported by the Italian news agency Adnkronos. Pauolos told the news outlet, “Soon the world will be able to admire the Ark of the Covenant described in the Bible as the container of the tablets of the law that G-d delivered to Moses, and the center of searches and studies for centuries.”

Pauolos said “The Ark of the Covenant has been in Ethiopia for many centuries. As Patriarch, I have seen it with my own eyes, and only a few, highly-qualified persons could do the same – until now.”

Back to Earth
Stuart Munro-Hay, author of “Quest for the Ark of the Covenant: The True History of the Tablets of Moses,” concluded that the object in question is definitely not the original Holy Ark.

The building of the Ark of the Covenant – also known as the Ark of Testimony and the Ark of G-d’s Covenant – in accordance with Divine instructions is recounted in the Book of Exodus. The Ark held the Tablets of the Law, and traveled with the People of Israel, leading the way into the Promised Land. It was placed first in the Tabernacle in Shilo, and centuries later in the Holy Temple built by King Solomon. Since then, its whereabouts have been unknown, though one popular legend says it was brought to Ethiopia. Alternatively, it could be under the Temple Mount, in a cave at Mt. Nevo in Jordan, in the Vatican, a hideaway in Utah, or elsewhere.

© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
Subscribe to the free Daily Israel Report – israelnn.com/subscribe