Saturday, August 28, 2010
Man Arrested at Alaska State Fair for Impeach Obama Sign
Friday, August 27, 2010
As GOP civil war rages
As GOP civil war rages, Democrats look to benefit
WASHINGTON (AP) – A Republican civil war is raging, with righter-than-thou conservatives dominating ever more primaries in a fight for the party's soul. And the Democrats hope to benefit.A fight is being waged within the Republican Party. It's a fight between REAL Republicans, the old fashioned Reagan Conservative Republicans, and the RINOs that have come to represent a party that is in severe need of a makeover.
The latest examples of conservative insurgents' clout came Tuesday at opposite ends of the country. In Florida, political newcomer Rick Scott beat longtime congressman and state Attorney General Bill McCollum for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. And in Alaska, tea party activists and Sarah Palin pushed Sen. Lisa Murkowski to the brink of defeat, depending on absentee ballot counts in her race against outsider Joe Miller.
Full Story Here:
As GOP civil war rages, Democrats look to benefit
The GOP has made it clear that they will blow smoke up the TEA Party's skirt, use them if they can, and once elections are over, they plan to try and co-opt the TEA Party into being a wing of the GOP.
It's just NOT going to happen that way folks.
There are multitudes of Conservatives out there in *I VOTE LAND* that are SO tired of the GOP, Michael Steele, the RNC, the RINOs, Graham, McCain, Murkowski, Snowe, Collins and so many others. I am happy to see that in many cases, REAL Republicans are replacing RINOs.
The GOP is likely to survive its bitter intraparty battles in such states as Alaska and Utah, even if voters oust veteran senators in both. But tea party-backed candidates might be a godsend to desperate Democrats elsewhere – in Nevada, Florida and perhaps Kentucky, where the Democrats portray GOP nominees as too extreme for their states.Too extreme for America and their states? Or for the Dems and their game?
God, guns and guts is too extreme? Believing in God is too extreme? Standing up for the right to life of the unborn is too extreme? Wanting secure borders and wanting those in this nation that are not here legally removed? That's too extreme for the Dems?
Do Americans, especially the Blacks of this nation, which do, by and large, vote Democratic, need to be reminded that it was the Democrats that started the Klan? It was the Democrats that sought at every turn to deny the Black man the right to vote? To be counted as a WHOLE person? Do the Dems REALLY want to go there regarding extremes?
If Murkowski joins Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, as a victim of party activists who demand ideological purity, other Republicans are still likely to win in November, though Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would have to deal with more maverick members who are loathe to compromise. And the conservative insurgency is hardly all-powerful, as Sen. John McCain proved by easily winning renomination in Arizona despite a challenge from the right by J.D. Hayworth.'As a victim of party activists who demand ideological purity' has a nice ring to it.
Compromise is OUT of the question! Compromise is what took America to the brink of disaster, the one that we are now facing in the person of Barack Hussein Obama.
Regarding Conservative insurgency and John McCain, all I can say to the GOP voters of Arizona is this; John McCain is nothing more than an ass-kissing RINO. He got all Conservative as soon as the election cycle started again, and you folks bought it. As soon as it's over, he'll go right back to being an ass-kissing RINO, writing bills with Feingold and the like, reaching across the aisle and siding with the Dems at every occasion.
Arizona, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
The White House has tried to link the Republican Party with the fledgling conservative-libertarian tea party coalition – and demonize the combination as too extreme for the country.Here we go with that too extreme stuff again. What, exactly, is too extreme?
That's "the Republican tea party" that's "offering more of the past but on steroids" and is "out of step with where the American people are," Vice President Joe Biden told the party's rank and file last week.
An American president bowing to foreign dignitaries? Is that too extreme?
How about giving away TRILLIONS of our tax dollars for a bail out and stimulus that simply has not worked?
I know, this has to be the big extreme the Dems are talking about; that wonderful ObamaCare program? How about it Dems? You still want to talk about extreme?
I can't speak for ALL TEA Party groups in America, but if ANY of them have become a part of, or a servant to the GOP, they have co-opted themselves and are no longer a representative of what the TEA Party is all about. And yes, I DO know of some that have.
Nevada Republicans' nomination of tea party favorite Sharron Angle may save Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. His popularity has fallen sharply among state voters, but Democrats say Angle's comments are scaring voters away from her and back toward him.I can't argue that, don't intend to try. You see, for some reason, Americans have become a lame, lazy, apathetic and complacent bunch. A real speaker of the truth scares many in this nation. The weak are going to follow the path of least resistance and align themselves with the one that tells them of all the free milk and honey they will provide, as long as you give the vote to them.
The truth isn't spoken. The fact that we have to work for a living, the fact that we can't be the savior to all the little creatures on the planet is NOT what the weak minded libbers or RINOs want to hear and it's not what Dems and RINOs are preaching!
The left and RINOs don't want the truth. They can't handle the truth.
Stand your ground TEA Party Patriots. Don't bow to the GOP or the Dems. Stand for what you know is right for America and stand for what's right in your heart!
Don't get weak now. We have a lot more fighting to do, and we're weeding out the weak sisters as fast as we can. We need men and women of courage, people that aren't afraid to stand and be confrontational. People that aren't afraid to get bloodied in the fight!
America 1st! Vote your conscience, not some PARTY line. Challenge everything!
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Important!!! Wrong Court Ruled on AZ Immig. LAW!! All Citizens Must Read This!! Fire Holder
Attn Minutemen, Honest Congressmen and Representatives, and fellow Citizens: |
Monday, August 23, 2010
FW: Term Limits "versus" Informed Citizens? (Paul Jacob says that far from kicking the struts out from under responsible citizenship, term limits are a potent enabler of it)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:08:09 -0400
From: commonsense@citizensincharge.org
To: plbooth@centurytel.net
Subject: Term Limits "versus" Informed Citizens? (Paul Jacob says that far from kicking the struts out from under responsible citizenship, term limits are a potent enabler of it)
![]() | |
| August 23, 2010 Term Limits "versus" Informed Citizens?In his commentary "Term Limits Are a Poor Substitute for an Informed Electorate," blogger Andy Sochor repeats a familiar claim: That formally term-limiting political tenure implies the irrelevance of intelligent involvement in political life, and even discourages our participation in it. This assessment would have surprised the Romans in their republican days or the Athenians in Greece's golden age. Both polities imposed stringent term limits on political offices; and in both, citizens (non-slave adult males) actively participated in political life. It was willingness to flout traditional term limits that helped precipitate the collapse of the Roman republic and the rise of the emperors. Augustus, who took over after Julius Caesar was assassinated, ruled uninterruptedly for decades (even if we subtract the years he shared imperial power with Mark Antony). Term limits in fact encourage citizens to participate in political life by fostering meaningful options at the polling booth. Incumbents enjoy enormous advantages over challengers, especially in district-level elections. These advantages often yield lopsided contests and even contests in which the incumbent faces no challenger at all. What use is it to a voter to study up on which candidate is best when there's only one candidate? No single institutional feature of governance can conquer corruption in high places or ignorance in low places. But from what I've seen, voters become discouraged from learning about options when their options are reduced under incumbency-forever politics. Under term limits, they have greater incentive to inform themselves. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob. | Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge and Citizens in Charge Foundation, which sponsors both Common Sense and Paul's weekly Townhall Column. The opinions expressed in Common Sense are Paul Jacob's and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Citizens in Charge or Citizens in Charge Foundation. |
| |
| ||||||
feel free to reprint as desired - November 2, 2010 - Vindication Day
For two years, our Socialist Democrats amassed unprecedented power and grew huge increases in federal government power through bailouts, corporate takeovers, favors to their political allies (bankers) and nationalization of our health care system.
On Nov. 2,
Incredibly, voter repudiation may be greeted by ousted politicians with their own repudiation of voter intent. After the election before a newly elected Congress is sworn in, the current Congress may call a lame-duck Nov/Dec session to enact new Socialist legislation. Democrats are already talking about plans to exploit this session to enact unpopular issues.
Such boundless arrogance from legislators who think their Socialist opinions should reign is exactly why there is such bipartisan outrage directed at this political class. Sen. Kerry celebrates the idea "... after the election, it may well be that some members are free and liberated and feeling that they can take a risk or do something.' The Dems are celebrating the fact lawmakers will be liberated from restraints of the people, an elitist sentiment highly repulsive to American ideals and exactly opposite of how elected representatives should respond to election results proving we dislike their agenda. We should hope they would gracefully accept the message.
A reminder, it was Progressives (today's Dem Socialists) of years past who said the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call 'the needs of the times.' Nor were they content saying the Constitution needed more Amendments. That meant the much disdained masses would have their say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed. The agenda then, as now, was for our betters (the elitist Dem Socialists) to decide which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded thus meeting 'the needs of the times' -- as they choose to define those needs.
The first open attack on the Constitution by a President was made by Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Arguments why judges shouldn't interpret the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but to mean whatever it ought to meet 'the needs of the times,' were made by Wilson. It is no coincidence those who imagine themselves wiser and nobler than we should be seeking to erode Constitutional restrictions on arbitrary powers of government. How else can our betters impose superior wisdom and virtue on us when the Constitution with all its provisions safeguarding a system based on self-governing people gets in the way at every turn? To get their way, elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another to dismantle
PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, MO
Friday, August 20, 2010
people noticed
By Alan Caruba
"Apres moi le deluge", "After me, the flood" and though attributed to the French King Louis XV, historians believe it was actually said by Jeanne Poisson, Madame de Pompadour. The last members of the monarchy spent France into the poorhouse until they had their heads separated from their bodies via the guillotine.
People have noticed the same eerie disconnect from the suffering of the populace as Barack and Michelle Obama party on. There has been a succession of vacations topped off by Michelle in Spain on the U.S. dime. Keeping track of the vacations, about seventeen this year, has become a media pastime.
Twenty months into his first and last term, President Obama, has wasted a trillion dollars we didn't have on a stimulus package that was little more than a wish list of pet projects for Democrat congressmen and bailouts of the teacher's unions whose members would otherwise have to join the long lines at the unemployment office.
People noticed.
Obama has had notably little success in foreign affairs, failing to draw the line with the Russians on issues of defensive missiles in Europe, managing to insult the British in a dozen ways, and being mocked by the Iranian leaders as they get ready to fire up a nuclear reactor.
People noticed.
When he finally decided what to do in Afghanistan, he made the announcement at West Point, including a date when the new infusion of troops would leave. The cadets slept through the speech and the Taliban circled their calendar for 2011.
People noticed.
Barely in office a day, he was all for closing down Guantanamo until he learned there was no place for the detainees. The states did not want them in their prisons and foreign nations did not want them for any reason. When his Attorney General wanted to try the mastermind of 9/11 in New York City the outcry was deafening.
People noticed.
Many of those he wanted to appoint to his administration turned out to be tax cheats or had to withdraw due to charges of unethical behavior or corruption. Despite a pledge to drive out the lobbyists, a number of appointees were lobbyists. A whole slew of "czars" turned out to include a number of loonies who were either outright communists or who believed weird science theories.
People noticed.
Despite widespread, vocal opposition, Obamacare was forced upon an unwilling America and now we are learning it will increase costs and deny care, just as we knew it would.
People noticed.
Bush had his Katrina, but Obama had the Gulf of Mexico oil leak. His administration mismanaged it beyond belief and then he arbitrarily shut down oil production from other rigs, adding more people to the unemployment lines.
People noticed.
Obama used the occasion of a Ramadan dinner at the White House to wade into the controversy regarding a plan to build a mosque within two blocks of where 3,000 Americans died from an Islamic terrorist attack. Then he had to back off what he said.
People noticed.
Obama appointed two women to the Supreme Court, both of whom think the Constitution was written on silly putty. One had never been a judge.
People noticed.
Muslim murder at Fort Hood, a failed Christmas bomber on a commercial jet, and another failed bomber in Times Square. The response to all three incidents was slow and very, very politically correct, tip-toeing around using the word "Muslim."
People noticed.
Rather than take dramatic action to stem the flood of illegal aliens along the southern border, the Obama administration brought a suit against Arizona at the same time twenty other states are writing and passing similar legislation to enforce immigration laws. Then they threatened Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a legal suit charging that he was anti-Hispanic!
People noticed.
Along the way the Tea Party movement occurred and Nancy Pelosi called them Nazis. Harry Reid became even creepier than anyone could imagine. The voters elected Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey, and a Republican Senator to fill Teddy Kennedy's vacant seat.
People noticed.
On November 2nd, the voters will go to the polls for a midterm election and the odds are that many Democrats will just stay home while the independents and Republicans will turn out in huge numbers.
The power in Congress will shift, perhaps dramatically, because people noticed.
© Alan Caruba, 2010
Ray Stevens - come to the usa
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The GOP Brand and American Interests Aren't Always the SAME, Wish They Were
The GOP Brand and American Interests Aren't Always the SAME, Wish They Were
First, some statistics taken from recent national polls about what the entire nation thinks on various subjects.
57% think the Democrat agenda is "extreme"
60% favor repeal of Obamacare
56% disapprove of Obama's job performance
61% favor immigration laws like
68% oppose the Ground Zero mosque
65% are angry at federal government policies
65% say
I think these numbers do not reflect Tea Party or Conservative activists but rather the average liberal since they were taken from people of the streets of various NE Cities and not the mid-west.
Consider this as well: those candidates the Democrats and talking heads are saying are extreme on the Republican side are either ahead or neck and neck with their Democrat opponents. This is not your father's
Conservatives and liberals alike assume the
Here is the truth. Health care in the
What did our last Republican president who had a Republican-majority House and Senate do about HeathCare? He saddled Medicare, a system about to go bankrupt, with a new entitlement, prescription drugs, adding another 1% to 2% of GDP to the federal government burden. In round numbers, that is about $1 trillion over a decade in the very years the Medicare trust fund will be empty. (Like most other entitlement programs, the additional spending would happen after the president signing the legislation would leave office.) A reminder, SS is bankrupt spending more than it takes in and has NO "trust fund."
How was this exceptional generosity rewarded? President Obama said, while defending himself against charges of socialism, "And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement, the prescription drug plan, without a source of funding." And he is unfortunately correct.
He then went on to get his own new $1-trillion plus health entitlement passed. (Apparently the MSM doesn't consider you a socialist if the predecessor was.)
When all government spending is tallied up, government in the
Spending doesn't cover everything, you say? OK. The Heritage Foundation tallied up ten broad measures of economic freedom across 183 countries. The result? The
Waiting for the Republican Party to save us? That party had everything, the presidency, House, and Senate, from 2003 through 2006. It gave us the new trillion-dollar prescription drug entitlement, Campaign Finance Reform, No Child Left Behind and whopping new ethanol mandates. It even outlawed normal light bulbs (again, to take effect after the signing president leaves office). All of that was CONSERVATIVE? BS!
When that particular confederacy of dunces fought ObamaCare, on what grounds did it fight it?: ObamaCare would cut Medicare. Medicare spending is what is bankrupting our government and our country! It has to be cut (over time). We can do that Obama's way, through government rationing, or we can do that a responsible way and I'm darned if I know what that is except biting the bullet and doing it.
Did Republicans offer a responsible way to tame Medicare? Well, one Republican did: Paul Ryan, with his Roadmap. In February 2010, after a year of Obama's high-pressure sales and years after Republicans lost Congress, Ryan's Roadmap had all of nine co-sponsors: Nine out of 178 Republicans in the House. As for the rest, it was "Don't cut my Medicare!" There was no other leadership visible, neither from the Chairman nor anyone else of the Party.
As far as individual "Republicrats," let's consider Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, and Charlie Crist and the BIG NE Three... I doubt those traitors are the only ones ready to defect. The Republican Party seems to have a gift for losing critical battles at the very moments their votes must count the most (see Jeffords, Jumpin' Jim). They rail against gay marriage and flag-burning with gusto when talking to the folks back home. When it comes to bailouts, stimuli, or new government programs and regulations, and any other form of pork and political payouts, there always seem to be just enough Republican votes to get the job done. Sometimes, Republicans even do it themselves (prescription coverage, TARP, etc.)
I can't say it any better than Governor Chris Christie: "Republicans have to rebrand themselves credibly with the candidates they run, and what they espouse, as the person who will keep an eye on the cash register, who will rein in the spending and the debt." Then the Party has to take control of its members throwing those out of the Party who refuse to adhere to the general guidelines and supposed values of the PARTY. If it actually threw some members out, I expect there would be a great number of voters who would join the New Party with a Backbone.
Republicans used to own the idea of fiscal conservatism. That idea won the most electoral votes in history just 26 years ago. It took over the House of Representatives, for the first time in forty years, just sixteen years ago. With majorities in Congress, it cut capital gains tax rates, decreased welfare, decreased the byzantine farm program, cut federal spending to its lowest level since 1966, and actually ran surpluses -- just ten years ago. What Happened!
We aren't nuts to want moral and fiscal conservatism. It isn't nuts to think government can and should spend less, less than 40% of everything anyway. It isn't nuts to want our country to be "free" and not just "mostly free". It isn't nuts to think that the Constitutional way "a bill becomes a law" should be the way a bill becomes a law. It isn't nuts to think the U.S. Constitution restrains the federal government. It isn't nuts to agree with our founders. Nor is it nuts to believe our Justices should actually use the Constitution and their oaths of office as the basis of their judgments and those who refuse should be impeached and removed from office.
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson, 1802
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Ben Franklin, 1766
"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts." - George Washington, 1796
Here's how it works: If we want expanded entitlements, more government programs, macro-economic tinkering, more federal government intrusion into education, agriculture, energy, etc., we will vote Democrat. We don't need Republicans for that. That is the Democrats' brand; let them have it. What we need is someone to oppose all that. If the GOP won't, the Tea Party and the Constitution Party will.
Our founders and my fathers' Republican Party said, "Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem." If you find that too distasteful to swallow, a bit too Tea-Party for you, please don't run for office as a Republican. Democrats are already a dime a dozen, and a cheap imitation of one is on nobody's November shopping list. If you do believe this, stand up and be counted as conservative or watch actual conservative take your offices supported by the growing numbers of fed up American Voters now supporting Tea Parties all over the Nation. In the simplest of terms, "Get out in front and lead or get kicked to the side."
PL Booth, the Blue Eye View of MO,
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
FW: Poll Position: Immigration, ObamaCare Woes & Tea Partiers
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:35:31 -0400
From: THeditor@townhallmail.com
To: plbooth@centurytel.net
Subject: Poll Position: Immigration, ObamaCare Woes & Tea Partiers
| |
|
Monday, August 16, 2010
Lawyer says DOJ ends criminal probe of Tom DeLay - Monday, Aug. 16, 2010 | 7:20 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun
Tom DeLay
The Associated Press
Monday, Aug. 16, 2010 | 7:20 a.m.
The Justice Department has ended its six-year criminal probe of the ties between former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff without filing any criminal charges against the former congressman.
One of DeLay's lawyers, Richard Cullen, said Monday the Justice Department's public integrity section informed DeLay's legal team early last week that it was ending the investigation.
"Six years is a long time and I'm sure he wishes it had happened years ago," Cullen said of the conclusion of the investigation of DeLay.
Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney declined to comment, which is normally the case when the department ends a criminal probe without filing charges.
Separately, DeLay has been indicted in Texas on charges of money laundering and conspiracy allegedly connected to 2002 state legislative elections. That case is pending.
In 2002, DeLay and the two other men used the new Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee to raise and spend about $600,000 to defeat Democratic candidates for the Texas Legislature. The three men were indicted in 2005 for allegedly laundering $190,000 in corporate money _ heavily restricted under state law _ to help elect GOP legislators.
Politico.com first reported on the closing of the U.S. Justice Department's probe of DeLay.
Last year, DeLay, a Republican from Texas, competed on ABC's hit show "Dancing With the Stars." DeLay withdrew from the ABC dance-off in October after being diagnosed with stress fractures in both feet.
Abramoff was released from a minimum-security prison camp in June.
The ex-lobbyist served about 3 1/2 years in prison for fraud, corruption and conspiracy. He spent three days in a halfway house in Baltimore before he was placed in home confinement. Abramoff currently is working in a kosher pizzeria in northwest Baltimore.
Friday, August 13, 2010
FW: Robin Carnahan just loves her bailouts (TARP)
Subject: Robin Carnahan just loves her bailouts (TARP)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:59:03 -0500
Fascinating statement, coming from someone who has been criticizing her opponent for supporting TARP (from which he later backed out after witnessing the Democrats' bastardization of the legislation). In that same Sedalia Democrat article, Carnahan's criticism of "banking executives": She called the use of some TARP money to fund large bonuses for banking executives "outrageous" and expressed frustration that "taxpayers were stuck with a bill to clean up their mess.
But interestingly, that Santa Fe meeting where Carnahan pledged her love for TARP was hosted by … a finance industry executive, Catherine Allen.
So which is it, Robin? Bailouts good or bailouts bad? Bankers good or bankers bad? First you don't tell us anything about your positions, and now you take two sides to every issue. It's no wonder Roy Blunt is leading you in the polls by an ever-increasing margin. You and your BFF, President Obama, are bad for the country and Missourians know it. The fact is that Ms.Carnahan is incapable of telling the truth, about much of anything and certainly not the TARP monies. Now the Dems also want MO to spend millions of so-called Federal bail-out monies on education (read the Teachers Union) this year and be forced to match that money again next year without any federal monies. If we use the Fed monies, it will break MO next year when there is no Fed money. Then we'd be in the same shape as CA is now, BROKE. Time to retire Ms. Carnahan.
PL Booth, The Blue Eye View,
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Paul Jacobs Common Sense
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:42:08 -0500
When Voting Means "Nothing"
Last week, nearly a million Missourians tramped off to the polls to choose candidates in the primary as well as decide ballot issues. One issue, Proposition C, the Healthcare Freedom Act, made history, if not the news.
Missouri became the first state to vote on a specific repudiation of a key element of the healthcare legislation, namely the federal government's mandate forcing individuals to purchase medical insurance. Prop C passed with a whopping 71 percent of the vote. It wasn't close — even though opponents of the measure, Missouri's Hospital Association, outspent supporters by better than three to one.
At The Missouri Record blog, Patrick Tuohey argues that "the vote in Missouri will have powerful repercussions." Obviously, when Missourians voted they wanted their votes to count, to matter, to mean something. But according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, the Missouri vote meant "nothing."
Funny, you probably didn't hear about Gibbs's dismissive comments. You might not have even heard about the Missouri healthcare vote. For some reason, the three dinosaur television networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, didn't even mention the vote on the following evening's broadcast.
The Missouri vote suggests the Democrats' healthcare legislation is none too popular. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered, "It's very obvious that people have a lack of understanding of our health care reform bill."
While the people are speaking up loudly and clearly, the response of government officials in Washington is to cover up their ears.
This is Common Sense by Paul Jacob.
PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, MO
An interesting article on unintended consequences by ex Reagan Treasury man....
An interesting article on unintended consequences by ex Reagan Treasury man....
The Little Things That Annoy
The Big Things That Matter
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTSI write about major problems: the collapsing US economy, wars based on lies and deception, the police state based on "the war on terror" and other fabrications such as those orchestrated by corrupt police and prosecutors, who boost their performance reports by convicting the innocent, and so on. America is a very distressing place. The fact that so many Americans are taken in by the lies told by "their" government makes America all the more depressing.
Often, however, it is small annoyances that waste Americans' time and drive up blood pressures. One of the worst things that ever happened to Americans was the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly. As Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in 1981, if 150 per cent of my time and energy had not been required to cure stagflation in the face of opposition from Wall Street and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, I might have been able to prevent the destruction of the best communications service in the world, and one that was very inexpensive to customers.
The assistant attorney general in charge of the "anti-trust case" against AT&T called me to ask if Treasury had an interest in how the case was resolved. I went to Treasury Secretary Don Regan and told him that although my conservative and libertarian friends thought that the breakup of At&T was a great idea, their opinion was based entirely in ideology and that the practical effect would not be good for widows and orphans who had a blue chip stock to see them through life or for communications customers as deregulated communications would give the multiple communications corporations different interests than those of the customers. Under the regulated regime, AT&T was allowed a reasonable rate of return on its investment, and to stay out of trouble with regulators AT&T provided excellent and inexpensive service.
Secretary Regan reminded me of my memo to him detailing that Treasury was going to have a hard time getting President Reagan's economic program, directed at curing the stagflation that had wrecked President Carter's presidency, out of the Reagan administration. The budget director, David Stockman, and his chief economist, Larry Kudlow, had lined up against it following the wishes of Wall Street, and the White House Chief of Staff James Baker and his deputy Richard Darman were representatives of VP George H.W. Bush and did not want substantial Reagan success that would again threaten the Republican Establishment's hold over the party. Baker and Darman wanted to be sure that George H. W. Bush, and not Jack Kemp, succeeded Ronald Reagan, and that required a muted Reagan success that they could claim as theirs for moderating an "extremist" program.
I told Secretary Regan that if I had another deputy assistant secretary, I could reach a reasonable conclusion whether the breakup of AT&T was sensible. He replied that he was sure that was the case, but that once I had three deputies the headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times, Business Week, Newsweek, and so on, would be: "Supply-sider builds empire at Treasury." He said it would sink me
and that without me he could not get the President's economic program out of the President's administration. "Which do you want to do," he asked, "save AT&T or cure stagflation?"
Curing stagflation gave America twenty more years. Ironically, the good times started to erode when Reagan's other goal was accomplished and the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990. "The end of history" resulted in India and China opening their labor markets to American capitalists, who began producing offshore with foreign labor the products that they sold to Americans. The labor costs savings pushed up corporate profits, shareholders' returns, and managerial bonuses. But it deprived Americans of middle class incomes and wrecked the balance of trade. The US income distribution and the trade deficit worsened.
Many progressives blame the worsening income distribution on the Reagan tax rate reductions, but the real cause is the offshoring of manufacturing, industrial, and professional service jobs, such as software engineering.
None of us in the Reagan administration foresaw jobs offshoring as the consequence of Soviet collapse. We had no idea that by bringing down the Soviet Union we would be bringing down America. During the Reagan years India was socialist and would not allow foreign corporations, had they been interested, to touch their labor force. China was communist and no foreign capital could enter the country.
However, once the Soviet Union was gone from the earth, the remaining socialist and communist regimes decided to go with the winners. They opened to Western corporations and sucked jobs out of the developed West.
But this is a different story. To get back to deregulation, nothing has worked for the consumer since deregulation. Deregulation permitted corporations to impose their costs of operation on customers without having to send them a bill. For example, corporations use voice recognition technology to keep customers from salaried customer representatives. I remember when a customer with a problem could call a utility company or bank and have the problem immediately corrected.
No more. There was an error in my phone bill today, which I had corrected without result on two previous occasions. As everyone knows by now, it takes 10-15 minutes, usually, to get a live person who can actually fix the problem. After listening to sales pitches for 12 minutes, I got a live person. Once the problem was understood, it was pronounced to be an upper level problem out of his hands. I waited another 10 minutes while he tried to reach a superior who had the code to fix the problem that the phone company had produced in my account. The entire time I listened to product advertisements.
How many times has this happened to you?
Whoever invented these artificial voice capabilities is the enemy of mankind. Whomever a customer calls--utilities, credit card companies, banks, whatever, the customer gets a voice machine. Some voice machines never tell the customer how to get a live person who can, on occasion, actually fix the problem.
In my opinion, the strategy behind the endless delays is to cause the customers to give up, slam the telephone down and play the higher incorrect bill as it is cheaper in time and frustration to correcting the problem and being billed in the correct amount. These ripoffs of the customer are produced by Wall Street pressures for higher earnings.
The frustrations, of course, multiply when one reaches an offshored service somewhere in the Third World. The incentive is to hang up and to pay the excessive bill so that phone, internet, or credit card services are not cut off
Had Don Regan and I known that the high speed Internet was in our future and that American corporations would use it to destroy the jobs traditionally filled by US university graduates, possibly we would have decided to save the regulated telephone monopoly and to deliver the economy over to stagflation.
The reason is that sooner or later something would have been done about stagflation, but nothing whatsoever has been done about offshoring. Saving the economy from offshoring would have been a greater achievement than saving the economy from stagflation. However, in my time stagflation, not offshoring, was the problem.
I regret that I did not have a crystal ball.
Deregulation proponents will say that the breakup of AT&T gave us cell phones and broadband, as if foreign regulated communication companies and state monopolies do not provide cell phone service or high speed Internet connections. I can remember attending corporate board meetings years ago at which the European members had digital cell phones with which they could call most anywhere on earth, while we Americans with our analogue cell phones could hardly connect down the street.
What deregulation did was to permit Wall Street to push the deregulated industries-- phone service, airlines, trucking, and later Wall Street itself-- to focus on profits and not on service. Profits were increased by curtailing service, by pushing up prices and by Wall Street creating fraudulent financial instruments, which the banksters used America's reputation to market to the gullible at home and abroad.
Consider air travel. Admit it, if you are my age you hate it. The deterioration in service over my lifetime is phenomenal. Studies in favor of airline deregulation focused on short flights between A and B and concluded that small airlines serving high density areas were more efficient because they were not regulated. What was left out of the analysis is that regulated airlines served low density areas and permitted free stopovers. For example, if one was flying from the US to Athens, Greece, the traveler could stopover in London, Paris, and Rome without additional charges. Moreover, passengers were fed hot meals even in tourist class. In those halcyon days, it was even possible to travel more comfortably in tourist class than in first class, because flights were not scheduled in keeping with full capacity. Several rows of seats might be unoccupied. It was possible to push up the arm rests on three or four center aisle seats, lay down and go to sleep.
Perhaps the best benefit of regulated air travel for passengers was that airlines had spare airliners. If one airplane had mechanical problems that could not be fixed within a reasonable time, a standby airliner was rolled out to enable passengers to meet their connections and designations. With deregulation, customer service is not important. The bottom line has eliminated spare airliners.
With deregulated airlines, Wall Street calls the tune. If your flight has a mechanical problem, you are stuck where you are unless you have some sort of privileged status that can bump passengers from later fully booked flights. "Studies" that focus only on discounted ticket price omit major costs of deregulation and thereby wrongly conclude that deregulation has benefited the consumer.
When trucking was regulated, truckers would stop to provide roadside assistant to stranded travelers. Today, with deregulated trucking, every minute counts toward the
bottom line. Not only do truckers no longer stop to aid stranded travelers, they travel at excessive speeds that endanger automobile drivers. Trucks have expanded in size, weight and speed. Trucks raise the stress level on interstate highway drivers and destroy, at taxpayers expense, the roads on which they travel.
Conservatives and especially libertarians romanticize "free market unregulated capitalism." They regard it as the best of all economic orders. However, with deregulated capitalism, every decision is a bottom-line decision that screws everyone except the shareholders and management.
In America today there is no longer a connection between profits and the welfare of the people. Unregulated greed has destroyed the capitalist system, which now distributes excessive rewards to the few at the expense of the many.
If Marx and Lenin were alive today, the extraordinary greed with which Wall Street has infected capitalism would provide Marx and Lenin with a better case than they had in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
FW: AZ attack
It may be difficult to rid ourselves of th esickness in DC but we must continue to try and clean out the trash and illness lest it overwhelm the nation.
|
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Gulf Oil Rig May Have Been TORPEDOED
What I first heard (within 24 hours of the supposed accident) was that a rig worker was at the helipad when the initial explosion occurred and he thought it was well below the water line, not what was widely circulated by the MSM. It has now been several months and I have yet to hear the story mentioned, much less discredited. If it actually was torpedoed, whom by, did we have US subs or Navy detect said, was it tracked in or out of Gulf, by sonar, listening posts, satellite. Has there been visual confirmation or other evidence that shows the report is untrue?
To say that I am disappointed over hearing nothing about what could be a very alarming occurance is very understated. Not even our duly sworn federal officials will answer my inquires.
PL Booth, The BLue Eye View, Blue Eye, MO 8/10/10
Black Murders Eight Whites; Media Blames Whites
The title of this column seems unbelievable, but it is in fact what happened in America this past week. And almost no one has noticed.
After 50 years of being inundated with stories of white racism, and being taught in college that in this white-dominated society, only a white can be a racist, the American public has been properly brainwashed into accepting the otherwise incredible: A black man murdered eight white people at his place of work because they were white, and the media story is about the murderer's alleged experiences of racism.
Here's the Associated Press Report from Aug. 7, four days after the murders. It was reprinted in The Washington Post and throughout America:
"To those closest to him, Omar Thornton was caring, quiet and soft-spoken ... But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday in which the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself.
"'I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work,' said his girlfriend, Kristi Hannah.
"'He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black,' said Jessica Anne Brocuglio, his former girlfriend. 'Basically they wouldn't give him pay raises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.'
"'Thornton changed jobs a few times because he was not getting raises, Brocuglio said."
The New York Times Aug. 3 headline read: "Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing," and in the second paragraph, the Times reported:
"He might also have had cause to be angry: he had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work, the woman's mother said, and lamented that his grievances had gone unaddressed."
On Aug. 7, 2010, The Washington Post headline read, "Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism."
Of course, Thornton was fired for stealing beer, and there was video proof of him doing so. But this fact -- the one indisputable and most pertinent pre-murder fact -- got lost within the larger context of Thornton's claims of being a victim of whites.
Those preoccupied with Thornton's charges of workplace racism might wish to reflect on this: Racist and other bigotry-based murderers always blame their victims. Medieval Christians who murdered Jews blamed the Jews for poisoning wells, baking Christian children's blood in their matzo or some other terrible crime. Whites who lynched blacks blamed those blacks for rape or some other crime. Nothing is new about the Thornton racist murders except that the society in which in it occurred concentrated on the racist's excuses rather than on his murders.
Just as leading liberals would not ascribe Islamist motives -- until there was no possibility of denying them -- to recent Muslim attacks on Americans, the liberal media, i.e., almost all news media in America, does not brand these Connecticut murders for what they are: racist. That is why Thornton told the 9-1-1 operator, "I wish I could have gotten more of the people (i.e., whites)."
We are repeatedly told by liberal whites and blacks that America needs an honest dialogue on race. Needless to say, they don't mean it because the moment a white or black says anything critical of black behavior, he is labeled racist or Uncle Tom. So most non-liberal whites and blacks just keep quiet.
One result is this morally upside-down reporting of the murders in Connecticut.
Another example is the liberal narrative on blacks in prison -- "there are more black men in prison than in college." Every decent American regards this fact as a major tragedy. But most Americans believe that the fault lies primarily with the black criminals, not with a racist society. Most Americans believe that blacks who mug, rape, rob or murder commit those crimes for the same reason whites do -- they lack a sufficiently strong moral conscience.
But the dominant liberal narrative is that while white criminals are criminals, black criminals are largely victims.
Another example was the liberal narrative of the 1992 "Rodney King" riots in Los Angeles. It was perfectly expressed by the major newspaper of that city, the Los Angeles Times. During the riots, in which innocent Koreans, whites and others were beaten, maimed and killed, and innocent businesses burned to the ground, the daily special section on the riots in the Los Angeles Times was titled "Understanding the Rage." When blacks riot, whites are the reason. When a black murders eight whites in Connecticut, whites are the reason.
One terrible consequence of this liberal attitude toward black violent crime is that too many blacks come to believe that less is expected of them morally than from whites. And the truth is that most Americans on the left do expect less from blacks.
But saying any of this gets us nowhere because it is simply labeled racism. If you don't believe me, check leftist reactions to this column on the Internet.
Most liberal leaders want an honest dialogue about race as much as they want to honestly describe the murders in Connecticut.
















