Monday, October 03, 2011

Panetta Warns Israel

Fox News reported
In a blunt assessment made as he was traveling to Israel, Panetta said the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East makes it critical for the Israelis to find ways to communicate with other nations in the region in order to have stability.

"There's not much question in my mind that they maintain that (military) edge," Panetta told reporters traveling with him. "But the question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength."
Actually REAL security comes from having God on you side as Amos 9:15 indicates:
“I will also plant them on their land,
And they will not again be rooted out from their land
Which I have given them,”
Says the LORD your God.
But I am talking about the real God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Israel has a responsibility to try and ease tensions in the region and find a way to resume negotiations with the Palestinians.

Standing next to Barak, Panetta said now is the time for bold action by both the Israelis and Palestinians to move toward a negotiated two-state solution. He says there's no alternative to negotiations.
The two state solution is inconsistent with Joel 3:1-2
“For behold, in those days and at that time, When I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel,
Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land.


Friday, September 09, 2011

Agenda 21 For Dummies

Agenda 21 For Dummies - YouTube


Saturday, August 27, 2011

Ugly protest

Ed Morrissey blogged
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker visited Messmer Preparatory Catholic School yesterday, while the school repaired the first vandalism that had occurred at the facility in eleven years of operation.
Teachers, who are union members, vandalized a "Choice" school. Aren't liberals supposed to be in favor of "choice", or does that only apply to choosing to kill unborn babies. And aren't teachers supposed to be in favor of children getting a good education? These children are getting a much better education than those in the public school.
While Walker read Dr. Seuss to the grade-school children inside, unions protested the visit and the school outside. Want to guess which group was more well-behaved? Actually, you don’t have to guess. The MacIver Institute shot video of the protest and the visit and then interviewed Messmer’s President, Brother Bob Smith. We see childishness, petulance, and bullying — and then we see Messmer’s students
being more adult than the "adults" outside.
(via Wisconsin Reporter):

It got ugly on the street outside the facility, which is no surprise, since Messmer is a “choice school” — an alternative to the union-gripped public school system. It’s an alternative that sends 85% of its high-school graduates to college. It’s also no surprise that “choice schools” threaten the union’s power in the state, which gave them extra added incentive to protest Walker’s visit … and to attempt to intimidate Messmer staff while doing so. The video provides a jarring disconnect between the well-behaved students on the inside and Brother Bob’s explanation of teaching positive discipline and self-control to the self-indulgent nastiness taking place on the sidewalk outside.

At the 1:05 mark, a man in a “JOBS NOW” union T-shirt bumps Brother Bob in a clear attempt to intimidate him, which amusingly has no effect. At 1:48, a protester harangues another member of the staff, telling her to get out of his neighborhood;
I wonder if the protester really lived in that neighborhood, and if he did, what he thought of the rapid rise in property values Brother Bob talked about on the video when Messmer Catholic School opened.
the protester appears again at 2:40 in the apparent conclusion to the incident, saying “You must be really proud of what you’ve accomplished.” Well … yeah. They’re actually educating students rather than interfering with someone else’s attempt to do so.


Thursday, August 25, 2011

Allergic to brains

Mediaite reported
Cranky CNN commentator Jack Cafferty lit into Republican superstars Sarah Palin (R-FNC), Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on Wednesday’s The Situation Room, comparing them to The Three Stooges (sans Shemp), calling Perry’s instant burial of Mitt Romney in the polls “a little scary,” and asking, “When it comes to presidential politics, why does America seem to be allergic to brains?”
Maybe they are just worried about catching the same brain infection that the liberal media seems to have caught.


B4U-Act wants tolerance for pedophiles

Hot Air reported
B4U-Act is a 501(c)(3) organization in Maryland that was established “to publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance, to educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals, to develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT’s Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and to educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals,” according to the group’s website.
I suspect the citizens of Maryland are more concerned about protecting their children from these monsters, than being educated about the issues faced by them. Should they become so tolerant of the needs of these monsters that they would be willing to sacrifice their children to fill the needs of the monsters>
Perhaps that sounds innocent enough (although I don’t think so). Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for a second: What’s wrong with psychiatrists seeking to help those attracted to children better understand why they have that tendency?
I don't object to them treating the monsters, but they should follow the law, and they should not seek to make the public tolerant of the needs of the monsters
Perhaps those psychiatrists could even be an instrument of crime prevention or of after-the-fact justice. But no. Consider: At least one psychiatrist in the bunch has been known to treat child molesters without reporting them, Bream said.
Obey the law, and protect the children.
Last week, the group hosted a scientific symposium to discuss a proposed new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Presenters expressed a wide range of views — but the thrust of the B4U-Act movement appears to be, ultimately, to decriminalize pedophilia.
Not only NO, but HELL NO.
As all too often happens with any kind of push for political correctness, with a twist of language, the blameless are forgotten.
The children must be protected.


Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Beware the tea party

Naked Politics reported
Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus are in Miami Tuesday to host a jobs fair, part of their five-city tour to draw attention to high unemployment, particularly in the black community. But at a town-hall style meeting the members held Monday night, some of the most heated talk centered not on jobs but on the tea party.
So they don't really care about jobs. They just want to bash the Tea Party.
"The real enemy is the tea party –- let's remember that," said Rep. Frederica Wilson of Miami Gardens, host of the meeting and jobs fair. "The tea party holds Congress hostage…They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term president."
That alone would make me support the Tea Party, even if I did not understand what they are for.
She got energetic applause from the crowd of hundreds at Mt. Hermon AME Church in Miami Gardens. So did Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who recently said the tea party should "Go straight to hell."
She must want them to try to create jobs in her congressional district.
"I'm in church. I'm not going to repeat that," Waters said Monday. She also said: "We have to stand up and fight. It's fight time...We're not afraid of the tea party…In this struggle, we have to define who we are,
I think we already know who you are.
what the president is doing
I know we know what he is doing, and that is why we want to make him a one-term president.
and not let our voices be overshadowed by the tea party."
There are many voices besides the Tea Party that wants to make him a one-term president.


Tuesday, August 23, 2011

New public works program

Althouse blogged
"President Barack Obama is likely to propose a new public works program in a post-Labor Day speech."
Say the Bloomberg editors.
... It makes economic sense. The president should think big -- upward of $100 billion a year for at least two years...
Unfortunately, a major public works program doesn’t make political sense right now. Republicans have served notice that they intend to stand pat against new federal spending...
The editors recommend a deal:
Obama should temporarily suspend Davis-Bacon, then ask Congress to repeal the act and let the market decide wage rates, as it does for every other industry....
Such a deal would stretch federal money, resulting in more jobs, especially for less-skilled workers who have been out of work for more than six months. And it would finally allow Obama to have a Works Progress Administration-style program that’s been missing from his recovery plans.
I can't picture the Republicans accepting this. And does the public actually want a Works Progress Administration-style program?
Actually I believe the Republicans are much more likely to support a plan that would spread already approved federal spending over more out of work people, than Obama is likely to risk offending Labor by calling for a repeal of Davis Bacon. Labor Unions do not care their people are out of work, as long as enough are employed to pay the dues that keep them employed, but repealing Davis Bacon would hurt them as much as not having dues deducted directly from the Union Members paychecks.


Qaddafi Wanes, and Now Things Get Interesting

Victor Davis Hanson opined
I considered the war against Moammar Qaddafi — admittedly a monster — to be ill-conceived, poorly articulated, unnecessarily drawn out, and predicated on the whims of the U.N. and the Arab League rather than on authorization from the U.S. Congress. But the only thing worse than a unwise war is losing an unwise war — and that is what the Obama administration has finally realized.
I don't think they even have a clue what a Pandora's Box they have opened.
What Libya will look like in a year, no one knows.
I've got a pretty good idea, and it is not good.
As for outcomes, there are many scenarios, but these two may be the most likely: either a sort of on-again-off-again chaos until a military-backed clique or strongman emerges and the same old cycle resumes, or some sort of constitutional system in a decidedly Islamic context, analogous to the Turkish model. In the latter case, we could expect the new state’s foreign policy to be anti-Western, friendly to China and Russia, virulently and actively anti-Israel, and more accommodating with Iran and its subsidized terrorist appendages. Given Western insolvency, public weariness with the Middle East, the announced draw-downs in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the president’s leading-from-behind diplomacy, I think the region will do pretty much what it wants without any worry whatsoever about U.S. feelings or interests.
I believe it will be the latter, an Islamic state ruled by Sharia Law that will respond favorably to an effort in the very near future to reform the Islamic Caliphate. But they will probably just join with Egypt first in the Ezekiel attack on Israel that is about to happen.
On our end, it would seem wise to keep our defenses strong and ready, and finally start exploiting our own sizable fossil-fuel reserves (especially oil and gas offshore) in the Gulf, the West, and Alaska.
I could not agree with you more. Not only does that make sense from an Energy Policy perspective, it does from a Jobs perspective as well.


Monday, August 22, 2011

Glenn Beck is Correct on the Middle East; Let’s Analyze Why That’s True

RubinReports blogged
Having studied the Middle East professionally for 35 years, written or edited more than 40 books on the region, and having a PhD in Middle East history, let me make it perfectly clear: Glenn Beck, who is holding several rallies in Israel this week, has a better grasp of Middle East politics than most Western experts, not to mention Western leaders.

I completely agree.
Certainly, Beck makes silly mistakes on factual matters and details. Yet what’s important is that he comprehends the big picture. I don’t say this based on a superficial view or on his support for Israel. As part of the GLORIA Center’s project on understanding current American politics and debates I have monitored virtually every television and radio show Beck has done over the last two years. When people voice absurd and slanderous stereotypes about Beck, it turns out they haven’t actually listened to what he’s been saying.
They never listen. They quote him out of context or make up things, and blast him for those false statements.
Why has Beck gotten things right that so many others have missed or distorted? There are five key reasons: Common sense; courage; knowing the difference between right and wrong, willingness to learn, and readiness to admit when one has been wrong. These are virtues often lacking among those with more elegant reputations and impressive diplomas.
And the left has a major problem with all five: Common sense; courage; knowing the difference between right and wrong, willingness to learn, and readiness to admit when one has been wrong.
What has he gotten right?

Go to his site and see the 10 points Barry Rubin identifies.


Restoring Courage

Jerusalem Post reported
The solutions to the problems of our times are not within the reach of political leaders, rather divinity, US pundit Glenn Beck told nearly 3,000 enthusiastic followers in the Caesarea Amphitheater on Sunday night, at the opening event of his four-day Restoring Courage rally.

“I’ve spent the last few years trying to find solutions for what is happening in the world,” he said on the backdrop of the pillars of the grand stage. “While there may not be a political solution, the good news is the God of Abraham ain’t running for office,” he said to loud applause.
Amen. He is already on His Throne, and His term of office is Eternity.
“Be not afraid, know who he is, know his face, know that he is a God of covenants and miracles. We are leaving the age of man-made miracles of spacecraft, and we are entering the age of the miracles of God.”
Amen. And while politicians do not have the answer, He does. And it involves Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, who will be returning real soon.

.... Beck addressed the sensitivity of the Christian Evangelist love to Israel and Jews, which many shy away from in suspicion. “There is a 2,000-year-old flinch of the Jewish people, when someone says I love you; I’d imagine the Jewish people at first would say thank you.” he said. But over the years, Christian love of Jews and their desire to bring them to the truthful beliefs cost too many lives.
It is true. Our love of Christ and a desire that Jews might know him too, may have made us too enthusiastic. But God has a solution for that, and soon he will seal (protect) 14,400 Jews to do that job.
“It’s not just the Holocaust, it’s happened over and over again,” said Beck. “There’s an important distinction of saying I love Israel, I defend Israel, and not separating that from the Jewish people. Make sure to say not that we only love Israel, but we love the Jewish people as they are.”
Amen. I pray nightly for the protection of Israel, and I believe they are about to see a Supernatural protection from God.
One Jew not afraid of contemporary Christian love is Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Efrat’s chief rabbi, who is active in Jewish-Christian dialogue. “He is the reason I had hope, because he reached back and didn’t question, just heard love and that is good enough for him,” Beck said of Riskin, who was instrumental in making Beck believe he could pull off the event. “For close to 2,000 years we were persecuted by the church, suffered wars at the hands of the church,” Riskin said. “Now, despite the fact we are different, Jews and not Christians, who respect Jesus as a Jewish teacher and not as god – you Christians have the courage to love us in our otherness. We are grateful to your courage to love us, stand by us, in the time of our grave need and danger, as rockets fall on southern towns.”

I stand with Israel.
Pastor John Hagee, head of Christians United for Israel, equated today’s Israel to West Berlin of 1963 when JFK gave his “Ich bin ein berliner” speech. Like that part of the city in the midst of Communism, “Israel is today a tiny island, an outpost swimming in a sea of tyranny. I stand here with a strong message, at this difficult juncture in history – please know that what I say now is shared by multiple Christians – ani yisraeli – I am an Israeli,” Hagee said, the crowd chanting with him.
Fantastic. I stand with Israel, and I also say ani yisraeli – I am an Israeli
Beck also addressed the controversy over his visit here, which is being frowned upon by politicians from the Left.
Who believe in themselves more than they believe in God.
“Somebody said we’re going to bring chaos, mayhem,” in the Wednesday rally, close to the Temple Mount, “and I thought- it’s the Middle East, how would you know?” “We don’t bring chaos and mayhem,” he said in a more serious tone. “No, we bring truth, we bring peace, we bring support, we bring comfort. Let our actions this week and from here out – let the Jewish people know, no matter what our governments say – we are not our governments, we stand with you.” “It was wonderful,” beamed Marie Conforto, who came from San Diego, California along with her husband, Dennis. “I really enjoyed it. And I can’t wait for Wednesday, it sounds like it’s going to be phenomenal.”
Everything about God is phenomenal.


Balanced Budget Acts in Europe

Noah Feldman opined
If you think balanced-budget amendments are the stuff of madmen or dreamers, you were in for a surprise this month.
Actually I think they are a good idea. Not a perfect slution, but a tool that could lead to a solution.
No, not the requirement of the U.S. debt-ceiling agreement that Congress vote up or down on such an amendment -- everyone knows that proposal will be dead on arrival. Rather, it was the joint recommendation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy that all 17 euro-area members adopt constitutional amendments by next summer that would require balanced budgets by specific target dates.
Striking fear into the hearts of the intelligencia.
In the context of the world’s current economic troubles, how could responsible, economically sophisticated leaders think it is a good idea to impose an inflexible constitutional debt ceiling? Merkel and Sarkozy are, after all, a far cry from Rick Perry.
But they still could all be right.
What makes mainstream politicians imagine that sovereign states would be helped, not harmed, by taking away their option to borrow and spend their way out of a fiscal crisis?
Perhaps the demonstrations in most European countries?
The answer lies in a naive but widespread understanding of how successful constitutions actually operate. The textbooks say that a constitution binds the government in advance so that in the future it will not do something tempting but foolish -- the way Odysseus bound himself to the mast when he knew the sirens would be seducing him. The idea is that a prior commitment will legally prevent later backsliding.
Not prevent but limit.
But the reality is much more complicated. Most constitutional provisions are written with loopholes, either explicit or implicit. A constitution almost never successfully binds the government from doing what it believes it must do to survive.
And it shouldn't. They should be free to have an unbalanced budget for a short time, such as war or national disaster, but not in the long time.
A creative interpretation of the document can generally be found sufficient to enable the government to do what it wants. Merkel and Sarkozy are well aware of this, so what are they after? First, they want to convince bond markets that poor euro- area members will not drag down the whole system by running up large deficits and then relying on France and Germany to bail them out. They aspire to use constitutions to convey this promise.
And Merkel and Sarkozy are from Germany and France. It is understandable that they don't want to be left holding the bag.
If the euro-area members really gave up the sovereign power of deficit spending, they would become much more like the American states.
Wasn't that the idea of a European Union?


Fareed Zakaria and Parliamentary Systems

Fareed Zakaria opined
After the credit downgrade, “only countries with parliamentary systems” have AAA ratings (except for France, which is a presidential/parliamentary hybrid).
And many of those (European) countries are having riots because they are almost broke and can't keep giving the people more and more.
That “brought to mind my years in political science graduate school,” where he learned that parliamentary systems were superior because “the executive governs the legislature.”
And the legislature can take down the government.
Citing Juan Linz’s “The Perils of Presidentialism,” an essay that argued that parliamentary systems are less stable but more efficient
Less stable. Sounds loke what we all want.
because “there is no contest for national legitimacy and power,” Zakaria agrees with the thesis of that paper, suggesting that the American regime is antiquated in its functions. “Think of David Cameron in England,” Zakaria noted, arguing that the UK Parliament was far more likely to not “squabble” or “hold the country hostage” in a way that would hurt the economy.
And look at the pictures of the fires in England right now.


Friday, August 19, 2011

There's Never Been A Plan

Economist Sachs Hits Obama
"We're almost three years into this administration, and there's never been a plan.
There is definitely a plan, and it is to destroy the US Economy. And Obama is following the plan. The plan just does not care how many are out of work. Because he wants the US to be more like Europe, with everyone on the dole, and rioting when the government has to cut back.
And that's what everybody feels. And the president didn't lead. He waited. The quintessential image, sadly, of an administration that I supported and hoped for much better, is the president waiting by the phone to hear what Congress calls to tell him.
When the Dems controlled both houses he did not care about jobs. He just wanted to saddle us with another entitlement program: Obamacare. And they did that. He does not care about jobs, except his own. He will pretend to care about jobs to make sure he is reelected.
It doesn't work in this country that way. It's not a matter that it's August. It's a matter that it's August 2011. So we've been drifting for a very long time. And we've been drifting down. And we had a short-term plan that failed. A short-term stimulus that was supposed to get the economy back on track, but it failed. And now we have nothing behind it. And we have no agreements, and we have no leadership. And, frankly, I do think it's pretty odd the president's on vacation right now. Normally I wouldn't care about such things, but the world markets are in deep crisis. It's no joke. This isn't just an up-and-down little blip. This is a very serious situation."
And it will not be fixed until January 2013 when the new Republican takes office.


Where’s the Syria plan?

Eugene Robinson wondered
Where’s the Syria plan? .... What we need is something the president has refused to provide: an Obama Doctrine governing the use of force to defend civilians against their own despotic governments, or at least spelling out how the United States views its role in the unfolding Arab Spring.
The confusion comes from assuming the Arab Spring is a desire for democracy. Democracy is a form of Government, and Islam is not just a religion, it is also a form of government, called Sharia Law.

What they want is restoration of the Caliphate they lost when the Ottoman Empire lost in WWI and the land was Partitioned in a bunch of individual countries. In some the leaders installed retained control, but had to get stronger to do so, and in some they were overtaken by someone stronger. But only a few of those demonstrating really wanted Democracy. What they wanted is what is going to happen in the September elections in Egypt, the one time election of an Islamic government, and that will be the last time they get to vote. And soon those Islamic governments will either persuade weaker Islamic governments to allow themselves to be taken over, or they will be attacked in an effort to reform the Caliphate.


Thursday, August 18, 2011

An 'inconsequential' Washington?

Jeff Greenfield opined
Whatever Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s political fate, he has already carved a niche in history with his first appearance as a presidential contender. He offered up the single most galvanizing sentence in any announcement speech. “I’ll promise you this,” Perry said. “I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can.”
He did not say inconsequential, he said as inconsequential as I can. But to a progressive, that wants to make it as consequential as possible, I guess any retreat must be frightening.
For ardent conservatives, it is the latest — and sharpest — battle cry for limited government. A lineal descendant of Ronald Reagan’s 1981 Inaugural assertion that “in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” First cousin to George W. Bush’s charge that Al Gore “trusts the government; I trust the people.” It offers a twist on the famous hope of Grover Norquist — self-described head of the “leave us alone” caucus — that the federal government should be “down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.’
Grover might have gone a bit far, but I agree with Reagan and Bush.
For former President Bill Clinton, Perry’s promise prompted a scornful rejoinder: “He’s saying ‘Oh, I’m going to Washington to make sure that the federal government stays as far away from you as possible — while I ride on Air Force One and that Marine One helicopter and go to Camp David and travel around the world and have a good time.’ I mean, this is crazy.”
Is that what the Presidency meant to Clinton? Besides providing him with interns to pleasure him.
There is, however, something far more fundamental. It is a formulation of a brand of current conservative thinking that breaks radically with two centuries of American history: There is no mission — other than defense against foreign foes — that is the proper task of Washington.
The Constitution lists a few other jobs, reserving the rest to the states and the people, but Defense is certainly a big one.
Whatever America’s view about the size and scope of government — how much it should tax, what it should regulate, who or what it should subsidize — it has never embraced the idea that it should be “inconsequential” in the lives of its citizens.
Certainly not since the Progressive Era began, which is the problem, but is was not always that way.
Before there was a federal government, the Confederation Congress passed in 1787 the Northwest Ordinance — from which came the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Apart from forbidding slavery in those states, the act also provided that revenue generated from the sale of a portion of each township in the state would go to fund public education. It was, in other words, the first instance of federal aid for education.
Did the revenue come to Washington to then be doled out, or did it remain in the state, or even the township, earmarked for that purpose?
.... Beyond money matters: It took federal force to bring civil and voting rights to the black citizens of the South some half-century ago. That force clearly disrupted life in the South as it had been lived for generations. It was about as “consequential” a use of federal power as can be imagined. Is that the kind of power a President Perry would scorn? I doubt it — at least, I hope not.
It is not a problem. The slaves have already been freed, by a Republican, and the oppression of black citizens o the South by Democratic Governors has been dealt with.
Perry has been nothing but blunt about his disdain for Washington; about his view of Social Security and Medicare — probably the two federal programs that have the biggest impact on the lives of most Americans — as “Ponzi schemes.” As a political matter, Perry himself has some tough questions to answer — and he may be willing to stake out an argument based on the “unsustainability” of these programs.
Does Greenfield think they are sustainable as now formulated?
For me, the larger issue is how deep the disdain for all things Washington has grown. To argue that the federal government has grown too large and too distant is one thing Robert F. Kennedy, for example, made this argument often during his last years.
I do not know what Kennedy thought but it has grown too large and too distant. Any decision that can be made in the state rather than in Washington should be made in the state, and any decision that can be made in a town should be made there rather than in the state capital.
To argue that there is nothing of moment that Washington should be doing marks a version of that argument that is nothing short of astonishing.
Not nothing. Little.


Dem suggests fracking causes STDs reported
A state lawmaker is explaining his remark that suggests the impact of Pennsylvania's booming natural gas industry includes the spread of sexually transmitted disease
This is the sort of problem you get when legislators don't understand their talking points. He knew he was supposed to badmouth Fracking, a technique used break rocks apart underground in gas production, and he confuses it with a slang word for sex.
"amongst the womenfolk."
I wonder how the women in his district liked hearing themselves referred to that way.
Democratic Rep. Michael Sturla of Lancaster County was expected to discuss the remark at a previously scheduled hearing Wednesday on gas drilling. His remark was made in comments e-mailed to a reporter in which he accused a Corbett administration official of downplaying the seriousness of community impacts created by drilling.
Does the man understand what community impact refers to. Gas drilling results in more jobs for drilling crews, who spend more money in the community, resulting in more jobs for the locals, but if the local "womenfolk" can't keep their pants up and their skirts down they might get STDs
The state Republican Party on Tuesday evening called the remark offensive and incredibly stupid, and called on Sturla to apologize. However, Sturla was apparently citing testimony by Troy Community Hospital from May that says among its experiences with the influx of drilling crews is an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.
And if the jobs had not been created that brought the drilling crews in with their STDs, people would have remained out of work, with nothing to do, and they would not have spread their own STDs?



CowboyByte reported
During a town hall meeting at Wyffels Hybrids in Atkinson, Illinois, a farmer expressed concern to President Obama about forthcoming regulations.
A reasonable concern. He would rather be farming than filling out forms.
The man stated that people would rather be farming than “filling out forms and permits to do what we like to do.” President Obama told the farmer “don’t always believe what you hear” and blamed Washington for ginning up speculation.
But they have seen the regulation his Czars have already promulgated.
Obama added that, “Nobody is more interested in seeing our agricultural sector successful than I am, partly because I come from a farm state.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Hillary for VP: Obama's Best Hope for Re-election?

RealClearPolitics blogged
If by early next year President Obama's re-election chances are looking as dicey as they do now, there is likely to be a growing clamor inside Democratic circles to drop Joe Biden from the ticket and replace him with Hillary Clinton.
Why would she settle for second banana? Why not run against him in a primary
.... Clinton would add some much-needed pizazz to a tough campaign that Biden does not. More importantly, she would shore up a shaky Democratic base, a huge part of which consists of disappointed women who still believe the secretary of state should have been president and would have done a better job than Obama.
Would they be fooled by a second banana slot? I really don't want Hillary any more than Obama, but I would like to see them duke it out again in a Democratic primary


What Obama Can Learn From Truman - Nothing

The New Republic wished
With an economy seemingly on the precipice of a renewed recession, an angry conservative movement that regards him with disdain, and a disillusioned liberal base disappointed in his first term, Barack Obama’s bid for reelection next year will, by all indications, be a tough, maybe even uphill fight. But daunting as the campaign may seem, the president can at least take some solace in a precedent from 64 years ago: Harry Truman’s campaign for reelection in 1948—successful, despite a poor economic climate, and a polarized electorate—offers a promising path for Obama’s reelection. The question is whether he’s prepared to take it.
He is not, and they would not work if he did.
In terms of the difficulties they faced, these two Democratic presidencies have plenty of parallels. Most prominently, both were hampered by crippling midterm elections, fueled largely by anger about the poor state of the economy, which produced sweeping and across-the-board loss of seats for their party in Congress. In 2010, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate, losing the House after four years in the majority and losing most of their comfortable cushion in the Senate. In 1946, Democrats lost 55 seats in the House—where Republicans grabbed a comfortable majority for the first time in sixteen years—and 13 seats in the Senate, giving Republicans there a 51-45 edge, their first majority in fourteen years.
But the Democrats did not cause the economic hardship then like they did this time.
.... In what will no doubt sound familiar to watchers of the current Congress, the sweeping GOP victories in 1946 convinced many Republicans that they had achieved a lasting ideological victory—that the American public had finished with the liberalism under FDR and Truman, and embraced their brand of conservatism. They were wrong. Voters had reacted to short-term economic conditions, and to a post-war mood for change, but not for a new right-wing ideology.
This is not a short-term economic problem that more of Obama will fix. It is an economic problem caused by Obama, and more of Obama will make it worse.
But it was Truman’s triumph to realize that the hyper-partisan Congress was as much a political boon as it was a political liability. Truman seized upon the conservative over-reaching and openly fought against what he dubbed the “Do-Nothing Eightieth Congress.”
Obama may claim the Republican House is doing nothing, but he would be lieing. They are just not doing anything he likes. They passed a budget, which 800 days of a Democratic control of both houses could not do, and when Republicans get the Senate in 2013 they will pass one too. And the Republican President will sign it.
.... The sitting 112th Congress, like Truman’s 80th, is dominated by a Republican House that believes that its sweeping victory reflected a huge public mandate to dismantle government as we know it.
No it is returning to a Free Market system like the country has know for most of its 200+ year life, and abandoning the Socialistic / Crony Capitalistic system Obama wants.
The overreaching in this case does not involve passing laws that get enacted over a presidential veto, but in precipitating artificial crises—over appropriations that are set to expire in a new fiscal year,
If they were that inconsequential then why not go along with them.
over a debt limit that has always been raised without preconditions
Which is the problem. We should have dug our heals in long ago. Before both Bush and Obama did so much spending we could not afford.
to create hostages
No weapons were used, the only force was the democratic force of a vote, No one or nothing was held hostage.
and force extreme actions.
Like the President not getting everything he wanted.
Far more than the 80th, the 112th is a true “Do-Nothing” Congress,
Not DO Nothing, Do nothing bad. Like the Hippocratic oath, Do No Harm.
producing little progress,
from the viewpoint of a "progressive"
and showing little interest, on key national policy areas from education to energy.
False, we want to reduce Federal control of both, and return it to the states.
But, unlike Truman, Obama has constantly sought common ground with Congress.
Like a mother who gives a child a choice, eat your broccoli or your cauliflower, and the child does not like either. How about a choice like eat one vegetable you don't like and you can have desert (despite what Michelle says).
.... Harry Truman’s 1948 campaign showed how much voters yearn for a strong and demanding leader
And And Obama's campaign will show he is no Harry Truman, but the country will get the strong leader they want in 2013 - a Repiblican.


Almost treasonous

Ed Morrissey blogged
Rick Perry had the commentariat hyperventilating yesterday, and not without reason, after an appearance in Iowa. Perry told a Cedar Rapids crowd that any attempt by the Federal Reserve to implement an extraordinary stimulus — ie, a QE3 or “printing money” — before the election would be “almost treasonous.” Perry warned that Texas would treat Fed chair Ben Bernanke “pretty ugly” if he visited the Lone Star State after such a move:
According to a video appearing on the left-leading website Think Progress, a reporter asked Perry what he would do about the Federal Reserve. Standing next to a “Perry President” sign, the governor replied, “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. I mean, printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history, is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion,” he added.
This wasn’t a good moment for Perry, but it will be a useful one.
Which in a political campaign may make it a good one.
He’s campaigning nationally now, not just in Texas, and that takes a different tone. The “pretty ugly” part of the comment is being hyped as a threat of violence, but that’s stretching the argument to the breaking point. “Pretty ugly” can mean a lot of things; it’s entirely ambiguous except that it expresses negativity.
Which is exactly the point.
Invoking treason is another matter. People toss that word around irresponsibly, but it has specific legal definitions, none of which has to do with changes in Fed monetary policy whether or not it helps an incumbent American President.
In this I disagree with Ed. If we look at the the Federal Reserves own document (PDF)
The Federal Reserve sets the nation’s monetary policy to promote the objectives of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
and the dictionary definition of treasonous
deserting your allegiance or duty to leader or cause or principle
the Federal Reserve allegiance is not to the President currently in office, and his reelection chances, but to promote ... stable prices, and devaluing the currency increases inflation and increases prices. The Keynesian idea of using QE1 and QE2 to increase employment were certainly a disaster so far in the Obama presidency, because the increases in regulations and central control imposed by Obama had such a negative pressure on job growth as to completely overwhelm any possible Keynesian effect to increase employment. And long-term interest rates certainly are not being moderated.
A QE3 would be bad for the US, but politicians and bureaucrats implement bad policy without committing treason all the time (a lot more frequently these days, unfortunately).
True, but this time it is being done to excess. Water is necessary for life, but too much water and you can drown.
Those competing for the opportunity to lead the nation should demonstrate that leadership by eschewing cheap demagoguery in favor of better arguments. For instance, in this case it might be better to warn the Fed that any attempt to interfere with the political process through monetary policy will mean even closer political scrutiny of the Fed after the election, which is not just a legitimate point but also perhaps not a bad idea.
And it is one that I hope Perry will use if challenged on his statement.


Monday, August 15, 2011

Nanny State Madness? reported
When California’s elected officials come back from their month-long recess they face a mountain of proposed legislation (almost 900 bills are lined up and waiting), including a new law (SB432) that would require hotels to eliminate flat sheets. Not having fitted sheets on hotel beds would now be a crime in California. This is not a joke.
Has the legislature really found a solution to the many problems California has, that they are now down to dealing with non-fitted sheets.
California, the state trying to deal with a massive $26 BILLION dollar debt, is considering a law that some hospitality industry experts claim would add an estimated $15 to $30 million dollars in costs to an already hurting hotel industry. The low-end estimate of fifteen million is the projected cost to purchase new fitted sheets for the 550,000 hotel beds in the state. Of course the hospitality industry is claiming that these added costs will hurt their business and put jobs at risk.
But the fitted sheet industry probably likes it.
The fitted-sheet bill is the brainchild of State Senator Kevin De Leon (a Democrat from Los Angeles), whose mother suffered back pains while working as a hotel maid. Kevin has been quoted as saying this was “an issue close to my heart.”
And how does this help his mother's back pains? The Senator is a pain, but a little lower down.


Warren Buffett pleads "Please raise my taxes" reported
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains.
In a time of high unemployment we don't want potential employers to have the resources or encouragement to hire people, and thuse make more money.
And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
Do all 8,274 agree with you.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
You don't need to wait for Congress to raise taxes. You can just make a donation to the treasury. Oh, it is not your taxes you want raised as much as other rich people.


10 ways to fix the budget

Robert J. Samuelson in The Washington Post opined
It’s true: Deficit reduction isn’t an economic panacea. It won’t instantly boost the economy or the stock market. It won’t automatically end financial turmoil. But none of this means that we should ignore deficits. Allowing the government’s debt to spiral upward tempts a full-blown future financial crisis.
And Europe is showing us what that means.
The recent deal on the debt ceiling created a 12-member congressional supercommittee charged with finding $1.5 trillion of savings over a decade. This compares with some projections of cumulative deficits of $10 trillion or more through 2021. Let’s engage in a fantasy. Suppose the committee doesn’t deadlock and decides to find a bigger solution. What to do? Here’s a 10-step program to fix America’s budget problem.

1. Decide to balance the budget over a decade.
Too little, and too long. We need to not only balance, we need to start paying off the huge increases in debt we saw under both Bush and Obama, and make sure we can't get into another spending binge in the future (balanced budget amendment)
“Deficit reduction” isn’t good enough. The case for balance (albeit at “full employment”) is simple: discipline. If people want public services, they should be willing to pay for them.
True. THEY should pay for them. Not make someone else pay for them.
2. Favor spending cuts over tax increases. Tax increases over the next 15 to 20 years could easily reach 25 to 50 percent to cover the costs of (a) the doubling of the 65-and-over population from 2000 to 2030, (b) spiraling health costs, and (c) the continuation of other programs at recent levels of national income. These staggering tax increases are too burdensome. They might hobble the economy and would be unfair to younger workers.

3. Cut Social Security, Medicare and other retiree programs. They represent half of non-interest federal spending. Exempting them would require gutting other programs or enacting huge tax increases. We live longer; eligibility ages should be higher.
Much higher. But do it gradually. Don't just slowly take it up to 70 and stop. Each year when the retirement age is less than life expectancy increase it a few months. This will encourage younger workers to maintain their own retirement savings that can increase with compounding interest, and investments that can appreciate over the long term, and not depend on an undependable government to do it for you.
Wealthier retirees can afford steeper Medicare fees and lower Social Security checks. The Census Bureau classifies about 30 percent of the 65-plus population as “high income” (incomes at least four times the poverty line). In 2008, the median net worth of married elderly couples was $385,000.
Net worth does not mean anything if the government is inflating the currency with quantitative easing
4. Don’t spare current retirees or baby boomers. People don’t lose the capacity — or moral obligation — to change just by turning 65. They should bear some of the burden.
Do they have the ability to go our and earn money to supplement their social security? Why should they bear the burden of the government taking money from them in a ponzi scheme.
5. Evaluate defense needs independently — and pay for them. National security is the government’s first job. When America’s military is put in harm’s way, it should not become a victim of a rich nation’s cheapness.
6. Eliminate outdated, ineffective and wasteful programs. Across-the-board domestic spending cuts perpetuate bad programs and penalize the good. This ensures lousy government. Subsidies for farmers, public broadcasting and Amtrak, among others, should end.
As should many government agencies not related to items mentioned in the Constitution.
7. Lower income tax rates by reducing tax breaks — and make the system more progressive. The idea: Spur economic growth. There should be three rates — 10 percent, 20 percent and 30 percent.
and everyone should pay, not just the richer half of the population.
Capital gains (profits on sales of stocks and other assets) should be taxed at ordinary income rates, not at today’s top rate of 15 percent.
Why? To discourage investment that creates jobs?
This low rate is the biggest tax break for the rich; two-thirds of capital gains go to the wealthiest 1 percent.
Who create jobs and already pay a much larger share of taxes than the lower rates.
The overhaul should be revenue neutral; all money from ending tax breaks should go to lower rates.

8. Enact an energy or gasoline tax. Even with spending cuts, higher taxes will be needed to balance the budget. A 25-cent-a-gallon fuel tax would raise $291 billion over a decade, says the Congressional Budget Office. The actual tax might have to be $1 or more. But it would have an added benefit: curbing oil imports by spurring drivers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.
I might go along with that if we also open up oil and gas drilling in this country.
9. Control health costs. This is crucial, because health spending already represents 25 percent of federal outlays. Unfortunately, there’s no consensus on how to do this. The committee should create a group of experts to prepare two plans: one favoring liberals’ approach of tougher regulations; the other reflecting conservatives’ preference for vouchers and tax credits. The report should be ready by late 2012 for the next president and Congress to debate and decide.

10. Make changes gradually. It’s important to limit adverse effects on the economy and to win public acceptance. Increasing Social Security’s eligibility age to, say, 70 could occur over 25 years.
faster, and don't stop at 70.
A $1-a-gallon gas tax could be introduced over six years. Axed programs could be phased out over three years.

Deficits reflect a gap between the benefits Americans expect and the taxes they’re willing to pay. There’s no way to close it painlessly. But we can distribute the pain in ways that seem “fair” and serve a common good. Once done, this could bolster confidence. Households and businesses would know what to expect. Now, it’s unclear whose spending will be cut and whose taxes raised. The longer we wait, the more disruptive changes will be. Despite this, we’ve repeatedly delayed. We now have another opportunity to break that pattern; sadly, the odds are that we won’t.
Then we are doomed as Europe is.


Saturday, August 13, 2011

Out of ideas

Betsy Newmark blogged
The Washington Post has a story entitled, "Nervous Democrats say President Obama must be bolder on economy." The sad thing is that Obama has used up his bold efforts on the economy. He had his chance for the first two years of his administration when he had an filibuster-proof control of the Congress and blew it.
They could have raised the debt limit as high as they wanted to, or even eliminated it altogether. They didn't want to get blamed. They did not even pass a budget. The Republican House did.
He spent over a trillion dollars and arguably made things worse with his pork-laden stimulus and increased government interference in the market place. He's out of ideas now or the ones he has are ineffectual and counterproductive. What he could do such as easing up on regulations, pushing through free-trade deals, and allowing more drilling or the construction of the Canada pipeline, he is too beholden to special interests to do.
The Republican President in 2013 will do all of those, plus repeal Obama Care and Dodd / Frank, as soon as he/she is in office. And job growth will skyrocked.
Mostly what he has are calls for more taxes. His Democratic allies want him to advance some sort of "bold" plan that, even though it wouldn't get through the Congress, he could use in a sort of Trumanesque campaign against a "do nothing" Congress.
Good luck with that.
His aides are listening and promising that he'll lay out some measures for "creating jobs, helping the middle class, and guiding lawmakers on a “balanced” way to cut deficits, raise taxes on the wealthy and adjust entitlements."
He has been trying that, and it is not working.
It's two and a half years into his term and he's now thinking about these sorts of things. Where he's been all this time? Oh, yeah. Making things worse. And now there is even less federal money to throw around in the kind of ideas he's pondering.
But he has had plenty of time to play golf. Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. Obama played golf while London burned.


Rick Perry and his Texas jobs boom

CNN reported
Texas has gained more than 1 million net new jobs in the decade Perry has led the state. And it's been going strong since the recession ended. "Over the last two years, 40% of the net new jobs created in the United States were created in Texas," he told a conference of state legislators from around the nation this week.

But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs,
But they are employed, and can work to improve themselves and when they qualify for a better job they can show an potential employer they are capable of holding down a job
and many positions don't offer health benefits.
Neither employers or the government should pay for a person's health insurance. The employers can take the money they would have put into health benefits and pay the employee more, and they can buy the insurance they want, and if they leave and go to work for someone else, they will not have to worry about Preexisting Conditions
Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.
Still a lot better than the country under Obama

Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.
People are moving to Texas because that is where the jobs are.
Still, Texas has been adding jobs at a rapid clip since the recession's end in 2009. The state has created nearly 297,000 net new positions since June of that year, representing a major chunk of the nation's 715,000 gain, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of course, Texas enjoys advantages that have nothing to do with having Perry at the helm. Rich in natural resources, the state has been benefiting from the high price of oil and the expanded interest in natural gas exploration. Energy employment has soared by 16.8% over the past year alone.
Just think what it would have been without all of the anti-oil-and-gas regulations Obama's regulators have been dumping on the country.
While the energy sector is driving much of the recent jobs expansion, nearly all industries are doing well, said Jim Gaines, research economist at The Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. Construction jobs, for instance, have grown by 5.4% in the past year, according to the center. Employment in professional services is up 4.5% and in the hospitality business by 3%. Only the government and information technology sectors have seen drops, of 1.4% and 5%, respectively.
I would like to see more in the IT area, but I am happy he is cutting government jobs. Hope he keeps that up when he gets to Washington
"Texas has fared better than most of the nation," said Terry Clower, who directs the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas. "Private sector job creation has been pretty strong compared to most other states."
Texas today, America in 2013


Glenn Beck’s Restoring Courage Event reported
Glenn Beck’s groundbreaking event, “Restoring Courage,” is just days away.
God bless Glenn Beck
On August 24, 2011, Beck will join people from around the world to offer up one resounding message: It’s important that America and her allies support Israel.
I completely agree. I pray nightly asking God to not only bless Israel but to supernaturally protect Israel, and I apologize to Him that Obama has thrown Israel under the bus, while reaching out to the Muslims, and I pray that He will look at the hearts of the many Americans that continue to support Israel as He ponders on what He said in Genesis 12:3:

And I will bless those who bless you,

And the one who curses you I will curse.

And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.
The article goes on to say
Recently, Beck was granted a special meeting with with Israel’s Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger. During the discussion, he had an opportunity to describe “Restoring Courage,” while connecting with the Rabbi on issues of faith and Beck’s passionate support for Israel. writes:
As he did when he addressed members of Knesset, Beck said he was inspired by the words of Biblical Ruth, who followed her mother-in-law, Naomi, to Israel from Moab and promised her that “Your people shall be my people and your God shall be my God.”
“That’s what needs to be said,” Beck told Rabbi Metzger. “We need to say that, so we are gathering together.”

I pray for safety for everyone who attends.


Rick Perry

CNN reported
As a resident of Texas for 36 years, I keep wondering why the rest of the nation pays any attention to our political and cultural absurdities and yet still chooses Texans as presidents. Our most revered historical moment, the Alamo, was arguably a mass suicide.
If you seriously think that, you either do not understand Texas history, or you are incapable of distinguishing between suicide and self sacrifice, because those brave men died to give Sam Houston time to raise the forces to defeat the Mexican army at San Jacinto. Have you seen the monument there (that counting the star on top is taller than the Washington monument?
The slaughter in San Antonio was followed by a massacre at Goliad, the fall of the Confederacy to Union forces, and later by the Houston Astros. Texas has a legacy of losing.
A battle at Goliad that was followed by Texas independence, a loss to Union forces that resulted in the abolishment of slavery, and a ball team that can't afford to pay for decent players. Two out of three ain't bad.
None of this apparently matters, though, because America is beginning the process of electing another Texan to be president. Gigantic tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, a trumped up war and a ruined economy from the last Texan seem incapable of dissuading supporters of Rick Perry.
I may be guessing here, but it sort of sounds like you are a Democrat that can't think for himself, and just parrots talking points. The Bush Tax cuts helped the Middle Class more, making many pay no tax at all. The Dems liked them, but can't stand the fact that the people that pay most of the income taxes got any cut at all. The trumped up war was a response to an Islamic attack that killed 3000 on our own shores, and Obama did far more to hurt the economy than Bush ever did
His Saturday speech in South Carolina will make clear that he is entering the race for the White House
I don't know whether Rick Perry is my candidate or not. The next few months will determine that. Right now he looks good, but let us see how he does in the debates
and will spawn the ugliest and most expensive presidential race in U.S. history,
That will happen regardless of who the Republican Candidate is, as Obama tries desperately to hold onto a job he is not qualified for
and he will win. A C and D student, who hates to govern, loves to campaign, and barely has a sixth grader's understanding of economics, will lead our nation into oblivion.
I don't know how you got access to Obama's grades, I thought they were blocked, but I will agree with everything else you said about Obama. Oh, you were talking about Rick Perry? You seemed to describe Obama so well, you confused me.
The big brains gathered east of the Hudson and Potomac Rivers believe that Mitt Romney is the candidate to beat.
Actually the think he would be so liberal that he would leave much of what Obama has done to the country that they could live with him as President, because they know Obama is going to lose, and they hope to fool Republicans into nominating Romney or Huntsmen
But they are unable to hear what Rick Perry is saying. The Christian prayer rally in Houston was a very loud proclamation to fundamentalists and Teavangelicals, which said, "I am not a Mormon."
No it said "Ï am a Christian"
The far right and Christian fundamentalists have an inordinate amount of influence in the GOP primary process and, regardless of messages of inclusion, very few of them will vote for a Mormon.
It depends on who the Mormon was. I don't want a liberal like Romney or Huntsman, but I would much prefer Glenn Beck to Obama. And I don't care about color. I would certainly prefer Herman Cain, or Allen West, or a number of other blacks to Barack Obama.


10:1 mix of spending cuts and tax hikes

Debate flashback: Which candidates would support a 10:1 mix of spending cuts and tax hikes? « Hot Air reported
Have we now reached the point where, for all intents and purposes, any amount of tax increases will render a deal intolerable no matter how many glorious spending cuts are packed into it? A 10-to-one ratio isn’t good enough, apparently; how about 20 to one? Fifty to one? What if the Democrats offered to pass Cut, Cap, and Balance in return for, say, $500 billion in new revenue from households that make $1 million or more? What if they asked for $1 trillion in new revenue and agreed to pass Paul Ryan’s budget in return?
No it is about current year spending cuts. They are offering spending cuts in the next 10 years, and one congress cannot bind a future congress. Reagan fell for that, as did GHWB. Offer 10 to 1 current year cuts and they would leap on it, if the cuts were not all in defense
This can’t simply be about not wanting to slow the economy by adding new tax burdens. Deep, short-term spending cuts also run that risk,
It depends on what is being cut.
yet one of the big knocks on the debt-ceiling deal from the right was that there weren’t enough of those in the final package.
No, they were not cutting things that needed to be cut.

I’m morbidly curious to see what happens if the Super Committee can’t make a deal on tax reform
Which I don't think they will do. We need tax reform, but it will be easier to get real reform in 2013.
and Republicans are suddenly staring down the barrel of the Bush tax cuts lapsing at the end of 2012. Obama will have no incentive to compromise by extending the cuts for the rich yet again during next year’s campaign. Polling shows the public is on his side there and he knows he can’t cave on yet another deal now that the left’s enraged over the debt-ceiling agreement.
Nothing good can come of a change made in the middle of election season. We just need to hope the country can survive until 2013
The GOP’s only chance to extend across-the-board cuts again is to win the election.
The country's only chance is for a Republican sweep in the 2012 elections.
If they don’t, tax hikes are coming, one way or another.
If Obama is re-elected, the only chance we have will come in sitting on a white horse, riding on a cloud. As the last three words in the New Testament (Revelation 22:20) say Come, Lord Jesus.