Recent Posts

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Allen West Radio Interview



Monday, September 26, 2011

BREAKING: Gov. Sarah Palin Sends Letter to Crown/Random House, Warns Not to Destroy Documents Ahead of Potential Defamation Suit

Andrew Breitbart and Big Journalism have done all of the reporting on this. Links to two stories that started the ball rolling are below the video. - Reggie





Secret Service Agent Quits, Campaigns Against Obama Policies

I have never heard of a secret service agent quitting his job to run against the policies of a POTUS. Quite stunning! - Reggie

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Health Reform Lawsuit Appears Headed for Supreme Court

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.

The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election.

The Justice Department is expected to ask the court to overturn an August decision by a panel of three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law’s requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The suit was brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals.

Since the ruling, the Justice Department had until Monday to ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the case. Administration lawyers didn’t file the paperwork by the 5 p.m. deadline, so the ruling would stand unless the Justice Department asks the Supreme Court to step in.

The petition isn’t due until November, and the administration could get an extension.

Opponents of the law had expected the government to ask for the so-called en banc hearing to delay a ruling by the Supreme Court.

“The president and solicitor general deserve full credit for refusing to employ delaying tactics in this pressing constitutional controversy,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown Law professor who is working with the plaintiffs.

But former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who has worked on briefs in support of the legislation, said the move should be read as a sign of confidence from the administration.



2010 Official photo of the Supreme Court of the United States


Sunday, September 25, 2011

Christine Lagarde: IMF may need billions in extra funding

The 'global economy' is succeeding in destroying and bankrupting America. There is no possibility this is unintentional. Since 2008, there have been countless economic 'emergencies' worldwide and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve has used our currency to 'spread the wealth around' as Obama told Joe the Plumber. In the process, our currency has been enormously devalued and we are $5 trillion deeper in debt.

It's time to face it, America. Some of our elected politicians have conspired to destroy our nation. 


This is tyranny! - Reggie

Christine Lagarde has signalled that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may have to tap its members – including Britain – for billions of pounds of extra funding to stem the European debt crisis.

The head of the IMF has warned that its $384bn (£248bn) war chest designed as an emergency bail-out fund is inadequate to deliver the scale of the support required by troubled states.

In a document distributed to the IMF steering committee at the weekend, Ms Lagarde said: "The fund's credibility, and hence effectiveness, rests on its perceived capacity to cope with worst-casescenarios. Our lending capacity of almost $400bn looks comfortable today, but pales in comparison with the potential financing needs of vulnerable countries and crisis bystanders."

The suggestion came after European officials revealed they were working on a radical plan to boost their own bail-out fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), from €440bn (£384bn) to around €3 trillion.

The plan to increase the EFSF firepower is the crucial part of a three-pronged strategy being designed by German and French authorities to stop the eurozone's debt crisis spiralling out of control. It also includes a large-scale recapitalisation of European banks and a plan for an "orderly" Greek default.

Although Britain is not involved in the large-scale eurozone bail-out projects, it is liable for 4.5pc of IMF funding.

Read the full story

Prime Minister Netanyahu 'On the Record'

from September 23rd




Now Too Risky to Hire in America

This is tyranny!

from September 24th

Will Churches Stand Up?

Are American pastors free to share their political views from the pulpit? The answer to this question is complex. While some issues can certainly be discussed, there are also government-sanctioned limitations on partisan preaching (especially if churches expect to keep their tax-exempt status).

A regulation added to the IRS code back in 1954 has muddied the waters for pastors, creating a scenario in which some leaders are too fearful of federal consequences to exercise their right to free speech from the pulpit.

With pastors unsure of just how far they can take their partisan comments about specific candidates, some religious leaders find themselves purposefully avoiding the subject — a result that has potentially led to a decline in church education on issues of great social and political importance.

As faith influences an individual’s take on social and political issues, one wonders why religious leaders face restrictions on speech that is so intertwined with personal religious beliefs.

The fear and uncertainty that some faith leaders experience is driven by the aforementioned ban on political campaign activity that was instituted on both charities and churches, alike, nearly 60 years ago. It was back in 1954 that Congress approved of what has become known as the “Johnson Amendment.” The provision, which still stands today, explicitly prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations (churches and charities) from engaging in campaign activity.

Read the full article at The Blaze and watch the videos below.




Anti-Semitism on campus

from September 21st

Delegates slam Perry on immigration

ORLANDO, Fla.—Rick Perry hit a roadblock on immigration at Florida’s Presidency 5 straw poll on Saturday.

An issue that may have less impact in other early-state Republican primaries, immigration is a hot-button issue in Florida — and Perry’s botched attempt to explain his policies back home in Texas during Thursday’s Fox News debate has soured conservative activists here on him.

In interview after interview as they filed out of the Orange County Convention Center hall where votes were cast, delegates pointed to his support for a state-based version of the DREAM Act — which provides in-state tuition rates to some illegal immigrants — and his denouncement of those who disagree as lacking “a heart.”

“I looked at my wife when he said that and said, ‘I think he may have just lost,’ … because it was making it personal to a lot of Republicans,” Florida State Rep. Scott Plakon said of the debate answer. “His stances on immigration and [mandating the HPV vaccine], I actually think he could have gotten around that. But saying that you don’t have a heart if you disagree on such an issue like that was a very poor choice of words. I know a lot of the Republicans here were offended by it.”

Plakon decided to support former pizza baron Herman Cain, who won an upset victory with more votes than the next two finishers, Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, combined.

Several delegates said Perry needed to give a better explanation for the policy, as well as his opposition to a fence along the Texas-Mexico border. And Perry’s decision to frame the issue with the kind of language more typically used by liberals repulsed some base voters.

“I considered Perry until he said we don’t have a heart,” said Joe Burk from Orlando, who voted for Romney. “We can get that liberal guilt trip stuff from someone else.”

Immigration is particularly potent in Florida politics. Florida Gov. Rick Scott won an upset victory in the GOP primary last year after attacking state Attorney General Bill McCollum for his more moderate stances.

Read the full article

EPA’s Tighter Ozone Standards Will Strangle Economic Recovery

A few weeks ago, the President asked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the agency’s draft for more stringent Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Although Jackson begrudgingly complied, the EPA is still moving to an ozone standard more stringent than the current one.

The current ozone standard of 84 parts per billion (the concentration of ozone in the air over an 8-hour period—a drop of gasoline in a tanker truck is one ppb) prevailed while the EPA tried to implement even stricter rules, but since President Obama scrapped those plans, the EPA is moving to enforce the 75 ppb that was adopted in 2008.

The costs for states and areas to comply with a tightened ozone standard are substantial, and it will increase the number of areas in nonattainment—areas in which ozone standards are higher than the regulated amount. These federal mandates can discourage companies from expanding or force them to implement costly emission-reduction technologies. The Wall Street Journal reports:

There are 52 areas where air quality fails to meet the 2008 standard, the EPA said in a memo to state officials. Among them are Baltimore, San Diego, Dallas-Fort Worth and parts of Los Angeles. Ms. Jackson said the EPA would enforce the standard in a “common-sense way” to minimize the burden on state and local governments. The Bush-era standard, while more lenient than the 60 to 70 parts-per-billion level considered by the Obama administration, would still harm the economy, according to business groups. Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, said 75 parts per billion would be costly to implement and damaging to job creation. “The tighter the standards get, they become a much larger hurdle to meet,” Mr. Feldman said.

The massive costs of tightening the standard have outweighed the negligible environmental benefits in the past, and enforcing the 75 ppb will have diminishing marginal returns—possibly to the vanishing point. Even the EPA acknowledged lowering the ozone standard to 70 ppb would only lower asthma and respiratory diseases a few tenths of a percent. Enforcing a standard of 75 ppb would have a similar marginal benefit.

Police find decapitated body of Mexico newspaper editor

Now, tell me, isn't this a good reason to secure our borders? There are maniacal drug lords decapitating whomever they please, on a daily basis, just across our border. Time to take charge, Washington D.C., and do one of the few things the Constitution allows you to do! 

- Reggie

(CNN) -- The editor of a Mexican newspaper was found dead, her body decapitated and with a note next to it, officials said.

Maria Elizabeth Macias Castro, 39, was the editor in chief of the newspaper, Primera Hora.

Her body was found Saturday morning, according to the attorney general's office in the northern Tamaulipas state. A message "attributed to a criminal group" was found next to her, the office said.

"The state government expresses its deepest condolences to the relatives and loved ones affected by these lamentable acts," the office said, adding that it is investigating.

Earlier this month, attackers left ominous threats mentioning two websites on signs beside mutilated bodies in northern Mexico.

Netanyahu Will Not Play Political Game with David Gregory

David Gregory begged Bibi Netanyahu to say Obama is Israel's best friend like George W. Bush used to be. Netanyahu is no fool. - Reggie

A Reagan Forum with Richard and Elizabeth Cheney

YouTube description: A Reagan Forum with Richard and Elizabeth Cheney on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

Krugman, Keynes, and “The Bleeding Cure”






For a month or so I’ve had this analogy kicking around in my head based on the old medical practice of blood letting.


If a patient was sick with just about anything, the answer was to bleed them, literally, and this was supposed to make them better. Problem was, more often than not this process actually made the patient sicker. Rather than question their methods, the physicians would “double down” and bleed the patient more and more until eventually, the patient died.

(Perhaps some readers will remember a recurring bit from the early days of Saturday Night Live, with Steve Martin playing Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber.)

The Keynesian approach of “stimulus” in which increased government spending is supposed to “help” the economy get restored back to health strikes me as the economic version of bleeding a sick patient. It doesn’t work. Not only does it not work, but it makes the economy “sicker”. Just like the ill informed physicians of the past, Keynesian politicians and economists ignore this failure and insist on doubling down. The solution to these people isn’t to change strategy, they think we haven’t bled enough to cure what ails the economy and they demand another round of the same failed policies, only on a grander scale.

Yesterday I saw that Paul Krugman has written an op-ed in the New York Times using this analogy… only he uses it to say calls for “austerity” are akin to the blood-letting physicians of yore. He has stumbled upon the perfect analogy to highlight his own failure as a Keynesian, but he completely misses the point. We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, and it’s the out of control government spending that is analogous to bleeding. We need to staunch the bleeding with bandages and a tourniquet (which would be “austerity”) before we get any weaker from the loss of taxpayer dollars that have been spiraling down the drain of inefficient government.
 

Ga. Middle School: Muslim Polygamy Is Normal, Burkas Good For Women

A middle school in Smyrna, Georgia included in an assignment material that essentially shows 7th grade children that Islamic polygamy is a perfectly legitimate concept and that there is nothing wrong with the strict dress codes used to oppress Muslim women the world over.

The material was presented to the 7th graders at Campbell Middle School as part of a discussion of the school’s dress codes, apparently meant to use the ideas of Islamic culture for women’s clothing as some sort of example to compare how the school regulates clothing for its students in Georgia.

The concepts were presented in the lesson as a letter from a fictional 20-year-old Muslim woman named “Ahlima.” In this letter “Ahlima” tells readers that she wouldn’t mind if her husband took a second wife and also extolled the virtues of the burkha. She claims that American women are “horribly immodest” in the way they dress.

As to polygamy, the fictional Ahlima says, “I understand that some Westerners condemn our practice of polygamy, but I also know they are wrong.”
 

How Cain Won Florida


by Byron York Chief Political Correspondent


ORLANDO - It wasn't fully clear at the time, but the political ground was shifting under Rick Perry's feet from virtually the moment he arrived here in Orlando for the Republican presidential debate and Florida GOP straw poll. Just how much the ground shifted wasn't apparent until early Saturday evening, when Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced the poll's results: Perry, and fellow leader Mitt Romney, and the rest of the Republican field finished far behind longshot winner Herman Cain.

It was a huge victory for Cain in a key state. After all, Gov. Scott said repeatedly that the straw poll would choose the next president. "I believe whoever wins this straw poll on Saturday will be the Republican nominee and I believe the Republican nominee will be the next president," Scott told Fox News earlier in the week. And Perry himself said just hours before the poll that, "I've got all my hopes on Florida." (Of course, shortly after uttering those words, Perry got on a plane for Michigan, passing up an opportunity to address straw poll voters in person before the balloting, which probably didn't help his chances.)

The final results were Cain 37.1 percent; Perry 15.4 percent; Romney 14.0 percent; Rick Santorum 10.9 percent; Ron Paul 10.4 percent; Newt Gingrich 8.4 percent; Jon Huntsman 2.3 percent; and Michele Bachmann 1.5 percent.

Perry made a big effort to win the straw poll, and a week before the voting, it appeared he would reap big benefits. He had the money, he had the organization, he had the endorsements. And Cain? The Georgia businessman received his first endorsement less than 24 hours before the voting, when Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon announced he was supporting Cain. "I met with [Perry and Romney], and they're both very good candidates," Plakon said later, "but I just couldn't get there. And my wife kept saying to me for days, what about Herman Cain?" One thing led to another, and Plakon sat down for a talk with Cain on Friday evening. The two hit it off, and 20 minutes later, Plakon recalls, "I shook his hand and said, 'I'm all in.'" Minutes after that, Plakon found himself introducing Cain before hundreds of loud, enthusiastic supporters. It was a good moment for both, but that was pretty much the extent of Cain's establishment support.

Meanwhile, dozens, maybe hundreds of GOP delegates who came to Orlando intending to support Perry were having second thoughts. They'd all been in the room for the Fox News-Google debate on Thursday night and were dismayed by Perry's performance. Actually, more than dismayed -- some were insulted by Perry's accusation that people who don't support his immigration positions are heartless. Still, they didn't immediately drop the Texas governor, did not immediately say, "That's it -- I'm outta here." Rather, in the 40 hours after the end of the debate, their minds were a little more open than they had been before. And most were specifically a little more open to Cain, who impressed them during the debate and had made a number of impromptu appearances around the hotels adjacent to the Orange County Convention Center.

But even on Saturday, Perry might still have recovered some support with an inspiring speech before the voting. Instead, he headed off to Michigan, and it was Cain who delivered a barn-burner that brought at least seven standing ovations from the delegates. Wavering Perry delegates became Cain voters.

From the Trenches: A Personal Story of Obama Job-Killing Regulation

I occasionally broker commercial loans between finance companies and small businesses. It gives me a lot of pride when I bring together an American entrepreneur who is ready to risk all his assets on his own business, with a finance company that sees a way to help that businessman and make a profit himself.

For the past month, I’ve been working with a financier to bring funding to 30 entrepreneurs, eager and ready to start up their businesses. Yesterday I had the most dis-spiriting conversation of my professional career with my financier, whom I’ll call “Joe”.

Joe has a credit line with a Gigantic American Bank. The Federal Reserve has slapped the Bank, and all other banks big and small, with new regulations regarding how they loan their money, who they loan it to, and issued a mountain of compliance rules. The Bank cannot rely on their internal compliance auditors any longer, either. They must use independent auditors.

The Bank, in order to remain in compliance, must shove all these same regulations and compliance rules onto whomever they loan money to, including Joe, who also must engage an independent compliance auditor. Joe must shove all these same regulations and compliance rules onto whomever he loans money to, including these entrepreneurs, who also must engage an independent compliance auditor.

The cost of all these regulations and compliance audits, at the entrepreneur level alone, is $30,000. It costs a heck of a lot more as you move up the chain.

The entrepreneurs cannot afford this.

As a result, the entrepreneurs’ dreams of starting their own businesses die on the vine. They now must go back into the depressed job market to (not) find a job.

Sessions' Opening Statement Details Inaccuracies In President's Plan

Mark Levin is a true fan of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and as a fan of Mark Levin I decided to check out the Senator's YouTube channel. Sessions is the Ranking Member of the Senate Budge Committee.

The statement below occurred last week. One of the most striking things he says is: "Since taking office President Obama has surged our gross, federal debt nearly five trillion dollars in three years."

Without a doubt, Obama's "plan" is to spend us into bankruptcy in order to reshape America into the Marxist nation he yearns for. Unfortunately, he is succeeding. - Reggie


YouTube description: WASHINGTON, September 20 — At a hearing today in the Budget Committee, Sen. Sessions delivered an opening statement to lay out his concerns with the deficit plan that the president presented yesterday. A Budget Committee staff analysis (http://1.usa.gov/qjrnOP) found that total deficit reduction is only $1.4 trillion, less than half what the White House had claimed. What's more, the deficit reduction relies entirely on tax increases, and net federal spending will actually increase rather than decrease.

Herman Cain Takes On Morgan Freeman For Calling Tea Party Racist


Saturday, September 24, 2011

Attack Watch! Obama's Socialist Agenda Targets Free Speech

from September 20, 2011

Conservatives, Sisyphus, and the Renewed Constitutional Movement

American Thinker

The key to saving America and its exceptional nature is in the math, but it's also very much about the law.  More and more people are coming to understand the inextricable link between the decline of American exceptionalism and government lawbreaking.

Rasmussen polling shows that only 28 percent of Americans believe that government operates with the consent of the governed.  Consent of the governed, of course, is one of the main principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Gallup polling has shown that for two decades, Americans who self-identify as conservatives outnumber liberals two to one.  Liberals, however, have disproportionate control of government.

Based on the math, it is an inescapable conclusion that conservatives are doing something wrong.

The intellectual underpinnings of the conservative movement, which began in the 1950s, were expressed by first-generation conservatives Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr. and the movement's earliest high-profile political leaders, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.  The foundations of the conservative movement were grounded solidly in Madisonian liberal constitutionalism.

First-generation conservatives reacted to the post-Wilson/Roosevelt America that had shifted away from principles of individual liberty and property rights and towards big-government statism.  The early conservative movement also battled big-government, establishment Republicans, epitomized by Nelson Rockefeller, over the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

Conservatives have had a problem governing because, for the most part, statists control the halls of government power.  Statists therefore control the levers of the law, and they have turned the law against constitutional principles. 

Unless we reclaim the rule of law, conservatives will forever be like Sisyphus, the king in Greek mythology punished for eternity to push a rock uphill, only to watch it roll back down over and over again.

To coincide with Constitution Day, but with themes intended to influence the 2012 election and beyond, second-generation conservative Richard Viguerie and I released a 63-page e-pamphlet titled "The Law That Governs Government: Reclaiming The Constitution From Usurpers And Society's Biggest Lawbreaker."

We present two major themes about the renewed constitutional movement, which is heavily influenced by the Tea Party.

Cavuto: Rich People Provide Jobs

Obama's new tax hike on millionaires won't help unemployment crisis

Herman Cain wins GOP Florida straw poll

What a shock! I am very excited that a conservative won the Florida straw poll instead of a RINO (Romney, Perry, Huntsman, etc.) "Every winner of Florida’s Presidency 5 straw poll has gone on to win the GOP nomination." From their lips to God's ears. As long as the GOP nominee is a true conservative, I will be pleased. - Reggie

Herman Cain
ORLANDO — Former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain won the Presidency 5 straw poll here Saturday, delivering a blow to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s frontrunner status and a victory for a candidate who has struggled to transform his grassroots popularity into strong showings in national polls.

“Tonight’s winner is Herman Cain,” Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced. “It shows you something, the road to the White House come through Florida, and it pays to spend time here.”

He received 37 percent of the more than 2,600 votes cast.

“Thank you to the Republican voters for this incredible honor of being named the winner of the Presidency 5 straw poll in Florida today,” Mr. Cain said. “This is a sign of our growing momentum and my candidacy that cannot be ignored. I will continue to share my message of ‘common-sense solutions’ across this country and look forward to spending more time in Florida, a critical state for both the nomination and the general election.”

The two national frontrunners — Mr. Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — placed second and third. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, meanwhile, landed in fourth place; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas landed in fifth place; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, sixth. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann finished last. (See the poll results here.)

Mr. Cain’s victory closed out a three-day Republican powwow at the sprawling Orange County Convention Center, where thousands of activists watched Mr. Perry stumbled through another debate, while some of the oft-overlooked candidates turned in perhaps their best performances yet.

Minutes before the vote, Mr. Cain, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich each personally address the crowd Saturday afternoon, while some of the other candidates sent surrogates to speak on their behalf.

Mr. Cain again vowed to replace the tax code with a 9 percent tax on businesses, personal income and sales. He also said that while the nation faces economic, global and moral crises, the “biggest crisis of all is a severe deficiency of leadership in Washington, D.C., and in the White House.”

Mr. Santorum followed that up by continuing to cast himself as a proven winner in Democratic leaning districts and the authentic article when it comes to embodying the basic tenets of the conservative movement. “I stood by my convictions every single time,” he said.

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, expressed admiration for Sen. Marco Rubio, a tea party favorite, and teased the crowd with the idea of tapping him as his running mate.

“I’m not saying anything specific about a choice being made next summer, but when you imagine Marco Rubio debating Joe Biden, I mean the contrast between American commonsense and liberal nonsense will be so big,” he said, sparking laughter from the crowd.

The weekend kicked off Thursday with a Faith and Freedom Coalition rally and featured the third debate in as many weeks, a Faith and Freedom Coalition rally and a gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference, the first ever regional meeting,

The result will win Mr. Cain some headlines, but the long-term impact of the poll on the nomination battle is difficult to read, as Mrs. Bachmann opted against aggressively competing in the poll and Mr. Romney opted out entirely.

“Our campaign has made the decision to not participate in any straw polls, whether it’s in Florida, Iowa, Michigan or someplace else,” said Matt Rhoades, Mr. Romney’s campaign manager. “We respect the straw poll process. In the last presidential campaign we were both strengthened as an organization and learned some important lessons by participating in them. This time we will focus our energies and resources on winning primaries and caucuses. We look forward to bringing Mitt Romney’s strong pro-jobs message to every part of the country.”

(Mrs. Bachmann won the last high-profile straw poll in Iowa last month, but failed to get a bounce out of it.)

Read the rest of the article

The Official Results - 2,657 votes cast:

Herman Cain, 986 votes, 37.1%
Rick Perry, 410 votes, 15.4%
Mitt Romney, 372 votes, 14.0%
Rick Santorum, 289 votes, 10.9%
Ron Paul, 276 votes, 10.4%
Newt Gingrich, 224 votes, 8.4%
Jon Huntsman, 60 votes, 2.3%
Michele Bachmann, 40 votes, 1.5%

Ron Paul Highlights from the Presidential Debate

Why is Ron Paul one of the only ones that makes sense? We must remember that America needs a president that will follow the constitution. After listening to the debate it would seem that Ron Paul is the only one committed to that.



Here is a video also showing how Ron Paul is being censored.



Ron Paul is the only real choice!

- Michael

Friday, September 23, 2011

The Fox News/Google Republican Debate

Last night's GOP debate thanks to Fox News Channel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at United Nations

from earlier today




Also see...




I posted the video below a few days ago but I really feel it should be posted with this speech by Bibi Netanyahu. The truth must be told about the original two state solution that has been rejected again and again by the people that refer to themselves as Palestinians. - Reggie

Chris Christie Reconsidering 2012 Run, Will Decide in Days

Honestly, I don't care for Christie, Romney, Perry, Paul, Huntsman, etc.

I prefer Cain, Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann unless Palin gets in the race. All of these are true conservatives except Gingrich but he used to be. Perhaps, he could be again. 

- Reggie


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reconsidering his decision not to enter the 2012 presidential race — and he says he will let top Republican donors know within days about his plans, Newsmax has learned.

During the past few weeks, several leading Republican donors and fundraisers have been urging the popular Republican governor to reconsider his decision not to run and to enter the GOP primary.

These Christie supporters note that significant GOP support has remained on the sidelines of the primary fight. Many leading fundraisers have yet to commit to any current primary contender, including frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Newsmax has learned that the effort to draft Christie culminated in a hush-hush powwow held in the past week with Christie and several notable Republican billionaires.

A source familiar with the meeting suggested that Christie seemed inclined to enter the race but said he needed more time.

Christie promised to make a final decision "within two weeks," the source said.

Another source involved in GOP fundraising tells Newsmax that that uncommitted fundraisers and donors have been receiving phone calls from top political aides to Christie, seeking their feedback about his possible entry into the race.


Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Unique Nature of Jew Hatred

Dr. Michael Brown
As many of the nations of the world align themselves against Israel, this is a good time to be reminded of the unique nature of anti-Semitism, hatred of the Jews because they are Jews. And while few people would claim that the modern state of Israel is flawless in its conduct or that the Jewish people are above moral reproach, it is clear that there is something irrational, even diabolical, about Jew hatred. Consider the evidence in its totality.

1) Anti-Semitism is the longest hatred of all time.
Catholic scholar Edward Flannery wrote: “Antisemitism is the longest and deepest hatred of human history. . . . What other hatred has endured some twenty-three centuries and survived a genocide of 6,000,000 of its victims in its twenty-third century of existence only to find itself still intact and rich in potential for many years of life?” Today, Anti-Semitism is at its highest levels since immediately before the Holocaust, equaling, in fact, those pre-Holocaust levels. How can this be?

These accusations against found in the biblical book of Esther, roughly 2,500 years old, still ring true in the hearts of many anti-Semites today: “There is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples . . . whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey [international] laws; it is not in [our] best interest to tolerate them” (Esther 3:8, with slight modifications made to make this more contemporary). Why has this hatred of the Jews persisted for so long?

2) Anti-Semitism is the most widespread hatred of all time. It can be traced from the Greco-Roman world to Christianity (yes, Christianity, including vicious comments from some of the Church’s greatest leaders); from Islam to Fascism to Communism (intense anti-Semitism links Muslim terrorists, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Stalin); from White Supremacists to Black Supremacists; from university campuses to the world press; from the philosopher Voltaire to the historian Arnold Toynbee; from the composer Richard Wagner to the car designer Henry Ford; from Japan to Russia to Iran. Why the Jews?

Does GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney forget he was governor?

S.E. Cupp
Another week, another presidential debate. The one in Orlando on Thursday night, sponsored by Fox News and Google, will surely be yet another prime-time matchup between the two Republican front-runners, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

We're sure to hear lots of things about what separates the two: health care policy, ideas on immigration, etc.

But let's not forget what unites them: experience as governors. That is - somewhat strangely - something that Romney will probably not talk very much about.

Why not? Well, in Romney's continual efforts to make newcomer Perry look downright undesirable, he is intent on touting his own experience in the private sector, saying it makes him uniquely qualified to lead this floundering nation out of its economic slump.

There's some logic to that line of thinking. This election was always going to be about the economy and joblessness, and who better than a successful businessman like Romney to get us back in the black and back to work? In a sea of former and current governors, it might not be a bad strategy for Romney to use his business acumen as a way to distinguish himself from Perry and the others.

Plus, there are certainly parts of Romney's tenure as governor that he'd rather not talk all that much about - namely, his own state's health reform law, which closely resembles the dreaded Obamacare.

What's interesting, however, is that this may be the first time in modern history that a former governor is running away from his executive experience to win the White House, instead of trying to use it as his trump card. In the New Hampshire debate in June, and in campaign speeches since, Romney has repeated the not wholly accurate line, "I spent my life in the private sector." While he can boast a 25-year career in business, he also, of course, spent four years heading up the State of Massachusetts. Further, he ran unsuccessfully for Senate in 1994 and for President in 2008, so he hasn't so much eschewed the public sector; it's kind of eschewed him.

Yet Romney's public service, both actual and attempted, rarely leaves his lips. Even his endorsers appear to be discouraged from discussing it.

When former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty dropped out and endorsed his former adversary, he, too, made little of Romney's political leadership. "Mitt Romney in this race has a depth and scope of private-sector experience as an entrepreneur, as somebody who has invested in, started and grown businesses, and, importantly, grown jobs," Pawlenty said.

Interestingly, one of Pawlenty's attempted swipes at Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) earlier in the campaign was that she had no executive experience.

We're Sinking Under Obama's Policies

Economy: The head-scratching continues as stocks take another leg down. Why, they ask, must the market be so negative? With an economy buckling under leftist incompetence, what, we ask, is there to be positive about?

Funny, because it's been going on for almost three years now, but hardly a day goes by without some bit of bad news the media calls "unexpected." But investors have noticed.

After selling off 2.9% on Wednesday, the S&P 500 dived another 3.2% Thursday. The Dow industrial average is testing a 52-week low.

Wednesday's drop came after the Fed unveiled its new plan for reviving the economy and as President Obama hit the road to sell his new but unimproved $447 billion stimulus.

Thursday's "unexpected" news was that the four-week moving average for jobless claims — a labor-market bellwether — rose to 421,000. Any number north of 400,000 is considered recession territory.

But should anyone really be surprised?

After all, we were promised in 2009 that $840 billion in stimulus would guarantee unemployment would not top 8%. Today, it's 9.1%, and has stayed above 9% for 26 of the last 31 months.

Since this president took office, U.S. businesses have shed 3.3 million jobs. We are still 6.9 million below our peak employment reached in January 2008. Ordinarily, more than two years after a recession has ended, well over a million jobs have been added to payrolls.

By any meaningful measure, then, our president has followed the least-successful economic policies of any U.S. leader since World War II. As recession seems ever more possible, the IMF warns of a U.S. "lost decade."

Whether it's jobs, economic growth, energy prices, incomes, regulation, weak foreign policy, or the quality of our lives and the nation's social fabric, America's current course looks questionable at best.

No wonder the markets are so volatile. They discount not the present, but the future. And the future for investors is murky at best and downright dark at worst.

So what's wrong? Here's a quick review of some of the federal policies launched in the name of "stimulus."

• Failed Fed policy.
For three years, we've kept interest rates at record lows, undergone two rounds of quantitative easing and created $2 trillion in new money. On Wednesday the Fed announced its next move: the $400 billion "Operation Twist" — modeled on a failed Fed bond-buying program from the '60s to push down long-term interest rates. With so much Fed meddling, the markets can't help but be confused.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Senator Mike Lee on Social Security, Law of the Sea, and Controlling our Debt


YouTube description: Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal government. It's an uphill battle for the youngest member of the U.S. Senate, but one he's prepared to fight.

Our President - The Embarrassment in Chief

It's time to face facts. The man elected by 53% of Americans is not only a committed Marxist - he's an embarrassment to the country!

Below is a group shot of world leaders taken at the UN on 9/20. It is accepted protocol that you do not wave during these photo sessions because you might cover the face of a fellow leader.

Well, as usual, Obama wanted to be the center of attention so he waved at the camera and covered the face of the gentleman standing next to him. Perfect. - Reggie

Easy Being Green: Iberdrola

Part of Senator Jim DeMint's "Easy Being Green" video series looking at stimulus spending on President Obama's favored green energy projects.

The Solyndra Non-Investigation

Bankruptcy examiners aren’t prosecutors.

As Andrew Stiles reported Tuesday on NRO, House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R., Texas) has written to Attorney General Eric Holder to seek the appointment of a special bankruptcy investigator in the Solyndra case. The operative word here is bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process conducted under the supervision of a trustee is very different from a criminal investigation conducted by a prosecutor. For those hoping for a full accounting of the $535 million Solyndra debacle, there is less to Representative Smith’s request than meets the eye.

In my weekend column, I explained that if the Solyndra case came walking into a competent prosecutor’s office, the theory of the investigation would be fraud. We have the loss of over half a billion dollars in public money (in the form of government credits), which was pledged to back a company that had a hopelessly flawed business model and that was gushing losses with no realistic prospect of a turn-around. We have grossly misleading rosy-scenario pronouncements by key players (including President Obama and Vice President Biden) at a time when Solyndra backers were gearing up an initial public offering of stock — and when Solyndra’s independent auditors had issued a dire warning that it was doubtful the company could continue as a going concern. In addition, we have executive-branch officials renegotiating the loan arrangement so that corporate insiders, including Obama administration cronies, would be given priority over taxpayers in the liquidation of assets when the company inevitably went belly-up — a novation that appears to be as illegal as it is inexplicable.

But what is happening with Chairman Smith’s letter to Attorney General Holder is not what happens when a case comes in the door at a prosecutor’s office. Smith is not asking Holder for an ordinary criminal investigation in the sense of having federal prosecutors and agents pursue the case as they see fit.

To be sure, Smith would be delighted if that were an option. Alas, it is not, for three reasons. First, the deep and suspect involvement of the Obama administration in the facts of the case leaves the Holder Justice Department ineradicably conflicted when it comes to investigating Solyndra. Second, the conflict would not be cured if Holder were to appoint a quasi-independent counsel — i.e., one who would still ultimately report to Holder, or to other high-ranking political appointees in the Obama Justice Department if Holder were to recuse himself. Third, because prosecution is an executive-branch function, the appointment of a fully independent counsel would be legally dubious — and even if that weren’t so, independent-counsel investigations have a sorry history that we shouldn’t want to see repeated, regardless of which party is in power.

Representative Smith is obviously trying to find a way around this dilemma. His letter seizes on the happenstance that Solyndra is now a bankruptcy case. On the surface, bankruptcy law appears to permit some probing of fraud by an independent investigator. Unfortunately, when you dig a bit beneath the surface, it is not really very independent and it is far too circumscribed to be effective in a matter like Solyndra — where the fraud may have caused the bankruptcy but has little if anything to do with the bankruptcy process.

LightSquared: Obama’s Dangerous Broadband Boondoggle

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 21, 2011 09:53 AM




Let the sun shine in…

After I blogged last week about Barack Obama’s burgeoning LightSquared scandal, I received a miffed e-mail from billionaire hedge fund manager/Obama donor/LightSquared principal backer Philip Falcone under the subject line “Tip.” Falcone defended the Obama administration and noted that the predecessor to LightSquared, called Skyterra, had benefited from some previous regulatory approvals under the Bush administration. (Sound familiar? It’s the same “Blame Bush” defense the White House and its allies are using to try and deflect the Solyndra debacle.)

Falcone then fumed at me: “I really wish someone would take 5 freaking minutes to do some diligence and get the chronology straight! I’d be glad to point you in the right direction if you so choose. You may even find some dirt on AT&T, the GPS guys and they (sic) money they are spending on this campaign. Do you know that your tax dollar goes to build satellites that the GPS manufacturers use, for free?? Billions….Billions…..Billions…And a few of these companies are foreign companies….that do not pay taxes. I really truly wish someone would spend some time to get the facts straight.”

While Falcone and his P.R. team take to the airwaves, I took more than “5 freaking minutes to do some diligence” and did a little more digging. My syndicated column below goes over the latest developments and basic facts since The Daily Beat’s Eli Lake first reported Gen. Shelton’s bombshell disclosures about the White House’s testimony-meddling.

But there’s much more.

His Biggest Big Lies


Good morning, suckers: President Obama is playing you.

If you work hard, play by the rules, save your money, create jobs, and make a success out of yourself, President Obama and the Democrat party will plunder everything you have worked so hard for, because in their view that is only fair.

That is the meaning of the policies President Obama is espousing as he campaigns for re-election around the country this week. As Mark Steyn has explained, there is no bill yet that the President is demanding Congress pass, it won't create any jobs, and there is no money to pay for it. It is just a traveling road show, and we need to start to hold accountable our relatives, friends and neighbors who would fall for it, and thereby darkly threaten the entire future of America.

Calculated Deception

Campaigning for re-election on Monday, President Obama said,

Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher tax rates than millionaires and billionaires. That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that. Warren Buffet's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can't change the tax code to correct that…. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it.

Let me educate you, Mr. President, even though I am quite certain you are not interested in hearing any answer that contradicts your committed religious beliefs. But the truth is that the unfairness you discuss is a fantasy. The facts are just the opposite.

Even before you were elected, Mr. Obama, under the tax policies adopted by President Reagan, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the much vilified President George W. Bush, official IRS data for 2007 showed that the top 1 percent of income earners paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent combined! The top 1 percent of income earners that year earned 22 percent of income but paid 40.4 percent of total income taxes. When Reagan became President, the top 1 percent paid 17.4 percent of income taxes, as I note in my recent book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb. As Jack Kemp used to say, if you want to soak the rich, cut tax rates. Moreover, the bottom 40 percent plus of income earners now pay no federal income tax on net as a group.

So if "the rich" are not paying their fair share, Mr. President, what would that fair share be? Based on these official facts, for you to run around the country telling America that we could have jobs and balance the budget and solve the debt crisis you are creating if the rich would just pay their fair share of taxes only demonstrates that you are not qualified to be President. Either you don't understand the basics of America's tax policies even after you have been President for three years, or you are engaged in calculated deception thinking your fairy tale will fool enough gullible people that you can be re-elected despite an economic record so bad that it is threatening to rival the Great Depression.

As the Wall Street Journal further explained yesterday, in 2008 official IRS data shows that taxpayers earning over $1 million paid an average federal income tax rate of 23.3 percent. Those earning between $500,000 and $1 million paid an average federal tax rate of 24.1 percent. As the Journal further elaborated, "that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum."

Actually it is a Warren Buffett scam. His company that made him rich, Berkshire Hathaway, itself is a sophisticated tax shelter. If tax rates are raised, that will only lead more of the wealthy to flee to investing in his company to avoid the abusive multiple taxation. The IRS claims that Buffett's company owes a billion dollars in back taxes. If Buffett thinks the rich don't pay their fair share, why is he fighting this? Why doesn't he just pay his fair share as required under current law?

Buffett is just playing all of us like President Obama is. What a disgrace that our public debate has fallen this low, to this level of rank, manipulative dishonesty.

And the above doesn't even count the corporate income tax. America suffers from virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, nearly 40 percent on average counting state corporate income taxes. Even Communist China has a 25 percent corporate rate. The average rate in the European Union, which is reputedly mostly socialist, is even less than that. In formerly socialist Canada, the corporate tax rate is 16.5 percent, slated under current law to fall to 15 percent next year. Compared to America, Canada has been booming since Obama was mistakenly elected.

The Obama/Buffett ruse arises just like any other magician's trick. It focuses attention on just one tax rate paid on income arising from capital investment -- the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent. The florid abusive rhetoric distracts from the multiple taxation of that income, which is actually taxed at least four separate times under our tax code. Capital investment income is taxed first by the above mentioned, abusive, internationally uncompetitive corporate income tax. If any is paid out as dividends, then it is taxed again by the individual income tax. If the value of the capital interest, say a share of stock, manages to increase in the Obama depression, then it is taxed again by the capital gains tax. If anything is left at death, then it is subject to taxation again by the death tax.

Moreover, a basic principle of our tax code is that any business expenses incurred to produce income are deductible in the year they are incurred. But not the expenses of capital investment. Those expenses can only be deducted over several years under depreciation rules, which is yet another form of discrimination and plunder of capital investment. Moreover, the money devoted to any capital investment has already been taxed when it was earned, so that is effectively still more taxation of the same income.

That is how the top 1 percent of income earners ends up paying more than the bottom 95 percent combined. And it is why the average tax rate paid by millionaires is three times the average rate paid by the middle class.