Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Affirmative Action for Unattractive People?

It's obvious Fox doesn't take this seriously since they put the guy on with Megyn Kelly. More and more I believe people in this country are losing their minds. - Reggie

Should so-called 'ugly' people receive discrimination protection?

Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme

In fact, Social Security is a bit worse than that.

Texas governor Rick Perry is being criticized for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” Even Mitt Romney is reportedly preparing to attack him for holding such a radical view. But if anything, Perry was being too kind.

The original Ponzi scheme was the brainchild of Charles Ponzi. Starting in 1916, the poor but enterprising Italian immigrant convinced people to allow him to invest their money. However, Ponzi never actually made any investments. He simply took the money he was given by later investors and gave it to his early investors, providing those early investors with a handsome profit. He then used these satisfied early investors as advertisements to get more investors. Unfortunately, in order to keep paying previous investors, Ponzi had to continue finding more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn’t expand the number of new investors fast enough, and the scheme collapsed. Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.

Social Security, on the other hand, forces people to invest in it through a mandatory payroll tax. A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those “early investors” who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.

As with Ponzi’s scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.

As with Ponzi’s scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today’s young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide. Many will be lucky to break even.

Eventually the pyramid crumbles.

Warren Buffett, Hypocrite

This one’s truly, uh ... rich: Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes -- but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years.

That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.

It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama -- who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song -- than about kicking in more himself.

Buffett’s free to back Obama, of course.

And if his firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right, too.

But it would be nice if this “pro-tax-hike” tycoon were a bit more honest about it.

Anti-corporatists to ‘occupy Wall Street’ for ‘Tahrir moment’

Anarchy is coming to the streets of America this fall. Be prepared. - Reggie

Promising a “Tahrir moment,” anti-corporate activists plan to invade and occupy Wall Street in protest against the “financial Gomorrah of America” on September 17.

The inital call to action came from the Canadian anti-consumerist publication AdBusters. Since then other groups have given their endorsements and are rallying members via social media to join in the protest.

“On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months,” AdBusters proclaimed. “Once there, we shall incessantly repeat one simple demand in a plurality of voices.”

In an eerie video released Tuesday by the hacker group “Anonymous,” one of the effort’s endorsers, the organization warns Wall Street to prepare for them.

“The abuse and corruption of corporations, banks, and governments ends here,” a voice in the video says. “Join us, we are ‘Anonymous,’ we are legion. We do not forgive, we do not forget. Wall Street, expect us.”

Click here to read the full article and see the video.

Leftists Finally Admit Clarence Thomas' Brilliance

Jeffrey Toobin has written a truthful piece about Clarence Thomas in The New Yorker. Why, you may ask? ObamaCare. The left knows ObamaCare is unconstitutional and they are scared to death that Thomas will be leading the charge to strike it down when the Supreme Court takes the case this fall so, for the first time ever, someone on the left is telling the truth about the brilliance of Clarence Thomas. Toobin's goal is to warn the left so they will begin their attacks on Thomas and his wife, Ginni, in order to force Thomas to recuse himself when SCOTUS gets the case.

I am posting part of the lengthy Toobin piece along with the link to a review of that piece and the link to Rush Limbaugh talking about both on his radio show yesterday. If ObamaCare is to be struck down, we need Thomas to stay on the case, regardless of the horrific attacks that the left will bring. - Reggie


Will Clarence and Virginia Thomas succeed in killing Obama’s health-care plan?

by Jeffrey Toobin August 29, 2011

It has been, in certain respects, a difficult year for Clarence Thomas. In January, he was compelled to amend several years of the financial-disclosure forms that Supreme Court Justices must file each year. The document requires the Justices to disclose the source of all income earned by their spouses, and Thomas had failed to note that his wife, Virginia, who is known as Ginni, worked as a representative for a Michigan college and at the Heritage Foundation. The following month, seventy-four members of Congress called on Thomas to recuse himself from any legal challenges to President Obama’s health-care reform, because his wife has been an outspoken opponent of the law. At around the same time, Court observers noted the fifth anniversary of the last time that Thomas had asked a question during an oral argument. The confluence of these events produced the kind of public criticism, and even mockery, that Thomas had largely managed to avoid since his tumultuous arrival on the Court, twenty years ago this fall.

These tempests obscure a larger truth about Thomas: that this year has also been, for him, a moment of triumph. In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.

The conventional view of Thomas takes his lack of participation at oral argument as a kind of metaphor. The silent Justice is said to be an intellectual nonentity, a cipher for his similarly conservative colleague, Antonin Scalia. But those who follow the Court closely find this stereotype wrong in every particular. Thomas has long been a favorite of conservatives, but they admire the Justice for how he gives voice to their cause, not just because he votes their way. “Of the nine Justices presently on the Court, he is the one whose opinions I enjoy reading the most,” Steve Calabresi, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a co-founder of the Federalist Society, said. “They are very scholarly, with lots of historical sources, and his views are the most principled, even among the conservatives. He has staked out some bold positions, and then the Court has set out and moved in his direction.”

Thomas’s intellect and his influence have also been recognized by those who generally disagree with his views. According to Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, Thomas’s career resembles that of Hugo Black, the former Alabama senator who served from 1937 to 1971 and is today universally regarded as a major figure in the Court’s history. “Both were Southerners who came to the Court young and with very little judicial experience,” Amar said. (Thomas is from Georgia.) “Early in their careers, they were often in dissent, sometimes by themselves, but they were content to go their own way. But once Earl Warren became Chief Justice the Court started to come to Black. It’s the same with Thomas and the Roberts Court. Thomas’s views are now being followed by a majority of the Court in case after case.”

The implications of Thomas’s leadership for the Court, and for the country, are profound. Thomas is probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties. More than virtually any of his colleagues, he has a fully wrought judicial philosophy that, if realized, would transform much of American government and society. Thomas’s views both reflect and inspire the Tea Party movement, which his wife has helped lead almost since its inception. The Tea Party is a diffuse operation, and it can be difficult to pin down its stand on any given issue. Still, the Tea Party is unusual among American political movements in its commitment to a specific view of the Constitution—one that accords, with great precision, with Thomas’s own approach. For decades, various branches of the conservative movement have called for a reduction in the size of the federal government, but for the Tea Party, and for Thomas, small government is a constitutional command.

In his jurisprudence, Thomas may be best known for his belief in a “color-blind Constitution”; that is, one that forbids any form of racial preference or affirmative action. But color blind, for Thomas, is not blind to race. Thomas finds a racial angle on a broad array of issues, including those which appear to be scarcely related to traditional civil rights, like campaign finance or gun control. In Thomas’s view, the Constitution imposes an ideal of racial self-sufficiency, an extreme version of the philosophy associated with Booker T. Washington, whose portrait hangs in his chambers. (This personal gallery also includes Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher.)

In recent weeks, two federal courts of appeals have reached opposing conclusions about the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care law; the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, upheld it, while the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, struck down its requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. This conflict means that the Supreme Court will almost certainly agree to review the case this fall, with a decision expected by June of next year. It is likely to be the most important case for the Justices since Bush v. Gore, and it will certainly be the clearest test yet of Thomas’s ascendancy at the Court. Thomas’s entire career as a judge has been building toward the moment when he would be able to declare that law unconstitutional. It would be not only a victory for his approach to the Constitution but also, it seems, a defeat for the enemies who have pursued him for so long: liberals, law professors, journalists—the group that Thomas refers to collectively as “the √©lites.” Thomas’s triumph over the health-care law and its supporters is by no means assured, but it is now tantalizingly within reach.

Read the rest of the article

The American Interest: New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom

The Right Scoop: Rush: Why the left is now telling the truth about Clarence Thomas

Saturday, August 27, 2011

The Desperation-of-Deprivation Myth

Mark Steyn
The West has incentivized non-productivity on an industrial scale.

Unlike many of my comrades in the punditry game, I don’t do a lot of TV. But I’m currently promoting my latest doom-mongering bestseller, so I’m spending more time than usual on the telly circuit. This week I was on the BBC’s current-affairs flagship Newsnight. My moment in the spotlight followed a report on the recent riots in English cities, in the course of which an undercover reporter interviewed various rioters from Manchester who’d had a grand old time setting their city ablaze and then expressed no remorse over it. There then followed a studio discussion, along the usual lines. The host introduced a security guard who’d fought for Queen and country in Afghanistan and Bosnia and asked whether he sympathized with his neighbors. He did. When you live in an “impoverished society,” he said, “people do what they have to do to survive.”

When we right-wing madmen make our twice-a-decade appearance on mainstream TV, we’re invariably struck by how narrow are the bounds of acceptable discourse in polite society. But in this instance I was even more impressed by how liberal pieties triumph even over the supposed advantages of the medium. Television, we’re told, favors strong images — Nixon sweaty and unshaven, Kennedy groomed and glamorous, etc. But, in this instance, the security guard’s analysis, shared by three-quarters of the panel, was entirely at odds with the visual evidence: There was no “impoverished society.” The preceding film had shown a neat subdivision of pleasant red-brick maisonettes set in relatively landscaped grounds. There was grass, and it looked maintained. Granted, it was not as bucolic as my beloved New Hampshire, but, compared to the brutalized concrete bunkers in which the French and the Swedes entomb their seething Muslim populations, it was nothing to riot over. Nonetheless, someone explained that these riotous Mancunian youth were growing up in “deprivation,” and the rioters themselves seemed disposed to agree. Like they say in West Side Story, “I’m depraved on account of I’m deprived.” We’ve so accepted the correlation that we don’t even notice that they’re no longer deprived, but they are significantly more depraved.

In fact, these feral youth live better than 90 percent of the population of the planet. They certainly live better than their fellow youths halfway around the world who go to work each day in factories across China and India to make the cool electronic toys young Westerners expect to enjoy as their birthright. In Britain, as in America and Europe, the young take it for granted that this agreeable division of responsibilities is as permanent a feature of life as the earth and sky: Rajiv and Suresh in Bangalore make the state-of-the-art gizmo, Kevin and Ron in Birmingham get to play with it. That’s just the way it is. And, because that’s the way it is, Kevin and Ron and the welfare state that attends their every need assume ’twill always be so.

To justify their looting, the looters appealed to the conventional desperation-of-deprivation narrative: They’d “do anything to get more money.” Anything, that is, except get up in the morning, put on a clean shirt, and go off to do a day’s work. That concept is all but unknown to the homes in which these guys were raised. Indeed, Newsnight immediately followed the riot discussion with a report on immigration to Britain from Eastern Europe. Any tourist in London quickly accepts that, unless he hails a cab or gets mugged, he will never be served by a native Londoner: Polish baristas, Balkan waitresses, but, until the mob shows up to torch his hotel, not a lot of Cockneys. A genial Member of Parliament argued that the real issue underlying the riots is “education and jobs,” but large numbers of employers seem to have concluded that, if you’ve got a job to offer, the best person to give it to is someone with the least exposure to a British education.

Graphic ‘Sex Box’ for Swiss Kindergartners has Genitalia to Teach Kids that Sex is Pleasurable

The world continues to become more perverted as the darkness increases rapidly. - Reggie

In a move almost too shocking to comprehend, kindergarten children in Basel, Switzerland will be presented this year with fabric models of human genitalia in a “sex box” to teach them that “contacting body parts can be pleasurable.”

Pictures of the sex box were too graphic to include, but can be viewed here.

To make matters worse, the kit is intended to be given out to the primary school students by teachers during sex-education classes. That’s right. Sex education classes for kindergartners.

And, if that were not bad enough, the sex box allegedly uses models and recommends children massage each other or rub themselves with warm sand bags, accompanied by soft music.

What’s more, Basel education minister Christoph Eymann, from the liberal democrat party, opposed parents’ requests to exempt their children from the lessons, saying the government uses schools in order to have unrestricted access to children.

“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has,” Eymann said. “The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend.”

Whose Fault?

click the image for larger view

Cass Sunstein defends new regulations with 'lives saved and illnesses avoided' mythology

American Thinker
During the first 100 days of our nation's downward spiral into oblivion (commonly known as the Obama administration) the Democrat controlled congress rammed a massive party loyalty rewards program (commonly known as the stimulus bill or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) down the throats of the hard-working American taxpayers. The $787 billion dollar fiasco didn't stimulate the economy in any measurable sense however a clever new accounting trick (jobs saved or created) was developed to prove the success of Mr. Obama's first major assault on America.

With a less compliant Republican congress to contend with, Mr. Obama and his comrades have sidestepped the democratic process in favor of governance through executive order and regulation. Representative government in Washington D.C. as designed by the Founders and Framers has ceased to exist. Everything and everyone from goat herders to guitars, find themselves under strict governmental regulation (and in timidation) and "We the People" no longer have any say in the government that we are forced to fund.

The Hill reports that Speaker of the House John Boehner has demanded that the White House provide detailed information on upcoming regulations with an implementation cost of $1 billion or more. Past requests for information on Mr. Obama's new regulations have been stonewalled by the administration.

"A refusal by the administration to disclose proposed regulations that would have an economic cost of more than $1 billion cost would send a terrible signal to already unnerved job creators in America," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Boehner. "We look forward to receiving that information before Congress returns."

How is it that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has to rely on the Obama administration to provide information concerning new regulations affecting the American people and paid for by the overburdened and underrepresented taxpayers? What about the plethora of new regulations which come in under the $1 billion threshold? Does the expression "No taxation without representation" mean anything to the current leadership?

In responding to Speaker Boehner's request, Obama regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein defended the long list of Obama regulations by claiming multi-billion dollar savings which have been projected based upon "lives saved and illnesses avoided."

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich Agree: It’s Okay for the Feds to Force Workers to Pay Tribute to Union Bosses

As reported in the Boston Globe and as seen in the New Hampshire debate video, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich believe it is perfectly okay for the federal government to mandate that every private sector worker in the United States pay forced-dues to labor unions as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Attention Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich: Right To Work is not a states’ rights issue, it is a freedom issue. The Federal government should not mandate compulsory unionism.

Mitt Romney from the Boston Globe, “Pressed by John Kalb, executive director of New England Citizens for Right to Work, about whether he would actively advocate for a federal law, Romney responded, ‘I’m a Tenth Amendment guy. I’d like the states to be the place we carry out this path.’”
It appears that Forced Unionism is a Big Government idea that Newt & Mitt embrace. In fact, it was the brain child of our Biggest Big Government president, before Obama. Franklin Roosevelt’s 1935 Wagoner Act used, for the first time, federal powers to force every working man and woman to pay a third party, Big Labor bosses, in order to get or keep a job. It was wrong then, and it is outrageous now. Why would Gingrich and Romney embrace it?

In 1947, the American public had become so exasperated with Big Labor abuses of power that Congress made a half-hearted effort to fix the problem and passed the Taft-Hartley Act over President Harry Truman’s veto. (Truman’s presidential campaign had been heavily financed by forced-union dues.)

The Act gave states the right to opt out of federal forced-unionism created under the Wagoner Act. But, the platform for federally imposed compulsion remains in-effect today. Essentially 50 states had forced-unionism for twelve years before their citizens had an opportunity to opt out of it.

Americans are forced to fight the forced-union dues financed Big Labor political machine to obtain Right To Work freedom. Though freedom is a Big idea, Big Labor “taxes” employees to create political machines that spent, by their own admission, over $1.1 Billion in the 2010 election cycle to prop-up legislators who support forced unionism.

It’s hardly been a fair fight, but thanks to millions of members of the National Right To Work Committee and others there are currently 22 Right To Work states.

Federal Agents Raid Gibson Guitar Company

This is tyranny! - Reggie

Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson's chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company's manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. "The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier," he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle.

It isn't the first time that agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service have come knocking at the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian's ES-150. In 2009 the Feds seized several guitars and pallets of wood from a Gibson factory, and both sides have been wrangling over the goods in a case with the delightful name "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms."

The question in the first raid seemed to be whether Gibson had been buying illegally harvested hardwoods from protected forests, such as the Madagascar ebony that makes for such lovely fretboards. And if Gibson did knowingly import illegally harvested ebony from Madagascar, that wouldn't be a negligible offense. Peter Lowry, ebony and rosewood expert at the Missouri Botanical Garden, calls the Madagascar wood trade the "equivalent of Africa's blood diamonds." But with the new raid, the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle.

It isn't just Gibson that is sweating. Musicians who play vintage guitars and other instruments made of environmentally protected materials are worried the authorities may be coming for them next.

If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Incredible Views of Hurricane Irene

Hot Air: The threat from Irene is overhyped, says forecaster

Raw Video: Space Station captures views of intensifying storm

Man's Best Friend Stays Loyal to Fallen SEAL

This has to be one of the most heartbreaking pictures I have ever seen. We are all devastated when we lose a loved one but we rarely stop to consider the feelings of our pets. One of the stories I read about this said that Hawkeye walked to the front of the room, sighed, and dropped down in front of the casket. He stayed there throughout the funeral service. - Reggie

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Dick Cheney Book to be Released August 30th

Time Lapse Video Featuring Eight Years of 9/11 Memorial Construction

hat tip The Blaze

The Fed's Philosopher King

Having one man control the money supply of 311 million Americans is itself a fantastic and unreal notion. When you then consider the effects of the U.S. Dollar on the remaining 6.6 billion people on this planet, the idea becomes unimaginable.

Meet Ben Bernanke: the dollar's whimsical "Philosopher King," and the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. He is arguably the most powerful person in the world, with powers far surpassing those imagined when his position was created. Who knew the Fed Chairman could become so influential?

Well, perhaps there are some who foresaw the potential. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx listed ten absolute principles for overturning capitalism. Number five on his list is the most relevant when discussing the Federal Reserve: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Even the early Communists acknowledge this as a path to destruction, to say nothing of the Founders. Who does King Ben answer to? He is not an elected official. Where does a man who makes multi-trillion dollar bets and has control of the world reserve currency and its printing presses get such authority?

Chairman Bernanke only indirectly answers to the President. He can be impeached for a crime, but not for incompetence. The President appoints the Chairman, but once confirmed neither the Federal Reserve Chairman nor the Federal Reserve Governors can be removed for their policy views. So, like a union worker, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) can't be fired. All the Chairman has to do to get reappointed is help get the President reelected.

If you think the rest of the FOMC has any oversight on the Chairman, think again. As the anointed "sun king of currency," no Federal Reserve Chairman can long tolerate discord in his ranks. The pressure for the FOMC members to follow the lead of the Chairman is immense.

Granting the power to print an unlimited amount of paper "money" to one unelected individual is like playing monetary Russian roulette with a Glock. Have we forgotten that Sir Alan Greenspan is now criticized for policies that led to the subprime collapse, including keeping Fed Funds at 1 percent for over a year at the start of the contagion? But no one says a harsh word about the current Chairman for keeping Fed Funds at zero for 33 months and promising to maintain zero Fed Funds for "at least two more years," even though the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) claims the recession officially ended two years ago (June 2009).

Who wins from this structure? The government of course, because they borrow more money than anyone else, just ahead of the Fortune 500 companies and Wall Street traders and speculators. The losers will be savers -- those on fixed incomes, the middle class, and of course the global poor, who will suffer most because of inflationary increases in the cost of basic foods and fuel.

The Federal Reserve's rationale for focusing only on the seasonally adjusted "core rate" of the CPI is a complete sham, designed to obscure reality. The core rate weighs "wage increases," but, unlike the gross number, does not factor in food and energy. Wage increases, like employment, are "lagging" events. For the record, inflation is only a monetary event.

The Federal Reserve's current policy of "negative real interest rates" amounts to outright stealing. For example, the historic spread since 1926 between the CPI and Treasury bill rates is 63 basis points. The last reported CPI was 3.6 percent, which would put an appropriate T-Bill rate at 4.23 percent; add in the typical 25 basis-point spread between T-Bills and the Fed Funds rate and you get 4.55 percent. That is about what the Fed Funds rate should be today. Instead, Fed Funds are 0.25 percent and the T-Bill rate is around 0.03 percent, or 3 bps. The way things stand, savers are losing over 4.5 percent annually.

Some people claim that the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), combined with printing countless billions of dollars in paper money, is leading to economic growth. If so, where are the jobs? Where is the GDP growth? Keynesians retort that there is a lack of "aggregate demand." Strange that there is no lack of "aggregate demand" for the new iPad.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) is generally credited with the creation of what is referred to as "Say's Law" -- the original version of what has developed into modern "supply-side" economics. The basic tenet of supply-side economics is that the level and extent of aggregate demand is a function of the long-term trend of innovations and new inventions. That trend is a direct function of the demand for workers and their productivity.

The number of workers demanded, and their productivity, in turn depends on the rate of capital investment by the private sector, which is caused by market demand and the quantity of innovations and inventions. These new products are driven -- like almost all human endeavors -- by incentives, and by a group of risk takers called entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs are generally supplied with capital by a similar group of risk takers called venture capitalists, who measure each entrepreneurial opportunity as a ratio of risk to reward. These two groups thrive in direct proportion to the level of economic freedom, tax rates, and regulatory interference found in a nation.

Remember the internet and dot-com boom in the mid-1990s? Say's Law operated with great results. Supply created demand as eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, Google, and many more great businesses flourished. Huge wealth expansion resulted for all, while the growth in profits and increased tax revenue created by these innovators helped balance the Federal budget. In the same period, Main Street saw 4 percent real GDP growth while employment increased across the board.

Now we need to return to an atmosphere of 1990s-style innovation, but be even more vigorous. This can only be done with private investment and an atmosphere of acceptable risk. It cannot be accomplished by borrowing 40 cents or more of every dollar spent by the government, maintaining zero interest rates, and devaluing the real U.S. Dollar by printing massive amounts of fiat paper money via a central bank under the banners of "quantitative easing" and "stimulus." These government methods always fail because they are temporary and extremely expensive.

Controversy Over Push to Redefine Pedophilia

What on earth? Minor attracted persons? This country is becoming the Perverted States of America. - Reggie

Group of psychiatrists advocating change to definition of pedophilia

New Hampshire Wildcard: The Union Leader

With Rick Perry surging among GOP primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina, Mitt Romney has maintained a sizable lead in polling of New Hampshire Republicans all year. But in the wake of his splashy entry into the race, Perry has also moved into second place in New Hampshire, a place that often bucks national trends, and upends presidential politics in the process.

There are still at least four months to go before Republican voters start casting their ballots in the presidential primary election, so the pecking order in the early nominating states is certain to change before any actual votes are cast. One thing won’t change, however: The critical nature of New Hampshire to the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts. All along, the Romney team has made no secret of its goal to post a big victory in the Granite State. But with Perry on the move in the Hawkeye and Palmetto States -- which flank New Hampshire on the voting calendar -- and creeping up on him in his top targeted state, a decisive win there might be even more vital.

A potential pitfall for Romney: The conservative editorial page of the New Hampshire Union Leader, whose endorsements continue to carry significant sway with the state’s Republican voters. (For one thing, they print them on the front page.)

And right now, said former state GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen about the paper’s endorsement in this cycle’s presidential primary battle, “Romney doesn’t seem to be in position to get it.”

The editorial portion of the publication beat up Romney four years ago, and it hasn’t gone easy on him this cycle, either.

Witness the Union Leader’s Wednesday editorial, “The 10th Amendment: Romney’s Weak Argument,” which takes the candidate to task for his defense of Massachusetts’ health care reform. It dings him throughout and ends: “Like all Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney extols the 10th Amendment. But in practice, he clearly believes that the Bill of Rights actually allows individual states to limit freedom in ways that undercut two centuries of adherence to the Founders’ vision of limited government. To Romney, that’s not just arcane constitutional theory. It appears to be his style of governing.”

What’s more, it was published on a morning when Romney was scheduled to begin a two-day tour of the state.

As Cullen described it, “The Union Leader is different than most newspapers. When they hit something, they hit it again and again and again with repeated editorials. And not only will they attack you, they will pump up someone they do like.”

This has long been the case in New Hampshire, and historically has been one hazards of the obstacle course that comprises the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. For many years, the publisher of the conservative paper was the irascible and highly intemperate William Loeb. His endorsement was much coveted -- as much to keep candidates out of the line of Loeb’s fire as anything else -- but it was also a mixed blessing because of the backlash factor.

In the 1980 campaign, Bill Loeb’s last, he wasn’t content to endorse Ronald Reagan; he also referred to former President Gerald Ford as “Jerry the Jerk,” and he called Betty Ford “stupid” and “immoral.” The Fords had plenty of company: Dwight Eisenhower was called a “stinking hypocrite” by Loeb; John F. Kennedy was “the No. 1 liar in the U.S.A.”; and Henry Kissinger was “Kissinger the Kike.”

Loeb’s mantle was carried on after his 1981 death by his widow, Nackey, with help from her handpicked editor-in-chief, Joe McQuaid, who is now the Union Leader’s publisher. McQuaid toned down paper’s peculiarities, but not its feisty conservatism or it’s penchant for the hard rhetorical kick in the groin.

At this point in the cycle, Romney has had to bear the brunt of those attacks.

Nearly All Regulations Survive Obama 'Reforms'

Cass Sunstein is still the most dangerous man in America. He and Obama are destroying our economy and their plan is working extremely well. - Reggie

The Obama administration announced regulatory reform proposals Tuesday that it claims would eliminate red tape and save taxpayers an estimated $4 billion over five years. What these reforms don't do much of is actually eliminate regulations.

An IBD review of the proposed reforms by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury found scant proposals of doing away with regulations. In nearly all cases they called for streamlining or other efforts to make them more efficient.

These efforts come amid an overall rapid expansion of federal regulatory agencies under President Obama. Their budgets have grown 16% since 2008, or about $54 billion, according to a recent report by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

Cass Sunstein, White House administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, stressed in an Op-Ed that the reforms are not a fundamental overhaul: They "complement but do not displace" rules to protect public safety and the environment.

Tuesday's reform proposals by the HHS include updating communications technology, streamlining record keeping, revising health insurance portability rules, speeding grant application processes and giving states more flexibility on federal mandates.

No Scrap Heap For Rules

Read the full story

Hurricane Threatens Major Cities on East Coast

An earthquake shook the east coast two days ago and a major hurricane is on the way to strike the same area within a couple of days. What's next? Flies? Frogs? Hail?

Seriously, I hope and pray the people along the east coast don't take this storm lightly and evacuate before it's too late. These storms are not only destructive: they are deadly! There are many people that have lost their lives because they decided to ride out a hurricane. Don't take the chance. - Reggie

Weather Channel: Hurricane Irene: Current Status and Forecast

Look at the size of this storm compared to the states of Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas...

Washington Monument Damaged by Earthquake

A crack is visible on the west side of the Washington Monument's pyramidion. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Park Police Aviation Unit.)

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Israel - Birth of a Nation

A History Channel documentary.

BREAKING: Steve Jobs Resigns as Apple CEO

PRESS RELEASE: Letter from Steve Jobs

August 24, 2011–To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:

I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.

I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.


former Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, holding an iPhone

Senator Rubio at The Reagan Library

from last night

Glenn Beck Announces a Global Movement

At the conclusion of Glenn Beck's Restoring Courage events, below, he announced the start of a global movement to advance good and repel evil.

He travels next to South Africa, then South America and finally, Texas.

Glenn takes movement of human responsibility global

Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities

Read Glenn’s full keynote address from Restoring Courage: The Courage to Stand

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Andrew Breitbart on BigEducation

Breitbart's next "big" site to be

True Colors: Red State Shows Anti-Palin, Pro-Perry Bias

Two months ago, The Atlantic ran a piece called “The Tragedy of Sarah Palin."

The author, Joshua Green discovered something seemingly only Limbaugh and Levin listeners and viewers of The Undefeated were aware of until then: that Palin was a great governor whose outstanding governing record endeared her to Alaskans. Joshua Green “explained” that Palin’s many achievements and high approval rating stemmed from her moderate stance on the issues, and blamed her “turn” toward conservatism when picked for VP as the cause of the public’s current hostile treatment.

Imagine my surprise and shock last week to come across another attack against Palin but this time coming from the complete opposite direction. The article was written by Leon H. Wolf, a front-page writer at Red State. The claim: Sarah Palin started out as a true conservative who has made a U-turn, became a moderate, and linked hands with the establishment.

The absurdity of Green’s article is mirrored in Wolf’s piece. Palin has been, still is, and will continue to be a staunch conservative, often taking on the establishment in order to promote conservative ideology.

Their attacks seem to be geared to sway readers who think positively of Palin while currying favor with readers already against Palin. The Atlantic’s readers obviously dislike conservatives in general and Palin in particular. Green thus provided them the perfect explanation to defend their hate towards Palin despite her outstanding record. Red State, on the other hand, is a conservative site whose audience disagrees with the liberal ideology and opposes moderates for not remaining true to conservative beliefs. Wolf’s piece thus gives Republicans who dislike or fear Palin for whatever reason, a decent-sounding excuse for their opposition towards one of the most conservative, fearless, and articulate individuals in this day and age.

Since Red State is not the Atlantic, and it holds sway with many conservatives who can’t see through its phony pretense of neutrality, I therefore felt obligated to dissect Wolf’s article and point out the simple truth: his piece makes as much sense as the foolish column at The Atlantic. I also apologize for calling someone a hypocrite but lack an alternative accurate description that would do justice of Red State’s actions of late.

Wolf criticized Sarah Palin for not yet announcing her decision whether or not she’s running for president claiming it ties up her supporters at a time when all appearances suggest she’s either not running or running without plans of winning.

Whoa! I always thought the GOP rules regarding who may run in a presidential election include something called a primary complete with a deadline until which one may announce their candidacy. Since when has the primary become the result of the hand-picked competition between two individuals courtesy of the establishment? What happened to allowing the people choose the candidate of their choice in the primary?  Where are the hit pieces on Giuliani for having not yet made up his mind? The field is far from complete and there’s no reason to rush the process.