[NOTE: Maybe it's because I still have chills when I think how about 40% of my savings disappeared during the financial crisis in '08. Maybe its because I have to watch my finances more carefully these days than any other time in my life. Whatever the reason(s), I can't help but wonder if what is happening in European economies right now is like the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" warning us of another economic collapse around the corner for this country. Am I being over-reactive, or just Spirit-led discerning? Personally, it all makes me want to take all my savings and stuff it under my mattress. It seems as though that way I will just get a better night's sleep. Please read the article(s) below and let me know what YOU think. - Stan]
"Critical Mass: Eurozone Dominoes Threatening to Fall"-
By Dale Hurd; CBN News Sr. Reporter, June 06, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2012/June/Critical-Mass-Eurozone-Dominoes-Threatening-to-Fall/
PARIS -- Economists have worried all along that the nations in the eurozone would start to fall like dominoes. Now the dominoes seem to be moving. "History is repeating itself," German economist Robert Halver warned. "We are again in full crisis mode. Last year: crisis, this year: crisis. The politicians have learned nothing." With Greece on the verge of being expelled from the eurozone, Spain is now in critical danger, and eyes are even turning to France.
'Inter-Generational Solidarity'
While France may have a relatively strong economy, it hasn't had a balanced budget in almost 40 years. Some joke that France is the one country where Communism succeeded. The government sector of the French economy is larger than the private sector, and socialism is patriotic. The French have even given a virtuous label to saddling young people with mountains of debt from the welfare state. "It's called 'Inter-generational Solidarity.' It means you get your grandchildren to pay for you and they call that 'solidarity,'" French economist Emmanuel Martin explained.
France has been breaking basic economic laws for decades, but somehow the French model keeps rolling along. But it's rolling toward a cliff. During the Cold War, Western economists starting crunching the numbers from the Soviet economy and knew that it had to crash. It did. French economists have done the same thing with their economy. Yet, so far, it has defied the rules of economics.
Edge of Collapse
Economist Bertrand Lemennicier at the University of Paris Pantheon-Assas, predicted 20 years ago that the French economy had to collapse. If the system is not reformed enough, he believes insolvency could happen suddenly and will stun the world. "Nobody will expect that France will collapse in one month," Lemennicier said. "But we are at the edge of that. We don't know the date. My point is it will be more like overnight." Some economists suspect French government debt is much higher than figures show. And French banks are heavily leveraged with bad loans to Italy.
And just when France needed to reform itself, it elected a new socialist president who wants to bring in more socialism. France's new president, Francois Hollande, has promised to raise the minimum wage, raise the tax on the wealthy to 75 percent [hmm, sounds like our own President, you think], and lower the retirement age. "Some say we have to keep this social model, the French social model, alive. But this model is the worst enemy of the French economy," French economist Nicolas Lecaussin told CBN News.
Why the U.S. Should Worry
If France falls, that leaves only Germany, which alone cannot save the eurozone. But an ever growing number of economists have decided that nothing can save the eurozone now, and it's only a matter of time before the fallout reaches America. The European economy is one fifth of the world economy. And just when it needs smaller government and freer markets to spur economic growth, most of the Europeans, and especially the French, continue to cling to socialism, at their peril. "Spain is clearly trying to reform its country when France clearly is not," Martin said. "We're not dealing with the real issues."
Lecaussin flatly predicted, "France will collapse." A nightmare scenario could be looking more and more likely: devastating capital flight out of the eurozone, multiple bank failures, and a collapse in the value of the euro. All that could mean the collapse of some American financial institutions in an event worse than the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: What Happens in Europe Won't Stay There
- Dale Hurd CBN News Sr. Reporter, May 22,2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2012/May/Warning-What-Happens-in-Europe-Wont-Stay-There/
"...At risk is a global chain reaction: If Greece defaults on its debt, it could begin a domino effect of bank failures across Europe, bringing down weak eurozone countries and eventually spreading to Wall Street. 'We [the United States] could be easily pulled into this vortex,' economist Robert Brusca warned. 'It wouldn't take that much to tip the U.S. economy over.'
Experts say a meltdown in the eurozone could cause problems for the U.S. economy in several ways, including the following:
■ Loan defaults. European banks won't be able to repay loans to U.S. lenders.
■ Drop in Demand. Europe purchases huge amounts of American goods. If the European economy weakens, they'll buy less from the United States.
"We'd also see European exports on world markets at rock bottom prices," Morici noted. "And that would make life very tough. For instance, GE would have a lot of trouble competing with Seimens."
The U.S. recovery has been slow, and a eurozone meltdown would make America's already weak economy worse."
Friday, June 8, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
#226 (6/7) - "Isn’t It Time to Outlaw Gendercide?"
[NOTE: (from the ACLJ)"The United States has no law preventing what is being called "gendercide." In fact, even China has legal restrictions on this barbaric practice, but, unbelievably, we do not. The American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ) is actively supporting Rep. Trent Franks' bill to make it illegal to abort a child based on his or her gender. Pro-abortion legislators in the House blocked this legislation last week but we aren't giving up.Sign the Petition to Make Gender-Based Abortions Illegal today": http://aclj.org/abortion/end-gender-selection-abortions You can read more about the subject below. The article posted (and the links to 2 other related stories) were obviously written before the House failed to pass the measure discussed. P.S. - (1)Not surprisingly, our nation's most pro-abortion President - who has NEVER supported a pro-life bill, even one protecting the lives of babies who survive an abortion! - indicated that he would veto any "gendercide" bill because it went against "a woman's right to choose." UnBeLievable!. and 2) Remember our President's views on the killinng of unborn GIRLS whenever the Democrats accuse Republicans of engaging in "a war on women!" Hello!!Together now - HYPOCRITES!- Stan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- by Ericka Andersen, May 30,2012; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/30/isnt-it-time-to-outlaw-gendercide/
Think sex-selective abortions—known as gendercide—happen only in China? Wrong. This week, Live Action films produced an undercover video of a Texas Planned Parenthood employee explaining to a patient how to easily obtain an abortion if her unborn child were a girl and not a boy. The employee also gave the patient guidance on committing Medicaid fraud while she waited to find out the baby’s sex—but that point deserves a separate discussion altogether.
Sex-selective abortions have been publicly debated recently due to forced abortion opponent and Chinese dissident Chen Guangchang. Guangcheng found himself in danger because of his opposition to China’s one-child policy that often perpetuates gendercide. It has caused a heated and necessary discussion of the issue worldwide.
Americans aren’t taking sex-selective abortion lightly. Tomorrow, a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions in the U.S. is up for a vote in the House. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would also punish doctors if they perform gendercide, which usually occurs in the second or third trimester, when the baby’s sex is clearly determined.
The option may seem rare, but the facts speak for themselves. For Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents having families and raising children in the U.S., researchers found that a firstborn girl often skews the sex ratio of the following children. For second births, the male-female ratio was 117 to 100, and for third births, it was 151to 100 if the couple already had two girls. Girls receive the brunt of gendercide due to cultural stigma, and that’s not going to change. Unless sex-selective abortion is outlawed, the human rights of unborn children, especially girls, will continue to be violated in the United States.
Earlier this year, Heritage reported a sobering statement from Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. In a congressional hearing, Mosher said that until recent negative publicity, “It was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in newspapers such as The New York Times.” Thankfully, such publicity surfaced, and now America can debate this horrific practice in the light of day. Today, the world is missing more than 160million women because of gendercide. While the U.S. can’t end the practice worldwide, it can restore human rights to unborn children in America.
The PRENDA bill is sponsored by Representative Trent Franks (R–AZ), who said, “As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because…she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong, and represents a betrayal of the precious truth that all human beings are created equal.”
Pro-abortion feminist organizations like NARAL are claiming that PRENDA discriminates against women by interfering with their “choice” to abort female babies. It is hard to imagine a position more retrograde toward women than one that allows for their systematic elimination.
As Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall and Sarah Torre wrote recently, “If there is equality between women and men, it’s rooted in our nature and purpose as human beings. Denying that fundamental dignity inherent in all human life destroys the very basis of equality.”On behalf of the millions of girls whose lives have been taken, let’s finally unite behind the clear and uncontroversial principle that gendercide is wrong and that America should do something to stop it.
[bold and italicsemphasis THROUGHOUT THIS POST mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gendercide in Arizona: Planned Parenthood isn’t the only sex-selection abortion provider - by John Hayward06/06/2012; http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/06/gendercide-in-arizona-planned-parenthood-isnt-the-only-sex-selection-abortion-provider/
"Live Action’s third “Gendercide” video gives Planned Parenthood a little breathing room, and focuses instead on two National Abortion Federation clinics in Arizona. Sex-selection abortion is a felony crime in that state, but the abortion clinic staff was cheerfully willing to help Live Action’s undercover filmmaker break the law and dispose of her unwanted baby girl..."
"...Also, a question for you abortion extremists: if gender-selection abortion is fine, why shouldn’t race-selection abortion be equally acceptable? How is it possible to defend one of those things rationally, without also defending the other? The whole point is to avoid saddling women with anything but the highest quality made-to-order children, right?.."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
United States: Tourist Destination for Sex-Based Abortions? http://aclj.org/abortion/us-destination-sex-based-abortion
May 29, 2012
"...There is at least one human rights issue, however, where the United States lags far behind, and on which we are attracting visitors for all the wrong reasons. It is the issue of elective abortions for no other reason than the baby is of the “wrong” gender. While most of the industrialized world outlaws elective abortion based on this factor, the United States does not. The result of this failure is that we now find ourselves not only allowing these barbaric acts within our own population, but also as the international destination of choice for those who seek to end the life of a child that is unwanted simply because of the gender of the baby. We are becoming a tourist destination for these acts that are criminal in most of the civilized world..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- by Ericka Andersen, May 30,2012; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/30/isnt-it-time-to-outlaw-gendercide/
Think sex-selective abortions—known as gendercide—happen only in China? Wrong. This week, Live Action films produced an undercover video of a Texas Planned Parenthood employee explaining to a patient how to easily obtain an abortion if her unborn child were a girl and not a boy. The employee also gave the patient guidance on committing Medicaid fraud while she waited to find out the baby’s sex—but that point deserves a separate discussion altogether.
Sex-selective abortions have been publicly debated recently due to forced abortion opponent and Chinese dissident Chen Guangchang. Guangcheng found himself in danger because of his opposition to China’s one-child policy that often perpetuates gendercide. It has caused a heated and necessary discussion of the issue worldwide.
Americans aren’t taking sex-selective abortion lightly. Tomorrow, a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions in the U.S. is up for a vote in the House. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would also punish doctors if they perform gendercide, which usually occurs in the second or third trimester, when the baby’s sex is clearly determined.
The option may seem rare, but the facts speak for themselves. For Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents having families and raising children in the U.S., researchers found that a firstborn girl often skews the sex ratio of the following children. For second births, the male-female ratio was 117 to 100, and for third births, it was 151to 100 if the couple already had two girls. Girls receive the brunt of gendercide due to cultural stigma, and that’s not going to change. Unless sex-selective abortion is outlawed, the human rights of unborn children, especially girls, will continue to be violated in the United States.
Earlier this year, Heritage reported a sobering statement from Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. In a congressional hearing, Mosher said that until recent negative publicity, “It was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in newspapers such as The New York Times.” Thankfully, such publicity surfaced, and now America can debate this horrific practice in the light of day. Today, the world is missing more than 160million women because of gendercide. While the U.S. can’t end the practice worldwide, it can restore human rights to unborn children in America.
The PRENDA bill is sponsored by Representative Trent Franks (R–AZ), who said, “As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because…she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong, and represents a betrayal of the precious truth that all human beings are created equal.”
Pro-abortion feminist organizations like NARAL are claiming that PRENDA discriminates against women by interfering with their “choice” to abort female babies. It is hard to imagine a position more retrograde toward women than one that allows for their systematic elimination.
As Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall and Sarah Torre wrote recently, “If there is equality between women and men, it’s rooted in our nature and purpose as human beings. Denying that fundamental dignity inherent in all human life destroys the very basis of equality.”On behalf of the millions of girls whose lives have been taken, let’s finally unite behind the clear and uncontroversial principle that gendercide is wrong and that America should do something to stop it.
[bold and italicsemphasis THROUGHOUT THIS POST mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gendercide in Arizona: Planned Parenthood isn’t the only sex-selection abortion provider - by John Hayward06/06/2012; http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/06/gendercide-in-arizona-planned-parenthood-isnt-the-only-sex-selection-abortion-provider/
"Live Action’s third “Gendercide” video gives Planned Parenthood a little breathing room, and focuses instead on two National Abortion Federation clinics in Arizona. Sex-selection abortion is a felony crime in that state, but the abortion clinic staff was cheerfully willing to help Live Action’s undercover filmmaker break the law and dispose of her unwanted baby girl..."
"...Also, a question for you abortion extremists: if gender-selection abortion is fine, why shouldn’t race-selection abortion be equally acceptable? How is it possible to defend one of those things rationally, without also defending the other? The whole point is to avoid saddling women with anything but the highest quality made-to-order children, right?.."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
United States: Tourist Destination for Sex-Based Abortions? http://aclj.org/abortion/us-destination-sex-based-abortion
May 29, 2012
"...There is at least one human rights issue, however, where the United States lags far behind, and on which we are attracting visitors for all the wrong reasons. It is the issue of elective abortions for no other reason than the baby is of the “wrong” gender. While most of the industrialized world outlaws elective abortion based on this factor, the United States does not. The result of this failure is that we now find ourselves not only allowing these barbaric acts within our own population, but also as the international destination of choice for those who seek to end the life of a child that is unwanted simply because of the gender of the baby. We are becoming a tourist destination for these acts that are criminal in most of the civilized world..."
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
#225 (6/6) - What's At Stake in the November Elections
[NOTE: I know, you've long been told that THIS election will be crucial. Well, for about the pass half century now, each election has been crucial. It was decisive in so many ways as to what direction this country would take, in some cases for generations into the future. The choices voters who make the effort to actually register and vote (for a long time now a very embarassing number considering the millions who have served and died to preserve this God-blessed republic and that freedom)has given us leaders who either at least sought to make the right changes or those who either perpetuated the status quo or made this much worse. Just to look at the mess that Europe is going through, and knowing that we have had leaders who have tried to have us follow their model of statist government that NEVER works - should push the "obvious" button in our brains that we are truly at a crossroads for ourselves and for generatiions to come. We as a nation are simply about run out of time to "get it right" and to stop "kicking the can down the road." We have about run out of road, my friends. Please read the article below, eduacate yourself on what's going on (which is the purpose of this blog site), and be registerd to vote and plan to do so. The generations to come depend on us like never before. - Stan]
"Changing America’s Course" - By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., June 5, 2012
There’s no way to predict how the 2012 elections will turn out. But it will be a turning point in American history: Either our leaders will guide the country even further along the road to “progressivism” or they will begin a long, slow turn back toward the principles of the American Founding. To help our leaders make the correct choices, The Heritage Foundation is putting a marker down with a publication called Changing America’s Course [1]that gives our political leaders recommendations on how to stay within the limits of the Constitution.
You’ve probably read Heritage’s financial proposal, Saving the American Dream [2], and our prescription for a Conservative foreign policy[3]. Those ideas are crucial building blocks in our approach. But they are only parts of the larger crisis facing Americans today–the crisis of constitutional government–that Saving the American Dream deals with.
The United States is unique. Ours is a republic dedicated to the universal principles of human liberty: that all are fundamentally equal and equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our government exists to secure these God-given rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Our Constitution limits the power of government under the rule of law, creating a vigorous framework for expanding economic opportunity, protecting national independence, and securing liberty and justice for all.
Today, though, the federal government has acquired an all but unquestioned dominance over virtually every area of American life. It acts without constitutional limits and is restricted only by expediency, political will, and (less and less) budget constraints. The unlimited scope and depth of its rules means that the federal government increasingly regulates more and more of our most basic activities, from how much water is in our toilets to what kind of light bulbs we can buy. This is a government that is unlimited by any organizing principle, increasingly undemocratic and damaging to popular self-government.
For example, as part of his reelection campaign, Obama has launched an effort called “We Can’t Wait [4]“ to highlight his actions independent of Congress. This is more than the usual politics of a president running for reelection against Congress. Obama’s idea seems to be that the President, charged with the execution of the laws, doesn’t have to wait for the lawmaking branch to make, amend or abolish the laws but that he can and should act on his own. This violates the spirit–and potentially the letter–of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the president.
For its part Congress has also failed to fulfill its constitutional duties. Under the current Democratic party leadership, it’s been more than three years since the U.S. Senate even passed a budget [5]. And under Republican leadership in 2003, the House of Representatives unethically kept a voting window open for three hours instead of the scheduled 15 minutes) so party leaders could twist arms, change minds and ram through Medicare Part D.
Even worse, Congress has fallen into the habit of legislating without regard to any limits on its powers. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are actually promulgated by agencies and bureaucracies in the guise of “regulations.” Recent examples include the massive Dodd-Frank financial regulation [6] and, of course, ObamaCare [7].
As a result, key policy decisions which were previously the constitutional responsibility of elected legislators are delegated to executive branch administrators whose rules have the full force and effect of laws passed by Congress. Having passed massive, broadly written pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation, Congress is increasingly an administrative body overseeing a vast array of bureaucratic policymakers and rule-making bodies.
Changing America’s Course [1]charts a constitutional path to a brighter future of opportunity and independence. If our political leaders follow its recommendations and begin confining themselves to the limited powers the Constitution gives them, America will once again be on the principled path to liberty, opportunity and constitutional self-government.
The first step is to reduce the size and scope of government and unleash the engines of economic productivity and the institutions of cultural renewal. Only then can we change America’s course, begin to get spending under control, balance the budget, and shrink our debt without increasing taxes.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. [8], is Vice President, American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/morning-bell-changing-americas-course/
URLs in this post:
[1] Changing America’s Course: http://www.heritage.org/election/
[2] Saving the American Dream: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/saving-the-american-dream-the-heritage-plan-to-fix-the-debt-cut-spending-and-restore-prosperity
[3] Conservative foreign policy: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/a-conservative-foreign-policy
[4] We Can’t Wait: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?pagewanted=all
[5] even passed a budget: http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=b630d3bd-f985-4943-a87a-a746ecec6a51
[6] Dodd-Frank financial regulation: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/17/tales-of-the-red-tape-30-ftc-sticks-it-to-appliance-makers/
[7] ObamaCare: http://www.heritage.org/issues/health-care/obamacare
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
"Changing America’s Course" - By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., June 5, 2012
There’s no way to predict how the 2012 elections will turn out. But it will be a turning point in American history: Either our leaders will guide the country even further along the road to “progressivism” or they will begin a long, slow turn back toward the principles of the American Founding. To help our leaders make the correct choices, The Heritage Foundation is putting a marker down with a publication called Changing America’s Course [1]that gives our political leaders recommendations on how to stay within the limits of the Constitution.
You’ve probably read Heritage’s financial proposal, Saving the American Dream [2], and our prescription for a Conservative foreign policy[3]. Those ideas are crucial building blocks in our approach. But they are only parts of the larger crisis facing Americans today–the crisis of constitutional government–that Saving the American Dream deals with.
The United States is unique. Ours is a republic dedicated to the universal principles of human liberty: that all are fundamentally equal and equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our government exists to secure these God-given rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. Our Constitution limits the power of government under the rule of law, creating a vigorous framework for expanding economic opportunity, protecting national independence, and securing liberty and justice for all.
Today, though, the federal government has acquired an all but unquestioned dominance over virtually every area of American life. It acts without constitutional limits and is restricted only by expediency, political will, and (less and less) budget constraints. The unlimited scope and depth of its rules means that the federal government increasingly regulates more and more of our most basic activities, from how much water is in our toilets to what kind of light bulbs we can buy. This is a government that is unlimited by any organizing principle, increasingly undemocratic and damaging to popular self-government.
For example, as part of his reelection campaign, Obama has launched an effort called “We Can’t Wait [4]“ to highlight his actions independent of Congress. This is more than the usual politics of a president running for reelection against Congress. Obama’s idea seems to be that the President, charged with the execution of the laws, doesn’t have to wait for the lawmaking branch to make, amend or abolish the laws but that he can and should act on his own. This violates the spirit–and potentially the letter–of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the president.
For its part Congress has also failed to fulfill its constitutional duties. Under the current Democratic party leadership, it’s been more than three years since the U.S. Senate even passed a budget [5]. And under Republican leadership in 2003, the House of Representatives unethically kept a voting window open for three hours instead of the scheduled 15 minutes) so party leaders could twist arms, change minds and ram through Medicare Part D.
Even worse, Congress has fallen into the habit of legislating without regard to any limits on its powers. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are actually promulgated by agencies and bureaucracies in the guise of “regulations.” Recent examples include the massive Dodd-Frank financial regulation [6] and, of course, ObamaCare [7].
As a result, key policy decisions which were previously the constitutional responsibility of elected legislators are delegated to executive branch administrators whose rules have the full force and effect of laws passed by Congress. Having passed massive, broadly written pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation, Congress is increasingly an administrative body overseeing a vast array of bureaucratic policymakers and rule-making bodies.
Changing America’s Course [1]charts a constitutional path to a brighter future of opportunity and independence. If our political leaders follow its recommendations and begin confining themselves to the limited powers the Constitution gives them, America will once again be on the principled path to liberty, opportunity and constitutional self-government.
The first step is to reduce the size and scope of government and unleash the engines of economic productivity and the institutions of cultural renewal. Only then can we change America’s course, begin to get spending under control, balance the budget, and shrink our debt without increasing taxes.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. [8], is Vice President, American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/05/morning-bell-changing-americas-course/
URLs in this post:
[1] Changing America’s Course: http://www.heritage.org/election/
[2] Saving the American Dream: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/saving-the-american-dream-the-heritage-plan-to-fix-the-debt-cut-spending-and-restore-prosperity
[3] Conservative foreign policy: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/a-conservative-foreign-policy
[4] We Can’t Wait: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?pagewanted=all
[5] even passed a budget: http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/budget-background?ID=b630d3bd-f985-4943-a87a-a746ecec6a51
[6] Dodd-Frank financial regulation: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/17/tales-of-the-red-tape-30-ftc-sticks-it-to-appliance-makers/
[7] ObamaCare: http://www.heritage.org/issues/health-care/obamacare
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
#224 (6/5) - JP Morgan Loss - NOT A Reason For More Regulations
[NOTE: It's common to hear a call for more regulation whenever something negative or at least negative appearing happens on Wall Street. It's become just a knee-jerk reaction without any thought to whether such actions would just do more harm than good. For that reason, it's important to take a look at events like the recent huge financial loss by JP Morgan with perspective, not emotion.]
"How Will The Free Market Save The American Economy?"
http://www.askheritage.org/how-will-the-free-market-save-the-american-economy/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2012-05-18&utm_campaign=2012_Brand
The lingering headline on the front pages this week [5/18] is that JP Morgan Chase suffered a massive loss on a hedging strategy, costing them $2 billion. That’s no small mistake, and it’s an example of how bad decisions in the free market can cost big money. But just because mistakes have consequences doesn’t mean that the mighty hand of government needs to step in to save us from ourselves. However, that’s what some on the left are now calling for.
The news of this blunder hit last week when JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon revealed that the bank took a $2 billion loss over the past six weeks in a strategy intended to hedge against risks to the bank’s assets that could come from market volatility caused by the Euro crisis. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Dimon admitted, “In hindsight, we took far too much risk. The strategy we had was badly vetted. It was badly monitored. It should never have happened.”
The company is certainly paying the price in losses, as are those responsible for the bad decision making. The Los Angeles Times reports that the bank’s stock fell 12% since it disclosed the loss last week, the executive who oversaw the department responsible for the loss retired on Monday, and JP Morgan’s reputation as an extremely well managed bank has been damaged.
But does the flawed strategy and the resulting loss mean that Washington should step in with more regulation of Wall Street? Yesterday, White House press secretary Jay Carney used the news of JP Morgan’s loss to call for more regulations, remarking, “The president fought very hard against Republicans and Wall Street lobbyists to get Wall Street reform passed . . . I think that this event merely reinforces why the President was right to take on this fight and why we still need to make sure it’s implemented.”
Likewise, former Obama adviser Elizabeth Warren called for Dimon to resign from the New York Federal Reserve Board and slammed Wall Street. “What happened here is not just about JP Morgan case, it’s about the kind of attitudes, that the bank should be regulating themselves instead of having real oversight,” Warren said. “We have to say as a country, no, the banks cannot regulate themselves.”
What’s needed is some perspective, not more regulation from Washington. Heritage’s David C. John explains that while JP Morgan’s loss represents a clear failure of management, it’s not a systemic problem that requires or would be fixed by additional regulation. For starters, JP Morgan is a $2.3 trillion bank with a net worth of $189 billion, meaning that this loss reduced the bank’s capital ratio from 8.4 percent to 8.2 percent. In other words, the bank can absorb the loss, and it’s nowhere close to needing any form of federal intervention.
Some more perspective could be gleaned by examining the $3.2 billion loss the U.S. Post Office experienced in the most recent quarter, or the billions lost on risky green energy bets made by President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Only those losses weren’t incurred by private investors, but by you the taxpayer.What’s more, John explains, the regulations that are now being called for — particularly the so-called Volcker Rule — would not have prevented the losses since it would not have affected this transaction. Finally, John writes, the system worked as is. “JPMorgan Chase losses were not discovered by regulators; they were discovered by the bank itself conducting its own management reviews.”
What America is witnessing is the left using the news of JP Morgan’s bad judgment as an excuse for more government regulation. But as even Carney acknowledged, regulations “can’t prevent bad decisions from being made on Wall Street.”
For all the wrangling over JP Morgan’s loss, John points out that the bank is still expected to make a healthy profit for all of 2012. Yes, it made a mistake, and yes, that mistake cost a lot of money. But risks, mistakes and costs are part of capitalism. They’re the price we pay for all the benefits that a free market affords us.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
"How Will The Free Market Save The American Economy?"
http://www.askheritage.org/how-will-the-free-market-save-the-american-economy/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2012-05-18&utm_campaign=2012_Brand
The lingering headline on the front pages this week [5/18] is that JP Morgan Chase suffered a massive loss on a hedging strategy, costing them $2 billion. That’s no small mistake, and it’s an example of how bad decisions in the free market can cost big money. But just because mistakes have consequences doesn’t mean that the mighty hand of government needs to step in to save us from ourselves. However, that’s what some on the left are now calling for.
The news of this blunder hit last week when JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon revealed that the bank took a $2 billion loss over the past six weeks in a strategy intended to hedge against risks to the bank’s assets that could come from market volatility caused by the Euro crisis. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Dimon admitted, “In hindsight, we took far too much risk. The strategy we had was badly vetted. It was badly monitored. It should never have happened.”
The company is certainly paying the price in losses, as are those responsible for the bad decision making. The Los Angeles Times reports that the bank’s stock fell 12% since it disclosed the loss last week, the executive who oversaw the department responsible for the loss retired on Monday, and JP Morgan’s reputation as an extremely well managed bank has been damaged.
But does the flawed strategy and the resulting loss mean that Washington should step in with more regulation of Wall Street? Yesterday, White House press secretary Jay Carney used the news of JP Morgan’s loss to call for more regulations, remarking, “The president fought very hard against Republicans and Wall Street lobbyists to get Wall Street reform passed . . . I think that this event merely reinforces why the President was right to take on this fight and why we still need to make sure it’s implemented.”
Likewise, former Obama adviser Elizabeth Warren called for Dimon to resign from the New York Federal Reserve Board and slammed Wall Street. “What happened here is not just about JP Morgan case, it’s about the kind of attitudes, that the bank should be regulating themselves instead of having real oversight,” Warren said. “We have to say as a country, no, the banks cannot regulate themselves.”
What’s needed is some perspective, not more regulation from Washington. Heritage’s David C. John explains that while JP Morgan’s loss represents a clear failure of management, it’s not a systemic problem that requires or would be fixed by additional regulation. For starters, JP Morgan is a $2.3 trillion bank with a net worth of $189 billion, meaning that this loss reduced the bank’s capital ratio from 8.4 percent to 8.2 percent. In other words, the bank can absorb the loss, and it’s nowhere close to needing any form of federal intervention.
Some more perspective could be gleaned by examining the $3.2 billion loss the U.S. Post Office experienced in the most recent quarter, or the billions lost on risky green energy bets made by President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Only those losses weren’t incurred by private investors, but by you the taxpayer.What’s more, John explains, the regulations that are now being called for — particularly the so-called Volcker Rule — would not have prevented the losses since it would not have affected this transaction. Finally, John writes, the system worked as is. “JPMorgan Chase losses were not discovered by regulators; they were discovered by the bank itself conducting its own management reviews.”
What America is witnessing is the left using the news of JP Morgan’s bad judgment as an excuse for more government regulation. But as even Carney acknowledged, regulations “can’t prevent bad decisions from being made on Wall Street.”
For all the wrangling over JP Morgan’s loss, John points out that the bank is still expected to make a healthy profit for all of 2012. Yes, it made a mistake, and yes, that mistake cost a lot of money. But risks, mistakes and costs are part of capitalism. They’re the price we pay for all the benefits that a free market affords us.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Monday, June 4, 2012
#218 (6/4) - Caring For Our Veterans the Right Way
Making Memorial Day Make a Difference- Posted By James Carafano, May 28, 2012
[NOTE: I discovered this Memorial Day salute late that day and thought I had posted it the following day but somehow it didn't post. Anyway, I still really think you'll find this short synopsis of how America has cared for its veterans in its wars since the Mexican War quite eye-opening. I trust you've never heard of the things shared in this article. It's well worth your time to read. - Stan]
As part of my teaching duties at West Point, I took cadets on a study tour of the World War II battlefields in Normandy, France. The first stop is the cemetery on the cliffs overlooking Omaha Beach. It is hard not to realize who pays the price for fighting for us. Walking the rows of crosses and stars of David is an unending repetition of private, infantry, private, infantry, private, infantry, sergeant, private, private …
For the young cadets, it was a powerful lesson in leadership, a reminder that their decisions in battle were far weightier than the costs of their own lives. Every decision they made might add to the row, so no decision, no sacrifice should be taken lightly. For the rest of us, there is a lesson as well: Be thankful for the freedoms won–and who won them.
Few topics in our society are more troubled than how a nation remembers. Few would dispute the practice to place flags on the memorials of the fallen–a tradition rooted in the post-Civil War practice called “Decoration Day.” Beyond that response, Americans are often never of one mind. Each generation has its own answer, and our expression of the value of service is shaped by many sentiments.
When he commanded U.S. troops during the war with Mexico, General Winfield Scott returned with $150,000 paid by Mexico City on the threat of ransacking the capital. He extorted the money because it was the only way he could guarantee that his boys were taken care of. He used the money to pay the troops and buy supplies, and he offered the rest to Congress for an Old Soldier’s Home for homeless veterans.
Conversely, when politicians looked at the 2 million Union veterans after the Civil War, they saw 2 million votes. Congress approved an overgenerous pension plan that quickly became mired in fraud, graft, and patronage until it absorbed 40 percent of the federal budget.
After World War I, the doughboys came home from the horrors of mustard gas, machine guns, and aerial bombardment to find nothing waiting for them. While veterans earned a dollar a day in France, War Department employees received $12 a day at their comfortable desks, federal civil servants received $240 annual bonuses, and assembly line employees saw their wages double. The veterans got a Veterans’ Bureau run by a former presidential campaign worker who went to prison for corruption.
Americans treated World War II veterans like the greatest generation. There were about 16 million men and women in uniform during the Second World War–the war touched every American family. We all cared.
Those returning from Vietnam encountered a mixture of hostility and indifference. Even trying to build a memorial to the fallen in Washington, D.C., proved a protracted and heart-wrenching experience.
Part of the problem is the temptation to wrap the experience of service members in a story: good war, bad war, love the troops, hate the war. We should honor the military for service and sacrifice regardless of our politics. And, we should not measure how we care according to what government does. Our service men and women are ours. They come from our community. What we do is the most important act of all.
There are many organizations out there that honor the fallen and serve the families of those affected by loss. One worth noting is the Tragedy Assistance Programs for Survivors, or TAPS [1]. Another amazing group is the Special Operations Warrior Foundation [2], which ensures that every child of a special operations warrior who falls on active duty has an opportunity for a college education. These are the kinds of organizations that make a difference. They honor the fallen by helping their families. They make us a better nation by showing us how to care–and what to do. They bring real meaning to Memorial Day.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/28/morning-bell-making-memorial-day-make-a-difference/
URLs in this post:
[1] Tragedy Assistance Programs for Survivors, or TAPS: http://www.taps.org/
[2] Special Operations Warrior Foundation: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/02/remembering-those-who-really-got-bin-laden/
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
[NOTE: I discovered this Memorial Day salute late that day and thought I had posted it the following day but somehow it didn't post. Anyway, I still really think you'll find this short synopsis of how America has cared for its veterans in its wars since the Mexican War quite eye-opening. I trust you've never heard of the things shared in this article. It's well worth your time to read. - Stan]
As part of my teaching duties at West Point, I took cadets on a study tour of the World War II battlefields in Normandy, France. The first stop is the cemetery on the cliffs overlooking Omaha Beach. It is hard not to realize who pays the price for fighting for us. Walking the rows of crosses and stars of David is an unending repetition of private, infantry, private, infantry, private, infantry, sergeant, private, private …
For the young cadets, it was a powerful lesson in leadership, a reminder that their decisions in battle were far weightier than the costs of their own lives. Every decision they made might add to the row, so no decision, no sacrifice should be taken lightly. For the rest of us, there is a lesson as well: Be thankful for the freedoms won–and who won them.
Few topics in our society are more troubled than how a nation remembers. Few would dispute the practice to place flags on the memorials of the fallen–a tradition rooted in the post-Civil War practice called “Decoration Day.” Beyond that response, Americans are often never of one mind. Each generation has its own answer, and our expression of the value of service is shaped by many sentiments.
When he commanded U.S. troops during the war with Mexico, General Winfield Scott returned with $150,000 paid by Mexico City on the threat of ransacking the capital. He extorted the money because it was the only way he could guarantee that his boys were taken care of. He used the money to pay the troops and buy supplies, and he offered the rest to Congress for an Old Soldier’s Home for homeless veterans.
Conversely, when politicians looked at the 2 million Union veterans after the Civil War, they saw 2 million votes. Congress approved an overgenerous pension plan that quickly became mired in fraud, graft, and patronage until it absorbed 40 percent of the federal budget.
After World War I, the doughboys came home from the horrors of mustard gas, machine guns, and aerial bombardment to find nothing waiting for them. While veterans earned a dollar a day in France, War Department employees received $12 a day at their comfortable desks, federal civil servants received $240 annual bonuses, and assembly line employees saw their wages double. The veterans got a Veterans’ Bureau run by a former presidential campaign worker who went to prison for corruption.
Americans treated World War II veterans like the greatest generation. There were about 16 million men and women in uniform during the Second World War–the war touched every American family. We all cared.
Those returning from Vietnam encountered a mixture of hostility and indifference. Even trying to build a memorial to the fallen in Washington, D.C., proved a protracted and heart-wrenching experience.
Part of the problem is the temptation to wrap the experience of service members in a story: good war, bad war, love the troops, hate the war. We should honor the military for service and sacrifice regardless of our politics. And, we should not measure how we care according to what government does. Our service men and women are ours. They come from our community. What we do is the most important act of all.
There are many organizations out there that honor the fallen and serve the families of those affected by loss. One worth noting is the Tragedy Assistance Programs for Survivors, or TAPS [1]. Another amazing group is the Special Operations Warrior Foundation [2], which ensures that every child of a special operations warrior who falls on active duty has an opportunity for a college education. These are the kinds of organizations that make a difference. They honor the fallen by helping their families. They make us a better nation by showing us how to care–and what to do. They bring real meaning to Memorial Day.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/28/morning-bell-making-memorial-day-make-a-difference/
URLs in this post:
[1] Tragedy Assistance Programs for Survivors, or TAPS: http://www.taps.org/
[2] Special Operations Warrior Foundation: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/02/remembering-those-who-really-got-bin-laden/
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
#222 (6/2) - Michelle Obama - Some Things The Media HASN'T Reported
[NOTE: In case you missed it, their was a special ceremony at the White House Thursday to unveil the official photo of President Bush. The mainstream news reports talked about how self-deprecating President Bush was but they failed to note (can you say "selective reporting"?)that President Obama introduced his predecessor by talking about the recession HE inherited! Does our President ALWAYS have to find a way to politicize an event? Can't he even be gracious when honoring someone? Or is it just not in his nature? Makes you wonder if when they unveil his portrait he'll complain it's not big enough! - Stan]
"Michelle Obama's 'Civilian' Act Is Hard To Swallow''- by Michelle Malkin, 05/30/2012127, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51817 [Note: This writer is the author of "Cult of Corruption," which contains one chapter about Mrs. Obama before entering the White House that gives greater detail to many things described below,with tons of source notes.]
The first lady of the United States is on a whirlwind publicity tour for her hefty new food and gardening book ($30), which the White House hopes will bolster Team Obama's favorability ratings. I'd say it's a classic recipe for rank campaign hypocrisy and media double standards.
While journalists savor chummy chitchats with Mrs. Obama about beets and Beyonce, FLOTUS is once again escaping hard questions about her cronyism, junk science and generous junkets at taxpayer expense.
Mrs. Obama's 2012 campaign media blitz has already brought her to daytime airwaves ("The Ellen DeGeneres Show"), prime-time reality TV ("The Biggest Loser") and children's programming ("iCarly"). This week, she's hitting up "Good Morning America," "The View," Rachael Ray's cooking show, "LIVE! with Kelly (Ripa)" and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Out: Let's Move! In: Let's Move ... in front of the TV cameras!
My prediction? As soon as the fawning media frenzy dies down and Mrs. Obama's book rises to the top of The New York Times best-seller list, POTUS will go back to claiming that FLOTUS is a "private citizen" who should be left alone. The Obamas' Chicago strategists have long enjoyed invoking selective immunity for the first lady without challenge. Lapdog reporters have assisted in creating an impenetrable bubble of political protection around the profligate, policy-meddling first lady.
We've seen it before.
When conservatives challenged Mrs. O's caustic 2008 campaign trail statements disparaging America and fear-mongering for votes, her hubby invoked the "civilian" shield. He threatened Republicans to "lay off his wife," arguing that political spouses should not be subject to public scrutiny because they didn't choose public life.
When Mrs. O's lavish vacation in Spain -- accompanied by an entourage of 70 Secret Service agents and 250 Spanish law enforcement officers -- provoked a massive public backlash in 2010, then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs argued that the first lady was a "private citizen" who should be off-limits to tough questions about her behavior.
Horse-hockey.
Obama's outspoken bitter half conscientiously and deliberately inserted herself into the public square long before the family moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- whether it was organizing a Woods Fund panel with her husband and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, taking a publicly subsidized government job with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, or parlaying her relationship with political mentor Valerie Jarrett into a cushy public job at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where she oversaw a patient-dumping scheme that benefited her political cronies.
As I reported earlier this month, Mrs. Obama's signature program (now run by Obama's best golfing buddy Dr. Eric Whitaker) just received a $6 million grant from an Obamacare agency with zero independent oversight. Taste the boodle.
Just a humble private mom raising her two daughters while Dad does all that hardball politics stuff? Pshaw. Let's not forget that Mrs. Obama leveraged her hubby's Senate victory to snag a lucrative seat on the corporate board of directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. despite having zero experience in the industry.
When her garden gloves are off, her political boxing gloves are on. Mrs. O famously has castigated other Americans' choices in how they earn their money. She used her East Wing power to push Obamacare. She has exploited the bully pulpit to restrict food advertisers' speech. She has served the SEIU's legislative agenda of increasing the welfare state and padding membership rolls with more government school workers under the guise of fighting child obesity.
And she has relied on questionable science to declare war on so-called "food deserts" in poor neighborhoods where she claims only fast food is available. But according to two major peer-reviewed and published studies: 1) poor neighborhoods had nearly twice the number of supermarkets and large-scale grocers per square mile as wealthier neighborhoods, and 2) there is no correlation between what students in a large-scale California survey ate, what they weighed and what kinds of food they ate within the immediate radius of their homes.
While she denies a Nanny State agenda, Mrs. Obama successfully has strong-armed several major restaurant chains into redesigning their menus to her exacting healthful standards. One of those targets is Darden Restaurants, which operates Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants across the country. At a time when most food service providers are struggling under the weight of increased taxes, health care mandates and regulations, Darden Restaurants just happens to be one of the few and fortunate businesses to obtain one of those coveted Obamacare waivers.
When Michelle Obama stops using her public office to push new Big Government power grabs and redistribute wealth to her cronies (flashback: Chicago Obama-lympics), stoke racial grievances, and meddle in Obama administration personnel decisions that lead to whistleblower firings (ask her about former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin), I'll leave her alone.
Until then, someone's got to deliver FLOTUS her just deserts.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
"Michelle Obama's 'Civilian' Act Is Hard To Swallow''- by Michelle Malkin, 05/30/2012127, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51817 [Note: This writer is the author of "Cult of Corruption," which contains one chapter about Mrs. Obama before entering the White House that gives greater detail to many things described below,with tons of source notes.]
The first lady of the United States is on a whirlwind publicity tour for her hefty new food and gardening book ($30), which the White House hopes will bolster Team Obama's favorability ratings. I'd say it's a classic recipe for rank campaign hypocrisy and media double standards.
While journalists savor chummy chitchats with Mrs. Obama about beets and Beyonce, FLOTUS is once again escaping hard questions about her cronyism, junk science and generous junkets at taxpayer expense.
Mrs. Obama's 2012 campaign media blitz has already brought her to daytime airwaves ("The Ellen DeGeneres Show"), prime-time reality TV ("The Biggest Loser") and children's programming ("iCarly"). This week, she's hitting up "Good Morning America," "The View," Rachael Ray's cooking show, "LIVE! with Kelly (Ripa)" and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Out: Let's Move! In: Let's Move ... in front of the TV cameras!
My prediction? As soon as the fawning media frenzy dies down and Mrs. Obama's book rises to the top of The New York Times best-seller list, POTUS will go back to claiming that FLOTUS is a "private citizen" who should be left alone. The Obamas' Chicago strategists have long enjoyed invoking selective immunity for the first lady without challenge. Lapdog reporters have assisted in creating an impenetrable bubble of political protection around the profligate, policy-meddling first lady.
We've seen it before.
When conservatives challenged Mrs. O's caustic 2008 campaign trail statements disparaging America and fear-mongering for votes, her hubby invoked the "civilian" shield. He threatened Republicans to "lay off his wife," arguing that political spouses should not be subject to public scrutiny because they didn't choose public life.
When Mrs. O's lavish vacation in Spain -- accompanied by an entourage of 70 Secret Service agents and 250 Spanish law enforcement officers -- provoked a massive public backlash in 2010, then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs argued that the first lady was a "private citizen" who should be off-limits to tough questions about her behavior.
Horse-hockey.
Obama's outspoken bitter half conscientiously and deliberately inserted herself into the public square long before the family moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- whether it was organizing a Woods Fund panel with her husband and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, taking a publicly subsidized government job with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, or parlaying her relationship with political mentor Valerie Jarrett into a cushy public job at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where she oversaw a patient-dumping scheme that benefited her political cronies.
As I reported earlier this month, Mrs. Obama's signature program (now run by Obama's best golfing buddy Dr. Eric Whitaker) just received a $6 million grant from an Obamacare agency with zero independent oversight. Taste the boodle.
Just a humble private mom raising her two daughters while Dad does all that hardball politics stuff? Pshaw. Let's not forget that Mrs. Obama leveraged her hubby's Senate victory to snag a lucrative seat on the corporate board of directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. despite having zero experience in the industry.
When her garden gloves are off, her political boxing gloves are on. Mrs. O famously has castigated other Americans' choices in how they earn their money. She used her East Wing power to push Obamacare. She has exploited the bully pulpit to restrict food advertisers' speech. She has served the SEIU's legislative agenda of increasing the welfare state and padding membership rolls with more government school workers under the guise of fighting child obesity.
And she has relied on questionable science to declare war on so-called "food deserts" in poor neighborhoods where she claims only fast food is available. But according to two major peer-reviewed and published studies: 1) poor neighborhoods had nearly twice the number of supermarkets and large-scale grocers per square mile as wealthier neighborhoods, and 2) there is no correlation between what students in a large-scale California survey ate, what they weighed and what kinds of food they ate within the immediate radius of their homes.
While she denies a Nanny State agenda, Mrs. Obama successfully has strong-armed several major restaurant chains into redesigning their menus to her exacting healthful standards. One of those targets is Darden Restaurants, which operates Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants across the country. At a time when most food service providers are struggling under the weight of increased taxes, health care mandates and regulations, Darden Restaurants just happens to be one of the few and fortunate businesses to obtain one of those coveted Obamacare waivers.
When Michelle Obama stops using her public office to push new Big Government power grabs and redistribute wealth to her cronies (flashback: Chicago Obama-lympics), stoke racial grievances, and meddle in Obama administration personnel decisions that lead to whistleblower firings (ask her about former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin), I'll leave her alone.
Until then, someone's got to deliver FLOTUS her just deserts.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Friday, June 1, 2012
#221 (6/1) - ''President Me''
- By Rory Cooper On May 16, 2012
NOTE: Trust me! It would be historical if the mainstream media makes note of the following about THEIR candidate for re-election. Be sure that what you will read below has been characteristic of our President for years now as their our countless other examples that could be noted. (At the end of the post, I have also added a link to another article that presents some other detail on this subject.) By the way, don't miss tomorrow's posting(#222)about the First Lady that you will also not be hearing about in the typical news outlet.]
Reflecting on his two terms in office, President George W. Bush said in 2010, “You realize you’re not it. You’re a part of something bigger than yourself.”
This is a sentiment President Barack Obama did not inherit from his predecessor. Over the past month we have witnessed several displays of arrogant power emanating from our White House, emphasizing fealty to a person over the integrity of an American institution. Some are more serious than others.
First, this week it was discovered that White House staff had edited the biographies [1] of many past presidents on whitehouse.gov [2] to include a bullet point or two inserting President Obama into each historical narrative. For example, while President Calvin Coolidge had been the first president to make a public radio address, President Obama is on LinkedIn; and while Social Security was introduced by President Roosevelt, under President Obama it still exists. But in a far more egregious example, they incorrectly added to President Ronald Reagan’s biography [2]: “In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.”
This is not only a complete fabrication of what President Reagan said (even The Washington Post‘s ‘fact checker’ [3] gave this familiar line two Pinocchios) but it is also a glaring example of the President putting himself ahead of the sacred institution he is sworn to protect for the nation as well as his predecessors and successors. Heritage Distinguished Fellow Ed Meese who served as President Reagan’s Attorney General said: “They should not use the biographies of past presidents as campaign vehicles. What they have done is to spoil the integrity of the historical narrative. At the very least, the Reagan biography should be restored to the accurate version provided by the White House Historical Association. I’m sure those associated with other past presidents would feel the same.”
This is not the first time the Obama White House has engaged in this behavior. In March 2009, they were caught editing [4] President Bush’s biography to soften his listed accomplishments. They quickly reversed course. In the Bush Administration, biographies were directly supplied by the White House Historical Association without addendums or qualifiers.
Former White House Internet Director David Almacy explained to The Heritage Foundation that under Bush, this editing practice would have been unthinkable, saying: “It was our intent to preserve the history of the White House as an institution as well as those who served as president from a non-partisan historical perspective.” Almacy added: “It was ingrained in Bush Administration staffers from day one that our time in service to our nation was a privilege and that we must separate political promotion from the institution as a whole.”
Affirming that culture, President Bush told a group of departing staffers in 2009 [5]: “Laura and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts for serving with us. I’ve had two great chiefs of staff, Andy and Josh. Their task was to assemble, and I would say this objectively, the finest group of people to serve our country, all of whom are here not to serve me, not to serve Republicans, but to serve the United States of America.”
This bipartisan approach evades the current White House. On April 20, President Obama’s campaign team released a Nixonian enemies list of Republican donors on their “Truth Team” website [6]. This wasn’t about transparency, but intimidation. After each donor name, the Obama team highlighted why they felt the person was “less than reputable.” Essentially the person had either succeeded in a business field that was counter to the President’s worldview (i.e. oil production) or they made business decisions like outsourcing.
Prominent donors are often thrust into the spotlight in political campaigns, but this example was extraordinary and unprecedented. The writing was on the wall: If you give to an opposing cause, we will unleash a grassroots effort to destroy your personal reputation. This message delivered on behalf of the most powerful man in the nation has real implications. If the IRS were to audit one of these individuals, how could they not wonder if their political contribution was the root cause?
Following up on the story, the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel found [7] that a week after this list was released, a political opposition researcher was found to be digging through divorce records of one of the men named. The target, Frank VanderSloot, told Strassel [7]: “When I first learned that President Obama’s campaign had singled me out on his ‘enemies list,’ I knew it was like taping a target on my back…[but] the public beatings and false accusations that followed are no deterrent. These tactics will not work in America.”
Between the biographical trickery and their enemies list, President Obama’s team has engaged in tactics that put their boss above his predecessors and dangerously above his opponents. This is indeed a culture that emanates from the top.
Just last week President Obama told ABC News’ Robin Roberts [8] in an interview: “When I think about — those soldiers or airmen or marines or — sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…” My behalf.
Then there was also the consistent use of the pronoun “I” to describe the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. ... President Obama told 60 Minutes that he was our fourth greatest president ever [9], saying: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.”
Finally, President Obama insinuated yesterday that if you don’t support his policies, it’s not due to philosophical differences, but because of his name. Answering a question on The View [10] about tight polls, he said: “When your name is Barack Obama, it’s always going to be tight. Barack Hussein Obama.”
Any person selected to the highest office in the land is bound to indulge a small degree of narcissism. But when it permeates the entire attitude and culture of the executive branch, it begins to become a problem. No president is larger than the presidency.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/16/morning-bell-president-me/
URLs in this post:
[1] this week it was discovered that White House staff had edited the biographies: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/15/obama-drops-his-name-into-presidential-biographies/
[2] whitehouse.gov: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan
[3] even The Washington Post‘s ‘fact checker’: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-quoting-reagan-out-of-context/2012/04/11/gIQAaOsZBT_blog.html
[4] they were caught editing: http://www.propublica.org/article/white-house-updates-bushs-biography-less-prosperity-more-bbq
[5] Affirming that culture, President Bush told a group of departing staffers in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkU5Y6G0IFk&list=UUopGqbomONFGv10--0gLMqg&index=2&feature=plcp
[6] On April 20, President Obama’s campaign team released a Nixonian enemies list of Republican donors on their “Truth Team” website: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/20/president-obamas-enemies-list/
[7] Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel found: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396412560038208.html
[8] President Obama told ABC News’ Robin Roberts: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-interview-president-obama/story?id=16316043#.T7Kjgug7X4s
[9] President Obama told 60 Minutes that he was our fourth greatest president ever: http://news.yahoo.com/60-minutes-edits-obama-claim-fourth-best-president-133404689.html
[10] Answering a question on The View: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9268002/US-election-When-your-name-is-Barack-Hussein-Obama-getting-elected-is-difficult.html
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"How is President Obama Dishonoring Past Presidents?"
May 18, 2012
http://www.askheritage.org/how-is-president-obama-dishonoring-past-presidents/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2012-05-18&utm_campaign=2012_Brand
NOTE: Trust me! It would be historical if the mainstream media makes note of the following about THEIR candidate for re-election. Be sure that what you will read below has been characteristic of our President for years now as their our countless other examples that could be noted. (At the end of the post, I have also added a link to another article that presents some other detail on this subject.) By the way, don't miss tomorrow's posting(#222)about the First Lady that you will also not be hearing about in the typical news outlet.]
Reflecting on his two terms in office, President George W. Bush said in 2010, “You realize you’re not it. You’re a part of something bigger than yourself.”
This is a sentiment President Barack Obama did not inherit from his predecessor. Over the past month we have witnessed several displays of arrogant power emanating from our White House, emphasizing fealty to a person over the integrity of an American institution. Some are more serious than others.
First, this week it was discovered that White House staff had edited the biographies [1] of many past presidents on whitehouse.gov [2] to include a bullet point or two inserting President Obama into each historical narrative. For example, while President Calvin Coolidge had been the first president to make a public radio address, President Obama is on LinkedIn; and while Social Security was introduced by President Roosevelt, under President Obama it still exists. But in a far more egregious example, they incorrectly added to President Ronald Reagan’s biography [2]: “In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.”
This is not only a complete fabrication of what President Reagan said (even The Washington Post‘s ‘fact checker’ [3] gave this familiar line two Pinocchios) but it is also a glaring example of the President putting himself ahead of the sacred institution he is sworn to protect for the nation as well as his predecessors and successors. Heritage Distinguished Fellow Ed Meese who served as President Reagan’s Attorney General said: “They should not use the biographies of past presidents as campaign vehicles. What they have done is to spoil the integrity of the historical narrative. At the very least, the Reagan biography should be restored to the accurate version provided by the White House Historical Association. I’m sure those associated with other past presidents would feel the same.”
This is not the first time the Obama White House has engaged in this behavior. In March 2009, they were caught editing [4] President Bush’s biography to soften his listed accomplishments. They quickly reversed course. In the Bush Administration, biographies were directly supplied by the White House Historical Association without addendums or qualifiers.
Former White House Internet Director David Almacy explained to The Heritage Foundation that under Bush, this editing practice would have been unthinkable, saying: “It was our intent to preserve the history of the White House as an institution as well as those who served as president from a non-partisan historical perspective.” Almacy added: “It was ingrained in Bush Administration staffers from day one that our time in service to our nation was a privilege and that we must separate political promotion from the institution as a whole.”
Affirming that culture, President Bush told a group of departing staffers in 2009 [5]: “Laura and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts for serving with us. I’ve had two great chiefs of staff, Andy and Josh. Their task was to assemble, and I would say this objectively, the finest group of people to serve our country, all of whom are here not to serve me, not to serve Republicans, but to serve the United States of America.”
This bipartisan approach evades the current White House. On April 20, President Obama’s campaign team released a Nixonian enemies list of Republican donors on their “Truth Team” website [6]. This wasn’t about transparency, but intimidation. After each donor name, the Obama team highlighted why they felt the person was “less than reputable.” Essentially the person had either succeeded in a business field that was counter to the President’s worldview (i.e. oil production) or they made business decisions like outsourcing.
Prominent donors are often thrust into the spotlight in political campaigns, but this example was extraordinary and unprecedented. The writing was on the wall: If you give to an opposing cause, we will unleash a grassroots effort to destroy your personal reputation. This message delivered on behalf of the most powerful man in the nation has real implications. If the IRS were to audit one of these individuals, how could they not wonder if their political contribution was the root cause?
Following up on the story, the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel found [7] that a week after this list was released, a political opposition researcher was found to be digging through divorce records of one of the men named. The target, Frank VanderSloot, told Strassel [7]: “When I first learned that President Obama’s campaign had singled me out on his ‘enemies list,’ I knew it was like taping a target on my back…[but] the public beatings and false accusations that followed are no deterrent. These tactics will not work in America.”
Between the biographical trickery and their enemies list, President Obama’s team has engaged in tactics that put their boss above his predecessors and dangerously above his opponents. This is indeed a culture that emanates from the top.
Just last week President Obama told ABC News’ Robin Roberts [8] in an interview: “When I think about — those soldiers or airmen or marines or — sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…” My behalf.
Then there was also the consistent use of the pronoun “I” to describe the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. ... President Obama told 60 Minutes that he was our fourth greatest president ever [9], saying: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.”
Finally, President Obama insinuated yesterday that if you don’t support his policies, it’s not due to philosophical differences, but because of his name. Answering a question on The View [10] about tight polls, he said: “When your name is Barack Obama, it’s always going to be tight. Barack Hussein Obama.”
Any person selected to the highest office in the land is bound to indulge a small degree of narcissism. But when it permeates the entire attitude and culture of the executive branch, it begins to become a problem. No president is larger than the presidency.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/16/morning-bell-president-me/
URLs in this post:
[1] this week it was discovered that White House staff had edited the biographies: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/15/obama-drops-his-name-into-presidential-biographies/
[2] whitehouse.gov: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan
[3] even The Washington Post‘s ‘fact checker’: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-quoting-reagan-out-of-context/2012/04/11/gIQAaOsZBT_blog.html
[4] they were caught editing: http://www.propublica.org/article/white-house-updates-bushs-biography-less-prosperity-more-bbq
[5] Affirming that culture, President Bush told a group of departing staffers in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkU5Y6G0IFk&list=UUopGqbomONFGv10--0gLMqg&index=2&feature=plcp
[6] On April 20, President Obama’s campaign team released a Nixonian enemies list of Republican donors on their “Truth Team” website: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/20/president-obamas-enemies-list/
[7] Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel found: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396412560038208.html
[8] President Obama told ABC News’ Robin Roberts: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-interview-president-obama/story?id=16316043#.T7Kjgug7X4s
[9] President Obama told 60 Minutes that he was our fourth greatest president ever: http://news.yahoo.com/60-minutes-edits-obama-claim-fourth-best-president-133404689.html
[10] Answering a question on The View: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9268002/US-election-When-your-name-is-Barack-Hussein-Obama-getting-elected-is-difficult.html
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"How is President Obama Dishonoring Past Presidents?"
May 18, 2012
http://www.askheritage.org/how-is-president-obama-dishonoring-past-presidents/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2012-05-18&utm_campaign=2012_Brand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
