Saturday, October 22, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Michelle Malkin » While you were sleeping: Sneaky midnight-hour Senate moves; EduJobs rejected, Commerce nominee/solar subsidy mogul approved, Fannie/Freddie loan limits increased
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Headlines The WH Didn't Want From Their Taxpayer-Funded Bus Tour | RNC: Republican National Committee | GOP
Headlines The WH Didn’t Want From Their Taxpayer-Funded Bus Tour
Posted by: Michael Short
The White House surely must have not appreciated many of the headlines coming out from the President’s second taxpayer-funded campaign bus tour of the year. Whether it was reminding taxpayers he was campaigning on their dime, lawmakers from his own party avoiding him like the plague, or getting a fact check for his spin about his Stimulus 2.0 plan, the White House must be wondering if they got any political mileage at all.
LA Times: “Obama Ends Bus Tour With Pitch To Subdued Crowd”: “Closing out his bus tour on a low-key note, President Obama made a pitch for his jobs package at a firehouse, where a subdued crowd needed a bit of prompting to applaud his proposal to boost the economy.” (Peter Nicholas, “Obama Ends Bus Tour With Pitch To Subdued Crowd,” Los Angeles Times, 10/19/2011)
President Obama Gets Fact Checked For His Spin On The Job Creating Potential Of His Stimulus 2.0 Plan: “President Obama exaggerates when he claims “independent economists” say his jobs bill “would create nearly 2 million jobs.” The median estimate in a survey of 34 economists showed 288,000 jobs could be saved or created over two years under the president’s plan.” (Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley, “Obama’s Spin on Jobs Bill,” Factcheck.org, 10/20/2011)
CBS News Reminds Taxpayers They’re On The Hook For Obama’s Campaign Bus Tour: “If Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain or any of the other presidential challengers were to embark on a three-day bus trip like the one now underway by President Obama, it would cost their campaigns tens of thousands of dollars. Perhaps more … But not the Obama campaign. The White House declared that Mr. Obama's three-day trip through North Carolina and Virginia are official events and not campaign appearances, even though the two states are known to be political objectives of his re-election bid.” (Mark Knoller, “Obama's bus tour costing taxpayers thousands,” CBS News, 10/18/2011))
Politico’s Glenn Thrush: “Obama Bus Not Magic In Virginia”: “President Barack Obama’s bus trip into the commonwealth on Tuesday drew hundreds of devoted followers — and cold shoulders from some high-profile Virginia Democrats … Obama isn’t the hot ticket he used to be — a fall 2008 end-of-campaign rally in northern Virginia drew more than 80,000 screaming admirers …” (Glenn Thrush, “Obama Bus Not Magic In Virginia,” Politico, 10/18/2011))
Time Magazine Highlights Obama’s Popularity Problem Among Voters Living Along The Bus Route: “The trip’s route has been telling. Repeating his victories in these pivotal Southern battlegrounds will be a challenge for Obama. Recent polls have shown his support sliding in Virginia, a state he won by a seven-point margin four years ago. The President’s popularity problem is particularly acute among the white, blue-collar workers who form of the backbone of rural communities in the Old Dominion and around the country.” (Alex Altman, “Where Obama’s Hurting: In Piedmont and the Polls,” Time Magazine, 10/19/2011)
Text "ENLIST" 91919 to join the GOP Mobile Army and get exclusive campaign updates.
Read more: http://www.gop.com/index.php/S=feedffa142c96c1aa344ae2228f977a4/comms/comments/headlines_the_wh_didnt_want_from_their_taxpayer-funded_bus_tour/#ixzz1bM5fUB6q
Ironic "Scariest Chart Ever" Redux - America Will Surpass 100% Debt To GDP On HalloweenSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 10/19/2011 16:44 -0400
Earlier today we presented Bloomberg's Chart of the Day which represented the GDP and Debt per capita on a historical and projected basis, and we hysterically, and tongue-in-cheekly, dubbed it "the scariest chart ever" because it confirmed that at some point, very soon, US Debt will surpass GDP and never look back. We decided to dig into the actual numbers (cancelling out the per capital denominator as it is the same on both sides of the equation) and came to a very disturbing revelation: as of today, total US Debt, is $14.942 trillion (source), obviously an all time high. Q2 GDP as was reported by the BEA three weeks ago, was $15.012 trillion in current dollars. In other words, the spread between total GDP and total debt has now collapsed to an all time low $70 billion. Incidentally, this number was $1.8 trillion at the beginning of 2010. Then we decided to take a quick look at the upcoming bond issuance and find that tomorrow the Treasury will announce approximately $99 billion in 2, 5 and 7 Year bonds to be auctioned off October 25 through 27... With a very appropriate settlement date: October 31, elsewhere known as Halloween. Yes, ladies and gentlemen: All Hallows E'en will be doubly scary this year: for the first time since World War II, US debt will officially surpass GDP on Halloween 2011.
For those interested in leadership issues, you'll find many other useful sessions during the Learning Forward 2011 Annual Conference in Anaheim, Dec. 3-7. Key emphases at this year's conference include:
• Measures of effective teaching and teacher evaluation;
• Links among professional learning, effective practice, and increased student learning;
• School and system leadership;
• The Common Core State Standards; and
• Learning Forward's recently released Standards for Professional Learning.
measure twice, budget once.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
Posted by Ari Armstrong at 11:18 pm
Many “Occupy Wall Street” protesters oppose the bailouts of failed banks and financial institutions. They are right to do so: such bailouts violate rights by forcibly transferring wealth from some people to others via taxes, deficit spending (future taxes), and monetary expansion (hidden taxes). At the same time, however, many Occupiers call for even more forced wealth transfers for things such as unemployment payments, student loans, mortgage support, government schools, and “green” energy. Why do many Occupiers oppose some forced wealth transfers and advocate others?
The answer may be found in the popular “occupation” phrase: “We are the 99 percent.” As Vanity Fair explained earlier this year, “The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.” The 99 percent, then, consist of everyone else. According to the typical Occupier, politicians should forcibly seize wealth, so long as they seize it from the relatively wealthy and give it to those with less. “Tax the Rich” (even more), many protest signs read. Vanity Fair compares America’s wealthy to Middle Eastern theocratic dictators: “Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few.” The magazine predicts that “even the wealthy will come to regret” the income inequality in this country. While some in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement may attempt to make good on that threat, if income inequality is their concern, they should instead consider some history.
True, throughout most of human history, great income inequality arose when the political class looted the masses. Slaves labored in Egypt to build elaborate burial pyramids for their jewel-crested Pharaohs. In the socialist Soviet Union, the “dictators of the proletariat” lived lavishly even as they starved millions to death while selling grain to other countries (for details, see the film The Soviet Story). Thus, while some Occupiers call to replace capitalism with socialism (see the Denver college professor and “born-again Trotskyite” or the Los Angeles Occupier calling for bloody revolution) if successful their strategies would in fact create another kind of income inequality.
But the income inequality under tyranny is fundamentally different from that under capitalism. One arises from looting and forcing; the other from producing and thinking. Looters seize available wealth. They add nothing to the supply of wealth, opting instead to smash things, divert human effort to the task of looting, and squash the incentive of their victims to produce much of anything. Thus, even if looters could achieve income equality, doing so would constitute a moral atrocity. Producers create new wealth: They restructure their own resources—their land, machinery, seeds, and minerals—to create goods and services that benefit human life. Producers earn money by trading voluntarily with those who also benefit from the exchange. Often producers hire others, improving the lot of employer and employee alike.
Looters win (in their own short-sighted view) at the expense of others. Producers win as they help others win. At worst, a looter takes your life; at best, he steals what you produce. At worse, a producer leaves you alone; at best—and most typically—he greatly enriches and expands our lives.
America’s capitalists have nothing in common with dictators in the Middle East or with any other type of looter. (I mean actual capitalists, not those pretenders in business who wield political power to seize subsidies and hamstring their competitors.) Steve Jobs did not earn a fortune by attacking others or stealing from them; he grew wealthy by building remarkably advanced machines that dramatically improve the lives of tens of millions of people. Whatever wealth Jobs personally gained, he added enormously more value to his customers’ lives. The same can be said of any of America’s business leaders, whether the energy producer George Mitchell, retailer Jeff Bezos, software developer Bill Gates, internet visionary Mark Zuckerberg, or anybody else who lives by thinking and producing at whatever scale. Producers trade goods and services for money, and the exchange benefits both parties. A producer’s wealth indicates the scope of his mutually beneficial exchanges.
From the economic point of view, as Ludwig von Mises wrote in a 1955 letter: “Destitution is in a feudal society the corollary of income inequality, but not in a capitalist society. The fact that there is ‘big business’ does not impair, but improve[s] the conditions of the rest of the people.” Mises writes here of productive business in a free economy, not politically-connected “business” that seeks reward in handouts and special favors. To the degree that today’s economy has brought some closer to destitution, the cause is not productive big business, but instead the looting mentality of inflationary government spending, political support for irresponsible mortgages, bailouts for banks and unions, out-of-control entitlements, corporate welfare, and the like. In short, the cause is government interference in the economy.
From the moral point of view, forcibly seizing wealth from producers violates their rights. The relevant moral distinction is not between the 99 percent and the wealthiest one percent, but rather between the producers and the looters on any scale. The great producers of our society do not deserve envious snarls and threats to forcibly seize their property. Instead, they deserve our gratitude and admiration.
- Harry Reid and Company’s Latest Immoral Scheme
- How to Actually “Separate Government from the Corporations”
Image: Wikipedia Commons
"What's striking about this otherwise pretty tedious dispute that Lawyers, Guns and Money's Erik Loomis is picking with Matt Yglesias about school reform is how it's become taken for granted, common knowledge in some lefty circles that "Education Reform Doesn't Work." I mean, Loomis just says so in the title of the post, without feeling any need to back up or justify the statement. (Also, this post is pretty good)."
"The quest to raise minority representation in the Indianapolis public safety force to a level reflective of the community stretches back decades, and a satisfactory resolution to this highly political, intensely emotional issue is not on the horizon."
other passengers: "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, IT'S AN INEVITABILITY COROLLARY TO THE HUMAN CONDITION, SEVERAL NIHILISTS HAVE WRITTEN EXTENSIVE EXTRINSIC LITERARY WORKS ON THE TOPIC, OR DID YOU MEAN RIGHT NOW, HOLY SHIT, NOT RIGHT NOW OR AT LEAST A MECHANICAL FAILURE I DON'T WANT TO DIE BECAUSE OF A MAN WHO WON'T EAT PORK, THAT'S HUMILIATING BUT NOT AS HUMILIATING AS WRITING A BOOK ON MORTALITY AND NIHILISM ONLY TO BE KILLED BY THAT BOOK WHEN IT FALLS FROM A BOOKSHELF, AWKWARD!?"
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Abraham Lincoln rightly denounced the “mobocratic spirit.” James Madison considered it the sacred duty of government to protect property rights from the violent whims of the mob: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”
Lincoln and Madison would not have looked kindly upon the pro-redistributionist political street theater under way in urine- and garbage-saturated urban parks across the nation.
In an insult to the intelligence of the American people, the leaders of “Occupy Wall Street” piously claim that their movement is in the best traditions of nonviolent protest.
These class warriors are lying. The whole idea of these mass protests is to provoke the police and cause mass arrests, which the organizers can then use for propaganda purposes.
This exercise in Marxist mobocracy began on Sept. 17 in Lower Manhattan as the “U.S. Day of Rage.” This is a more honest moniker because it makes clear that the demonstrators are the polar opposite of the Tea Party movement, which seeks to protect America’s economic freedoms from the statist onslaught of the Obama administration. The leftist mob wants a radical transformation of American society in which government is expanded exponentially.
Occupy Wall Street is led by New York’s Working Families party, a front group for ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO and street-thug battalions from the various neo-communist organizations such as National People’s Action and Democratic Socialists of America. Paid rent-a-mobs from the Working Families Party, which isn’t even recognized in the District of Columbia, even paid a visit to the Washington Marriott at Metro Center in the nation’s capital on Wednesday.
Although violence has been sporadic at the various “occupations” so far, mass violence is inevitable. This is what radicals want. What else could possibly be the end result of thousands of angry activists camping out for weeks without food and sanitation?
As the Pajamas Media website reported, a recent speaker at a parallel demonstration in Los Angeles gave away the game and unexpectedly injected clarity into the debate.
The man, apparently from India, rejected nonviolence and praised the bloody guillotines that worked overtime during the French Reign of Terror. “Gandhi today is a tumor that the ruling class is using constantly to mislead us,” said the aspiring Robespierre. “The bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!” the speaker said to applause from the mob.
“Rules for Radicals” author and leftist icon Saul Alinsky agreed that nonviolence is of limited usefulness when trying to usher in a new era of socialism. As I note in my new book, “Subversion Inc.,” he argued in his organizing opus that there is no reason to make “a special religion of nonviolence.” In colonial India, he said, Gandhi’s approach was simply “the best tactic for its time and place.”
The mob actions Alinsky advocated and carried out have always been the antithesis of the American way of doing things. Americans reject lynch mobs and other forms of mob rule.
Conservative columnist George F. Will acknowledged as much on ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour.”
Mr. Will said he wants the Occupy Wall Street protests to continue and get even more publicity: “I think they do represent the intellectual spirit of the American left, but also I remember the 1960s. We had four years of demonstrations like this [that] led up to 1968, when the Nixon/Wallace vote was 57 percent - the country reacting against demonstrators, and Republicans went on to win five of the next six presidential elections.”
Maybe there is hope for America, after all.
Thank you, Occupy Wall Street.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Supporting #ArabSpring & #OccupyWallSt...
Obama plans to turn anti-Wall Street anger on GOP...
Pot, Meet Kettle: SEIU protests Wells Fargo over political contributions...
UAW Says Says 57% of Members Now Voting in Favor of Ford Agreement...
Postal Union Turns to Wall Street for Advice...?
Large SEIU Local Faces Decertification...Next Year
AFSCME Takes Interns to Jobs March... WI Clash Spotlights U.S. Labor-management Rift...
Obama allies’ interests collide over pipeline... Key UAW Ford unit votes in favor of contract...
UAW's Ford voting seesaws... Rep. Kline Shines a Light on NLRB this Week...
Occupy protests spread like wildfire... CA teachers union pitches tent with Occupy activists...
SEIU marches down K Street... Boston PD Arrests ‘#OccupyBoston’ Protesters...
SEIU workers reject contract offer... #OccupyWallSt protester defecates on NYPD Squad Car..!
Samhain, also known as the origin of Halloween, is a special type of demon.
When he reigned on Earth on Halloween night, people kept their children in that night, they wore masks to hide from him, carved pumpkins to worship him, and left sweets at their doors to appease him.
Occupy Boston Ruins Food Bank Fundraiser, Conservatives Step In With $3,700 Fund Drive - Conservative Crusader
Into the Twilight
Out-worn heart, in a time out-worn,
Come clear of the nets of wrong and right;
Laugh, heart, again in the grey twilight;
Sigh, heart, again in the dew of the morn.
Your mother Eire is always young,
Dew ever shining and twilight grey;
Though hope fall from you and love decay,
Burning in fires of a slanderous tongue.
Come, heart, where hill is heaped upon hill:
For there the mystical brotherhood
Of sun and moon and hollow and wood
And river and stream work out their will;
And God stands winding His lonely horn,
And time and the world are ever in flight;
And love is less kind than the grey twilight,
And hope is less dear than the dew of the morn.
William Butler Yeats 1902
Among those who have been disappointed by President Barack Obama, none is likely to end up so painfully disappointed as those who saw his election as being, in itself and in its consequences, a movement toward a "post-racial society."
Like so many other expectations that so many people projected onto this little-known man who suddenly burst onto the political scene, the expectation of movement toward a post-racial society had no speck of hard evidence behind it -- and all too many ignored indications of the very opposite, including his two decades of association with the egregious Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Those people of good will who want to replace the racism of the past with a post-racial society have too often overlooked the fact that there are others who instead want to put racism under new management, to have reverse discrimination as racial payback for past injustices.
Attorney General Eric Holder became a key figure epitomizing the view that government's role in racial matters was not to be an impartial dispenser of equal justice for all, but to be a racial partisan and an organ of racial payback. He has been too politically savvy to say that in so many words, but his actions have spoken far louder than any words.
The case that first gave the general public a glimpse of Attorney General Holder's views and values was one in which young black thugs outside a voting site in Philadelphia were televised intimidating white voters. When this episode was broadcast, it produced public outrage.
Although the Department of Justice's prosecution of these thugs began in the last days of the Bush administration, and the defendants had offered no legal defense, the case was dropped by the Justice Department after Eric Holder took over. One of the lawyers who were prosecuting that case resigned in protest.
That lawyer -- J. Christian Adams -- has now written a book, titled "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department." It is a thought-provoking book and a shocking book in what it reveals about the inner workings of the Department of Justice's civil rights division.
Bad as the Justice Department's decision was to drop that particular case, which it had already won in court, this book makes painfully clear that this was just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Despite the efforts of some in the media and in politics to depict the voter intimidation in Philadelphia as just an isolated incident involving a few thugs at one voting place, former U.S. Attorney Adams shows that these thugs were in fact part of a nationwide organization doing similar things elsewhere.
Moreover, the civil rights division of the Justice Department has turned the same blind eye to similar voter intimidation and corruption of the voting process by other people and other organizations in other cities and states -- so long as those being victimized were white and the victimizers were black.
This is all spelled out in detail, naming names and naming places, not only among those in the country at large, but also among those officials of the Justice Department who turned its role of protecting the civil rights of all Americans into a policy of racial partisanship and racial payback.
The widespread, organized and systematic corruption of the voting process revealed by the author of "Injustice" is on a scale that can swing not only local but national elections, including the 2012 elections. The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has not only turned a blind eye to blatant evidence of voter fraud, it has actively suppressed those U.S. Attorneys in its own ranks who have tried to stop that fraud.
Even in counties where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of people legally entitled to vote, Eric Holder's Justice Department sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil -- if the end result is the election of black Democrats. It has become the mirror image of the old Jim Crow South.
This is an enormously eye-opening book which makes painfully clear that, where racial issues are concerned, the Department of Justice has become the Department of Payback. A post-racial society is the last thing that Holder and Obama are pursuing.