WSJ: Obama Can't Be Trusted With Numbers

I really don't expect Americans to do anything about Obama. Lets face it, Americans don't have the cojones to oust this Stalinist nightmare Dear Leader. They got to this place because they were so fatuously proud to be able to say: 'Hey, we have a negro President. Ain't that cool? Ain't we tolerant and oh-so-liberal?' How pathetic -- to elect an incompetent anarchist-trained socialist homeboy simply because he's black is just as racist as a KKK lynching. Somehow I can't help but think America, in the form of the depraved Democratic Party, is getting what it deserves. Obama isn't really the problem -- he's just the martinet talking head for the Stalinists in the Democratic Party.

So, below Rove analyzes Obama's established m.o. of making huge promises then backing off within hours of bullying stakeholder groups into publicly backing his ruinous plans. It's like a nightmare in slow-mo ...
---------------------------
Obama Can't Be Trusted With Numbers
[So why should we trust him with health care?]
by Karl Rove

In February, President Barack Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill while making lavish promises about the results. He pledged that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed all across America." He also said the stimulus would "save or create up to four million jobs." Vice President Joe Biden said the massive federal spending plan would "drop-kick" the economy out of the recession.

But the unemployment rate today is 9.5% -- nearly 20% higher than the Obama White House said it would be with the stimulus in place. Keith Hennessey, who worked at the Bush White House on economic policy, has noted that unemployment is now higher than the administration said it would be if nothing was done to revive the economy. There are 2.6 million fewer Americans working than Mr. Obama promised.

The economy takes unexpected turns on every president. But what is striking about this president is how quickly he turns away from his promises. He rushed the stimulus through Congress saying we couldn't afford to wait. Now his administration is waiting to spend the money. Of the $279 billion allocated to federal agencies, only $56 billion has been paid out.

Mr. Biden has admitted that the administration "misread" the economy. But he explained that away on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday by saying the administration had used "the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there" to draw up its stimulus plan. That's not true.

The Blue Chip consensus is an average of some four dozen economic forecasts. In January, the consensus estimated that GDP for 2009 would shrink by 1.6% and that unemployment would top out at 8.3%. Team Obama assumed both higher GDP growth (it counted on a contraction of 1.2%) and lower peak unemployment (8.1%) than the consensus.

About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.
Instead of relying on the Blue Chip consensus, Mr. Obama outsourced writing the stimulus to House appropriators who stuffed it with every bad spending idea they weren't previously able to push through Congress. Little of it aimed to quickly revive the economy. More stimulus money will be spent in fiscal years 2011 through 2019 than will be spent this fiscal year, which ends in September.

On Sunday, Mr. Biden, backpedaling from his drop-kick comments, said that "no one anticipated, no one expected that the recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of the money."

This fits a pattern. The administration consistently pledges unrealistic results that it later distances itself from. It has gotten away with it because the media haven't asked many pointed questions. That may not last as the debate shifts to health care.

The Obama administration wants a government takeover of health care. To get it, it is promising to wring massive savings out of the health-care industry. And it has already started to make cost-savings promises.

For example, the administration strong-armed health-care providers into promising $2 trillion in health savings. It got pharmaceutical companies to promise to lower drug prices for seniors by $80 billion over 10 years. The administration also trotted out hospital executives to say that they would voluntarily save the government $150 billion over 10 years.

None of this comes near to being true. On the promised $2 trillion, everyone admits that the number isn't built on anything specific -- it's an aspirational goal. On drug prices, a White House spokesman admitted that "These savings have not been identified at the moment." It is speculative that these cuts will actually be made, when they would begin, or whether they would reduce government health-care spending.

None of this will stop the administration from arguing that its "savings" will pay for Mr. Obama's $1.5 trillion health-care plans. By the time the real price tag emerges, it will be too late to do much more than raise taxes and curtail spending on urgent priorities, such as the military.

The stimulus package is a clear example of how Mr. Obama operates. He is attempting to employ the same tactics of bait-and-switch when it comes to health care, only on a much larger scale.

Mr. Obama has already created a river of red ink. His health-care plans will only force that river over its banks. We are at the cusp of a crucial political debate, and Mr. Obama's words on fiscal matters are untrustworthy. His promised savings are a mirage. His proposals to reshape the economy are alarming. And his unwillingness to be forthright with his numbers reveals that he knows his plans would terrify many Americans.
---
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
---------------------
The Democrats lie so routinely now (worse than I've ever seen it anywhere), its pathology might be labelled False Promise Syndrome. It's perhaps a subset within Obama's clinical disease -- psychopathic narcissism.

WSJ: Why We'll Leave L.A.

I'm no longer surprised by stories like this one below. It decries, in this instance, Los Angeles, as a bureaucratic, Stalinist nightmare jurisdiction where taxes and regulations and attack-dog tactics employed by the state against business owners and citizens have become routine. It's only a matter of time until such Democratic Party hyperstate conditions, i.e. hyperregulated, hypertaxed, hypercontrolled, hypersclerotic, obtain in all 50 states, from shining sea to shining sea. America is turning at lightning speed into an uber-socialist, squalid sewer economy under the command and control dictates of a Federal and fifty state bureaucracies seeking to wring out every available cent of revenue, and to hell with America's future. I'd never live in the USA now, never.
------------------
Why We'll Leave L.A.
[The business climate is worse than the air quality].
by Rick Newcombe

If New Yorkers fantasize that doing business here in Los Angeles would be less of a headache, forget about it. This city is fast becoming a job-killing machine. It's no accident the unemployment rate is a frightening 11.4% and climbing.

I never could have imagined that, after living here for more than three decades, I would be filing a lawsuit against my beloved Los Angeles and making plans for my company, Creators Syndicate, to move elsewhere.

But we have no choice. The city's bureaucrats rival Stalin's apparatchiks in issuing decrees, rescinding them, and then punishing citizens for having followed them in the first place.

I founded Creators Syndicate in 1987, and we have represented hundreds of important writers, syndicating their columns to newspapers and Web sites around the world. The most famous include Hillary Clinton, who, like Eleanor Roosevelt, wrote a syndicated column when she was first lady. Another star was the advice columnist Ann Landers, once described by "The World Almanac" as "the most influential woman in America." Other Creators columnists include Bill O'Reilly, Susan Estrich, Thomas Sowell, Roland Martin and Michelle Malkin -- plus Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonists and your favorite comic strips.

From the beginning, we've been headquartered in Los Angeles. But 15 years ago we had a dispute with the city over our business tax classification. The city argued that we should be in an "occupations and professions" classification that has an extremely high tax rate, while we fought for a "wholesale and retail" classification with a much lower rate. The city forced us to invest a small fortune in legal fees over two years, but we felt it was worth it in order to establish the correct classification once and for all.

After enduring a series of bureaucratic hearings, we anxiously awaited a ruling to find out what our tax rate would be. Everything was at stake. We had already decided that if we lost, we would move.

You can imagine how relieved we were on July 1, 1994, when the ruling was issued. We won, and firmly planted our roots in the City of Angels and proceeded to build our business.

Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city's decision to ignore its 1994 ruling.

Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings -- only taxpayers are. This is why we have been forced to file a lawsuit. We will let the courts decide whether it is legal for adverse rulings to apply only to taxpayers and not to the city.

We work with hundreds of outside agents, consultants, independent contractors and support services -- many of whom pay taxes to the city of Los Angeles. This spurs a job-creating ripple effect on the city's economy. Yet I suspect many companies like ours already have quietly left town in the face of the city's taxes and regulations. This would help explain the erosion of jobs.

Regardless of the outcome of our case, the arbitrary and capricious behavior of some bureaucrats is creating a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. If we win in court, the taxpayers of Los Angeles will have lost because all those tax dollars will have been wasted on needless litigation.

If we lose in court, the remaining taxpayers in Los Angeles will have lost because their burden will continue to swell as yet another business moves its jobs -- and taxpayers -- to another city.

As long as City Hall operates like a banana republic, why is anyone surprised that jobs have left the city in droves and Los Angeles is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy?
---
Mr. Newcombe is president of Creators Syndicate.
------------------
There must be thousands, tens of thousands perhaps, of people like myself, people who have at one time investing or initiating a business, in the USA. After the last seven months, seeing how quickly socialist ideology has completely taken over in America, I wouldn't risk a dime in the banana sewer republic America is fast turning into. This is what the Democrats want. Their dream of destroying America is coming true. Congratulations!

Patriot Post:: Alexander's Essay: The Commissars of Cool

It's becoming palpably self-evident that Obama knows how delusional and utterly unjustified the cap-and-tax fraud is. He knows this. He knows it. How could he not know it? Therefore this utterly unnecessary and economically ruinous legislation is being pursued precisely because it is ruinous. This is what he wants. He wants to cut America down to size by several notches, and in the meantime bring its loathesome capitalist system firmly under the command and control of the US Government. The means: taxation and regulation. The cap-and-tax is just a handy means to that end. That is Obama's game-plan objective in all his legislation.

So, really, if Americans willingly allow this to occur, really, we can't say America has been victimized by an ideologue. If America lets this legislation pass, whatever happens down the road is truly what it deserves, what it has coming. It really is that simple. Americans have had abundant opportunity to wake up & smell the camel shite this moron is selling. Don't cry for me, Argentina.
----------------------
Alexander's Essay – 9 July 2009
The Commissars of Cool

"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens." --Federalist No. 62

Last week, scores of Americans were mesmerized by an event they believed would have consequences of epic proportions for the nation. No, I'm not referring to the passage of the colossal CO2 "cap and trade" legislation, but the MSM's endless and equally mindless tributes to, um, well I can't recall his name but I think he was a black artiste who somehow morphed into a white performer -- but then, hybrids are all the rage these days.

Meanwhile, as the masses slumbered, the House passed H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey version of Barack Hussein Obama's Orwellian legislation to regulate and tax CO2 -- a gas byproduct of cellular synthesis and industrial output, ostensibly responsible for global climate change. The measure, all 310 pages of it, passed by a narrow vote of 219-212. Some 44 Democrats voted against the legislation, but eight Republicans voted for it, giving BHO the first leg of a cap-n-tax victory.

Cap-n-Dunce
The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header. It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm. (Fortunately Ronald Reagan implemented the right formula for economic recovery -- BO's "solution" is Carter's formula.)

After the bill's passage, Obama trotted out this whopper: "Thanks to members of Congress who were willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics, this bill will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenable new burdens on the American people or America's businesses."

Of course, that depends on what the definition of "untenable" is. In January 2008, Obama proclaimed, "[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade [sic] system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ... because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas ... you name it ... whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. ... [T]hey will pass that money on to the consumers."

Sidebar: Anyone interested in retaining what remains of the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders might take pause to consider what BHO meant by "you name it," since you and everyone you know are emitters of CO2. Think about it: An American president is regulating and taxing carbon dioxide, the very thing we exhale, and the very thing that green plants on this planet use to generate the oxygen which sustains us.

Cap-n-tax requires American manufacturers to reduce by 2020 carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases by 17 percent from their 2005 emission levels. Even more egregiously, it requires an 80 percent cut by 2050. Industries would be "allocated" government permits specifying allowances for these gases. About 15 percent of these permits would be auctioned to the highest bidders and the resulting revenues would be transferred to offset energy expenses for Obama's low-income constituents.

And you thought the U.S. Tax Code was convoluted?

Now, if you're still under the illusion that Waxman's Malarkey is about saving the planet, you're either: A) a card-carrying member of BHO's sycophantic socialists; B) a true-believing disciple of AlGore's eco-theology; or C) too distracted by coverage of that chameleon-guy's funeral.

Here, at least the socialists are intellectually honest about their objectives. Albert Arnold Gore's minions, on the other hand, are still hooked on phony assumptions about the relationship between CO2 and climate change -- as if our planet's climate is supposed to remain utterly unchanged for all time. (Of course, Gore's objectives are the same as BHO's.)

Rasmussen Reports public may be awakening from slumber.


However, the climate debate (yes, there is one) is far from over.

It is not for me to suggest that the extremely complex ecology of our planet -- its trillions of organisms and ecosystems and its interaction with the Sun -- is beyond the scope of what human scientists can understand so conclusively as to project how the restriction of one small contributory element, among all environmental influences, will affect our climate 100 years from now. After all, my advanced degrees are limited to psychology and public affairs.

Instead, you can read what some of the planets most renowned scientists have to say about climate change in "Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame" (update coming soon).

Or start with an open letter to Congress delivered last week, from academicians including Princeton physicists Will Happer and Robert Austin, and climatologist Richard Lindzen of MIT, in which they insist, "The sky is not falling ... the Earth has been cooling for 10 years [a trend that] was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them."

Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman aptly sums up the current state of climate change hysteria. "Both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated. [H.R. 2454] would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. ...[It is projected to] reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice." (For the record, it would do this at an average annual cost of $2,979 per family of four. So much for BHO's pledge not to raise our taxes.)

A recent MIT study likewise concludes, "The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead. ... The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation."

Two of the biggest producers of CO2, China and India, will continue industrial production unencumbered by this self-mutilating sham. Indeed, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson confessed in a Senate hearing this week, "I believe that ... U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels."

As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explains, "The sponsors of Waxman-Markey are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of 'green' energy. In other words, there's no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid. It's a win-win-win. Right. And 2+2=5. The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price."

Of course, Gingrich could be wrong. BHO's cap-n-tax plan could be as economically successful as his "stimulus" package. Oh, wait, that hasn't produced a single private sector job -- and the ranks of the unemployed have still soared. But maybe it "saved" some jobs that might have been cut, and it has certainly funded countless marginal government jobs occupied by the marginally employable in order to swell the ranks of government unions -- the Left's permanent constituency.

And at the expense of incomprehensible deficit accumulation that exceeds all previous presidents combined -- but I digress.

Cap-n-tax is nothing more than a well-executed piece of BHO's socialist playbook, which seeks to ratify central government administration of the economy by way of regulation and taxation.

This unbearable piece of legislation is now on its way to the Senate, where Obama has a filibuster-proof majority with the arrival of that "clown from Minnesota." It is likely to face opposition from some centrist Democrats, but, regretfully, there are still enough wayward Republicans left in the Senate to give Obama a victory.

Here, I would challenge the members of that august body to find anything in our Constitution's prescription for Rule of Law authorizing the central government to administer any and all elements of commerce that produce some amount of CO2. But then, who pays homage to the credence of that venerable old document, other than the 65 or 70 million modern-day Patriots standing at the ready to restore constitutional Rule of Law?

Next up -- ObamaCare -- and you thought cap-n-tax was bad. Again, I'm quite sure that there isn't a word in our Constitution authorizing the central government to administer healthcare, but then...

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

(To submit or to view reader comments visit our Letters to the Editor page.)

Related Essays
"Albert Gore, Ignoble Laureate"

"Debunking the gullible warming Gorons"

Related Commentary
"Mr. Speaker, the Cap and Trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing -- all of which produce enormous quantities this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day -- just by breathing. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. And this brings us to the fine point of it. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration -- how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930's, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products. Waxman Markey [cap and trade bill] is our generation's Smoot Hawley. In fact, it's worse because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. ... In the most serious recession since the Great Depression -- why would members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Mr. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover." --California Rep. Tom McClintock

*****

(Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

You have received this email because you are subscribed to The Patriot Post. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us and log in with your email address.

The Patriot Post is on Facebook! Become a fan — share your thoughts and opinions on news and policy issues, and post videos, photos & news links to share with like-minded conservatives.
---------------------

Strategy Page: Iran, going out with a bang, or a whimper?

This, from Strategy Page, via Atlas Shrugs. Iran is the flashpoint, it's the unfolding crisis that future historians will point to, incredulous that observers were so preoccupied with the misdeeds and puerility of the US regime leader, B. Hussein Obama. Iran is the tinder leading to a potential conflagration, and Obama does nothing. Just as with North Korea, he does nothing.
-----------------
Historic Opportunity Squandered Under Weak US President
Atlas Shrugs

This, dear readers, is a turning point in history. There are many moments historians can point to as defining moments in history, i.e., the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, which set the world on fire with war in 1914; the democracies' failure to stop Hitler at Czechoslovakia ...........I am sure Atlas readers can list them.

This is such a moment. The murdering mullahs are empowered. Nothing and no one will stop them. We are careening down a collision course towards untold horror. Pray. Hard.
---
Going Out With A Bang, Or A Whimper?
Strategy Page

July 6, 2009: The government has systematically hunted down demonstration leaders, and those who were using blogs, Twitter and social networking sites to get news out of the country. This has put a halt to large demonstrations in the capital. At least twenty people were killed during the crackdown, several hundred injured and over a thousand arrested. Foreigners, or Iranians working for embassies or foreign news organizations, are being released, as well as the few foreign journalists who were picked up. The government is planning to prosecute many of those arrested, especially those responsible for getting embarrassing (to the government) news out of the country.

The government has, for two decades, been studying the mass revolutions of 1989, and the 1990s, that brought down all those communist dictatorships, and believe they have developed methods of preventing a similar fate for themselves. Unlike the former communist states, the Iranian dictatorship has the loyalty of 20-30 percent of the population. This is where the Revolutionary Guard and Basij come from, and a lot of these guys are willing to die to maintain the clerical dictatorship in Iran. The communists of 1989 had lost most of their true believers, so a mass revolution in Iran will have to be a bloodier affair, and also be a battle between Islamic radicals and moderates (including non-Moslems). The senior clerics appear willing to fight to the death, and their opponents are, more and more, willing to deal with that head on. Meanwhile, no matter how successful the government was in suppressing the demonstrations in the capital, it was a defeat for the government. More people were radicalized, and dissention in the clergy became visible. The Iranian Islamic radicals are losing. Long term, they are lost. But like any tyranny in decline, there's the danger that the clerical dictatorship will go out with a bang, not, as the Soviet Union did, with a whimper. And if it is with a bang, it could be a very loud and destructive bang if the clerics have nuclear weapons.

Iraq and Afghanistan are officially quiet about the turmoil in Iran, but unofficially both countries would like to see the Iranian Islamic radicals out of power. The current Iranian government lets its radicals interfere with the neighbors, supporting terrorism in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But the neighbors know that any kind of Iranian government would be overbearing and prone to throw its weight around. Iran has been the neighborhood bully for thousands of years, and no one expects that to change, no matter how many times Iran changes governments.

July 5, 2009: The Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom (ARTQ), which speaks for the majority of senior clerics and religious faculty, issued a statement calling for a new election and denouncing the recent vote, and the violence against protestors. The ARTQ represents rank and file clerics, who have not yet been appointed to the several dozen senior clerical positions that, in effect, control the government. The ARTQ did not represent the views of all these lower ranking clergy, but obviously spoke for a majority.
------------------------

Patriot Post: Wednesday Chronicle, 8 July 2009

The Left's usual idiots are foaming at the mouth (what else is new?) over Sarah Palin's resignation. Shouldn't this make them happy? Isn't this what they wanted? To hound her from office? Of course that is not what has happened; and that has the Left very worried. Their tried-and-true method of character assassination is supposed to destroy the woman for all time, but they're nervous it may have backfired. Isn't it wonderful watching such human sewage squirm! Palin is still far and away the most popular potential condidate among Republicans. And there you have it, isn't that the most plausible reason for Democratic Party ideologue socialists' animus against Palin?
-------------------
Patriot Post Wednesday Chronicle
8 July 2009, Vol. 09 No. 27

THE FOUNDATION
"I have no ambition to govern men. It is a painful and thankless office." --Thomas Jefferson

EDITORIAL EXEGESIS
"The political class is flummoxed by Sarah Palin's decision to quit as Alaska Governor, and understandably so. Giving up on an executive job a year and a half early isn't the best way to persuade voters you're ready for the more demanding rigors and scrutiny of the White House. Mrs. Palin's explanation on Friday was hardly clear or persuasive, wandering from the taxpayer expense of various ethics probes, to the self-indulgence of lame-duck Governors who serve out their terms, to the fact that she and her family had concluded she can better serve the people out of public office. Some Alaskans, including many of her admirers, can be forgiven if they conclude she bugged out when the going got rough. Perhaps she is finished with political life, and who could blame her? Since John McCain chose her as his running mate after a mere two years as Governor, Democrats and their media running mates have given her the kind of mauling they always reserve for conservative Republicans who aren't part of the Beltway club. At least the press corps left Dan Quayle's children out of his trashing. For whatever reason, Mrs. Palin seems in particular to drive feminist writers into condescending fits. If she wants to devote herself during the next few years to raising her family, writing a book and making money to pay her legal and medical bills, those are understandable choices. The more troubling question is whether the 45-year-old is also calculating that this is the best way for her to seek the White House in 2012. If so, she's probably mistaken. Her main claim on executive experience is the Alaskan state house, and giving it up early diminishes an otherwise solid record, especially in challenging GOP elites, and reneges on a promise to voters. Millions of conservatives admire her reform credentials and her personal story, but to win the White House she needs to persuade millions of others, including independents, that she has the policy depth and personal judgment to be President." --The Wall Street Journal



UPRIGHT
"As was the case with Ronald Reagan, who was also dismissed as a less than serious type, Sarah Palin has a quality that appeals to a broad base of Americans who sense the country is headed in the wrong direction. She has that much in common with another charismatic figure on the American scene -- Barack Obama -- even if his political and cultural leanings are quite the opposite of hers. The moral of the story: Politics, like Sarah Palin herself, is just full of surprises." --columnist Paul Greenberg

"What is it about Palin that elicits such furious bipartisan Washington dismissiveness? After all, the polls show her to be tied with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for the very early lead in the 2012 Republican primary. As an outspoken conservative with about an 80 percent favorable rating among Republicans and a high-40s percentage favorable plurality among independents, objectively she should be seen as quite competitive nationally compared with other Republicans, particularly given that Republicans are generically weak and that she has been targeted so viciously by the media." --columnist Tony Blankley

"North Korea launches a missile and it takes Barack Obama and the UN five days to respond. Iran holds fraudulent elections, kills protesters and it takes weeks before Barack Obama can stand up and say that he is 'concerned' about the situation. Then the people of Honduras try to uphold their constitution and laws of the land from being trampled by a Chavez-wanna be and it takes Barack Obama one day to proclaim that this was not a legal coup." --radio talk-show host Neal Boortz

"There was an attempted coup in Honduras, but it was Zelaya who initiated it, not his opponents." --columnist Mona Charen

"If Honduras is hung out to dry, if America suspends trade and economic aid, the forces arrayed against liberty in Latin America will have won a major victory. On the other hand, if Honduras is not abandoned now, those Iran-supporting, America-hating, liberty-loathing forces will have suffered a major defeat." --columnist Dennis Prager

"Some conservatives have hoped to shrink government by 'starving the beast.' Refuse to raise taxes, they figured, and eventually spending would have to fall. It's beginning to look as though the new team may have a similar strategy, in reverse: Increase spending, and eventually taxes will have to be raised." --Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt

DEZINFORMATSIA
Slamming Palin: "Palin, who was thrust on to the national stage as John McCain's running mate against President Obama, defended her decision [to resign] as a move to avoid becoming a lame duck. Love her or hate her, Sarah Palin's able to -- she was already lame -- Sarah Palin's able to electrify the conservative base of the party like no other Republican in the country." --CNN's Jack Cafferty

Feminists hate her: "Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy." --New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on Sarah Palin

What about Hillary? "If Sarah Palin thinks that she's had it tougher than anybody else, she's been more harshly criticized, I have for two words for her: Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was savaged for eight years." --Atlanta Journal-Constitution political columnist Cynthia Tucker

From the sycophants: "Henry Waxman is to Congress what Ted Williams was to baseball -- a natural. ... This is the voice of David, whose career has featured the slaying of one Goliath after another. ... Waxman's personal accomplishments are impressive." --Washington Post associate editor Robert Kaiser

Just keep spending: "Well, I think they're hoping that this summer period is when they can in fact ramp up the [stimulus] spending. It's not easy to spend the amount of money that they appropriated, $800 billion, that quickly." --CNBC Chief Washington correspondent John Harwood

Speaking of out-of-control spending: "[The July 4th tea party protesters are] exercising that First Amendment right to protest, but hopefully, they'll clear out of the way for the fireworks tonight." --CNN's Brooke Baldwin on DC protesters on Independence Day

Three-ring circus: "Michael Jackson is an accidental civil rights leader, an accidental pioneer. He broke ground and barriers in so many different realms in artistry, in pictures, in movies, in music, you name it. So, no, I don't think it's overkill." --CNN's Don Lemon on the non-stop Jackson media circus

Newspulper Headlines:

To Whom It May Concern: "Obama Tells the AP He Is Deeply Concerned About Rising Unemployment" --Associated Press

It Better Not Be a Free One: "Economists Out to Lunch" --The Washington Post

A Distinction Without a Difference: "Jackson Service Conflicts With Circus Visit" --The Washington Times

You Call This Fair and Balanced?: "Fox Snatches Lunch From Boy Before Attacking Woman, 76" --FoxNews.com

Even So, May We Borrow Your Gun?: "Expert Warns of Danger to Consumer Lending Arms" --Financial Times

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: "Biden to Take New Role Overseeing Iraq Policy" --Agence France-Presse

News You Can Use: "Beware the Obama 'Evil Eye'" --Drudge Report

Bottom Stories of the Day: "D.C.'s Marion Barry Arrested Again" --CNN.com

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)

THE DEMO-GOGUES
Speak for yourself: "The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. ... The truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. ... We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package." --Vice President Joe Biden

Essential failure: "I don't think anybody can honestly say that we're satisfied with the results so far of the stimulus. But we believe the stimulus was absolutely essential. ... We certainly want to see how this develops over the next few months." --House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

Prescription for trouble: "If you did a consensus within the Democratic Party, you would find the level-playing-field public option [for health care] to be the answer. And now that we have 60 votes [in the Senate], it seems to me like we don't have to turn it inside out for something we don't like. ... I think the Senate HELP committee compromised already, because you have a lot of members on the HELP committee who would've liked [the public option] to be much closer to Medicare. The idea seems to be catching everybody's imagination, and sense of fairness. And the only holdouts are sort of ideologues on the Republican side of this saying no government involvement whatsoever. ...[W]hat the CBO is saying, if you're a fiscal conservative you ought to be for a public option because it saves money." --Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Nothing to fear but government itself: "[Private insurance companies] should be afraid, I mean let me tell you, they should be afraid. ...[T]hey have a right to be exposed, a right to be afraid that they will not be able to compete against a strong Medicare type public plan which treats people with dignity." --Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-VT)

Not exactly peace through strength: "As the world's two leading nuclear powers, the United States and Russia must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today. ... It is very difficult for us to exert that leadership unless we are showing ourselves willing to deal with our own nuclear stockpiles in a more rational way. ... So yes, I trust [Russian] President [Dmitri] Medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow through on the agreements that are contained here today." --President Barack Obama, negotiating away U.S. nuclear capabilities

VILLAGE IDIOTS
Broken record: "It will either be 'What were you thinking, didn't you see the North Pole melting before your eyes, didn't you hear what the scientists were saying?' Or they will ask, 'How is it you were able to find the moral courage to solve the crisis which so many said couldn't be solved?'" --Al Gore forecasting the next generation's climate of opinion about planetary heating

Seeing the truth a little too late: "And I never would have believed that we would have budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars, and we are amassing a huge, huge national debt that, if we don't pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great grandchildren will have to pay for it." --Obama backer Colin Powell, who apparently wasn't listening to his man's stated plans to unmake the United States

Still an idiot: "As someone who will have been in the committee a grand total of six days and isn't an attorney, I kind of see myself fulfilling a certain role for Americans watching the hearings [for Sotomayor]." --"Saturday Night Live" entertainer-turned-U.S. Senator Al Franken, who announced that his first order of business would be preparing for the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor

SHORT CUTS
"The stimulus is a bust? It's stimulating nothing but non-jobs like Executive Stimulus Coordinator for Community Organization Stimulus Assistance Programs? Hey, let's spend even more, even faster, even less stimulatingly!" --columnist Mark Steyn

"President Obama flew to Russia for Kremlin talks Monday. Russia tried national health care, they tried government ownership of industry and they tried to win a war in Afghanistan. If you can't be a good example you can at least be a horrible warning." --comedian Argus Hamilton

"The soon to be former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is like one of those souffles my mother sometimes made. The recipe warned against premature removal from the oven because the dish would collapse." --columnist Cal Thomas

"With the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano [last] week, we can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg." --columnist Ann Coulter

"Being a conservative, I naturally spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to psychoanalyze left-wingers, trying to figure out what makes them tick. God knows I'm not bragging. It is, after all, time I could otherwise devote to alphabetizing my canned goods or trying to make contact with Harry Houdini, but I know from the large number of emails I receive that I'm not alone. The lunacy on the left is enough to turn a lot of us into little Sigmund Freuds." --columnist Burt Prelutsky

*****

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

(Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

You have received this email because you are subscribed to The Patriot Post. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us and log in with your email address.

The Patriot Post is on Facebook! Become a fan — share your thoughts and opinions on news and policy issues, and post videos, photos
--------------------

TIME Interview of Sarah Palin, 7 July 2009

A kickass interview given by the retiring Sarah Palin, the woman savaged and brutalized by the unconscionable, Obama-compliant, pederastic, grovelling, socialist, State-run media. This interview, surprisingly, was hosted by TIME Magazine, who must be very disappointed she delivered such an astonishingly rivetting series of answers. I had no idea state politics was bedevilled to an even worse degree by what can only be described as Obamification -- economy & job-killing expansion of government and bureaucracy with the objective of remaking America into a sclerotic Kafkaesque, Potemkin state of endless entitlements, nanny state stagflation, and corruption on steroids.
--------------------


TIME Interview of Sarah Palin
7 July 2009

The Palins were staying with Sarah's in-laws Bob and Blanche Kallstrom when the soon-to-be-ex-governor of Alaska sat down for an interview. The Kallstroms are two of the 2,500 full-time residents of Dillingham, Alaska, and owners of the Bristol Bay Inn and a hardware store. The town's population swells to 7,000 in the summer, as it's a magnet for sport fishermen. Todd Palin grew up in a house across the street from the hardware store — a building that has since been "moved," Blanche says, to make way for another building.

About 10 years ago, the Kallstroms moved into a two-story wooden house with a bright orange garage door. The house is modern with two octagonal windows (Blanche says the carpenter who built the place was "some hippie" who put in all the windows). They have two cottages — both also with bright orange doors — at the end of the driveway. One is a type of sauna with a wood-burning stove. The other is a smoke shack for fish. Their catch of the day is hanging from a clothing line strung from the shack to a tree. The driveway is littered with boots, gray-and-red-tipped fishing socks, waders, scooters, tricycles and a green yoga ball with bunny ears for kids to bounce on. On an opposite line, fishing gear is being hung out to dry. Two cars bear McCain/Palin stickers and faded "Palin for Governor" stickers.

Sarah Palin is in a long-sleeved blue T shirt that reads "Go Slam a Salmon, Peter Pan Seafood" on the back, brown drawstring Capri cargo pants and sneakers, with a ponytail and a beautiful French manicure. She looks tired under her TV makeup. Todd and their daughter Piper are both there, wearing T shirts. Todd is outside chopping wood and feeding it into the stove. Piper is in the driveway holding the Palins' youngest son, Trig. She will later bring him inside to put him to bed, on her mother's instructions.

Sarah Palin gives me a tour of the two shacks, starting with the sauna. "Usually you stay out there until the fish aren't hitting anymore, and then you come in," she says. "And here, especially in Native Alaskan culture, you come in and take a seat, and you sweat everything out." She asks Todd how hot it usually gets. "220 [degrees Fahrenheit] is too hot," he says. "190's good." "Too hot for me," she says. "But these guys do it. So, everybody comes in after fishing and gets buckets of water, and the steam lets you sweat everything out, and it's all guys and it's all gals. That's the tradition."

Then she shows me the smoke shack. "This is usually the subsistence catch," she says, gesturing to the gutted, smoked fish drying in the 10:45 p.m. sun, "which means it's just going to be for personal use." Todd hands me a frozen pack of smoked salmon from a freezer. "And it's the best-tasting stuff in the world after a couple of weeks of drying. People then store it away and eat it through the winter. But they smoke it there and dry it here."

For the interview, Sarah Palin sits down on a curved cement wall next to the shacks, moving some red rubber gloves to make room.
---
TIME: I wanted to start out somewhat philosophically: Did you feel that the institution of government was no longer the best way to bring change about?

Sarah Palin: There certainly needs to be reform of government on a national level. On a state level, we've been successful in reforming our level. This being my third year, heading into my final year in office, though, knowing that my agenda to reform state government, to rein in the rate of government growth that our state had been on — it was a trajectory that was going to put our state in dire straits if we couldn't rein it in. So we did that. We adopted an agenda that would responsibly develop our resources so that our state would be on good economic grounds but also in a position to more fully contribute toward energy independence for America. We have done that. We've reformed on a state-level government with ethics reform. My first year in office, we worked with the lawmakers to usher through ethics legislation that would disallow any of the previously accepted unethical practices in state government. So we did that. Now, heading into my final year in office, though, it's quite apparent that I will not be the one to effect more fully that continued reform on a state level. But Sean Parnell, our lieutenant governor, will be.

Is that because you feel you don't have a mandate anymore?

It's not that. It's that our administration is so stymied and paralyzed because of a political game that has been chosen to be played by critics who have discovered loopholes in the ethics reform that I championed that allows them to continually, continually bombard the state with frivolous ethics-violation charges, with lawsuits, with these fishing expeditions. We win the lawsuits, we win the ethics charges, we win all that — but it comes at such great cost. The distraction, the waste of time and money, the public's time and money — it's insane to continue down this road. And Alaskans who have paid attention to what's going on, they understand that.
(Read "How Sarah Palin Mastered Politics.")

Now, there's been some frustration with some in the media not fully reporting what's been going on, so this may come as a shock to some Alaskans. We have sat down with reporters, showed them proof of the frivolity, the wastefulness — you know, millions of dollars this is costing our state to fight frivolous charges. And countless, countless hours from my staff, our department of law, from me every single day just trying to set the record straight. And it doesn't cost the adversaries a dime in this game. It costs our state so much in time and in resources. Alaskans that have paid attention to that, despite the media choosing not to fully report on the circumstances today, Alaskans understand why there had to be a shift here. There has to be a change of direction, and it makes sense for Alaska, my final year in office, to not only be honest with them and tell them that I'm not going to run again, knowing that we've accomplished what we wanted to accomplish, but taking it one step further, saying I'm not going to put them through a lame-duck session where there will be, obviously, more wasted time and money because of the political game being played right now.

See pictures of Republican memorabilia.

See TIME's politics covers.

When you resigned from the AOGCC [Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission], that was a huge catapult for you. Do you think this might catapult you as well? Or do you see it as kind of a selfless move, more for the state than for you?

It's all for the state. For me personally, it's extremely tough to make a decision and an announcement like this because I love my job and I love Alaska. This is who I am. This is what I am. And serving the people of Alaska is the greatest honor. But when you know that you come to a point when you cannot effect the change because of circumstances that have so greatly changed, and that happened on Aug. 29, the day that I was tapped to run for VP. Circumstances have so drastically changed, I just have to be realistic about it and I have to be honest about it and say Alaska — certainly, Alaska, our state's fine without me at the governor's desk — but Alaska's going to be even better off in terms of progressing and reaching our potential and our destiny with Sean Parnell coming in, taking over the reins. Same agenda, same staff, but it turns down the volume on the distractions that had been ramped up on Aug. 29.

Why make the announcement on July 3? Because I think that date more than anything set people off — right before the three-day weekend. People assume scandal.

Yeah, that's amazing to me. That hit me like a ton of bricks there, this assumption that there must be something more to it than the altruistic, sincere and articulated reasons why I know that this is best for Alaska, that there was speculation that there must be scandal. July 3 is the eve of Independence Day. It is meaningful to be able to say, Look, there needs to be freedom all the way around here to progress. Alaska, we're going to continue to waste resources and time if this political game continues, and it will only continue, because it's a game of political, personal destruction is what the attempt is. But for me personally, it doesn't affect me like the way some people would assume, personally. Anybody growing up in Alaska is pretty tough and rugged. And, you know, I've been in politics since 1992. Local politics is really tough too, so on a local level, on the state, jumping on an international stage, I've got those years under my belt and I expect and even invite the constructive criticism and those things that hold a public servant accountable, and I invite that. But the circumstances have changed, where we have seen this allowance of critics who lie, who stymie progress and who try to paralyze an administration. That hurts a state. That's not fair to the people of the state. And that's why I said circumstances — my choice is to react to the circumstances, maybe unconventionally, but wisely and fairly to Alaskans.

(See the top 10 scandals of 2008.)

At one point during the campaign you said Hillary Clinton whines a little bit too much about being in the public eye. Do you now sort of sympathize with her?

What I said was, it doesn't do her or anybody else any good to whine about the criticism. And that's why I'm trying to make it clear that the criticism, I invite that. But freedom of speech and that invitation to constructively criticize a public servant is a lot different than the allowance to lie, to continually falsely accuse a public servant when they have proven over and over again that they have not done what the accuser is saying they did. It doesn't cost them a dime to continue to accuse. That's a whole different situation. But that's why when I talk about the political potshots that I take or my family takes, we can handle that. I can handle that. I expect it. But there has to be opportunity provided for truth to get out there, and truth isn't getting out there when the political game that's being played right now is going to continue, and it is. When you realize that it doesn't cost them a dime and it's a fun sport for some, you know it's going to continue. I love Alaska too much to put her through this in a lame-duck session.

(See pictures of Palin on the campaign trail).

(See pictures of polarizing politicians on LIFE.com).

Now that you've thought about Alaska, what do you think might interest you moving forward?

I will work extremely hard for Alaska, continuing to work for Alaska, but helping other people who can effect this change, whether they're in office or out of office. I don't need a title to do that. I don't need to be sitting in front of a governor's desk. In fact, my intention is to go out and to campaign for people who can effect change all across our nation. I can't do that from the governor's desk no matter how careful I were to be, because we've got lots of double standards hitting us. Other governors probably could travel around and campaign for others and speak candidly, using their First Amendment rights to express what they feel about a person, a candidate, a position. I get hit with ethics-violation charges if I do that. I mean, literally, I do. The first day back from the campaign trail, I met with reporters in my office who kind of bombarded me there in the lobby of the office. I answered their questions and I got hit with an ethics complaint, and it cost a lot of money to fight things like that, and that's ridiculous. But I'd like to work for other people who'd like to effect change, and Alaska's going to play a big part in the effectiveness of America. As our country progresses with energy independence and Alaska's role in national security and Alaska's part, too, in ratcheting down this government overgrowth that President Obama is ushering in.

You sound a lot like someone, campaigning for other candidates, perhaps fundraising for them, who's going to run in 2012. Is that an interest?

I honestly [pausing to brush Piper's cheeks, who has come back in the room] don't know. I cannot predict what's going to happen. I don't know what doors will be open or closed by then. I was telling Todd today, I was saying, "Man, I wish we could predict the next fish run so that we know when to be out on the water." We can't predict the next fish run, much less what's going to happen in 2012.

So you wouldn't rule it out?

Todd and I, our family's always believed in keeping all options on the table and seeing in this case still what is best for the family and what is best for Alaska.

What do you think is particularly wrong with what Obama is doing now?

President Obama is growing government outrageously, and it's immoral and it's uneconomic, his plan that he tries to sell America. His plan to "put America on the right track" economically, incurring the debt that our nation is incurring, trillions of dollars that we're passing on to our kids, expecting them to pay off for us, is immoral and doesn't even make economic sense. So his growth of government agenda needs to be ratcheted back, and it's going to take good people who have the guts to stand up to him, stand up to him and debate policy, not personalities, not partisan politics, but policy to effect the change that we need there. And allow free enterprise and the industrious Americans who run our small businesses and want to raise a family, allowing our families to grow and prosper and thrive, Americans who still believe in those ideals to get in there and effect change. I want to work for people who believe in that.

(See highlights from a debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.)

Two of his big platform issues now are universal health care and your favorite issue, energy, his global-warming plan. What do you think of his positions on both?

His cap-and-trade agenda is a cap-and-tax agenda, and it's going to drive the cost of consumer goods and the cost of energy so extremely high that our nation is going to start exporting even more jobs to China and to other countries that do not have the corporate tax or the equivalent of the corporate tax that the cap-and-trade — I call it cap-and-tax — agenda is going to usher in. What he needs to be understanding is, we have the domestic supplies of energy in America. It's conventional sources — oil, gas, coal, it's nuclear — and we have the renewable sources here in America. But if we're not allowed to drill and develop those conventional sources in this transition period between now and when we can rely more on alternative sources, we're going to become more and more reliant on foreign sources of energy and importing more and more goods because they're going to be cheaper over there to produce, and our country is going to be in a world of hurt. And that, of course, has so much to do with his economic policy in thinking that it's O.K. to borrow money from other countries to fund this government largesse that he's believing in. It doesn't make any sense. We need to develop responsibly our natural resources of energy here. This will provide the jobs here, the true economic stimulus is developing our domestic, safe supplies of energy here, and Alaska is the place to look to contribute.

And health care?

And health care too. I remember certainly on the campaign trail, John McCain and his ideas — basically, bottom line, allowing businesses to afford to pay for health care, to provide health care and to give employees options, and Obama scoffed at that. His campaign thought that that was ridiculous. It's funny now to hear him kind of go to some of John McCain's ideas. John McCain had some good ideas about bolstering the economy through businesses so that families could afford to pay for health care and making sure that no one was falling through the cracks and not receiving health care. One way you do that is to reduce the corporate tax on our small businesses especially in America. You're going to see Obama increase those taxes on small businesses — whether he admits it today or not, he's going to. One thing reporters aren't asking the Administration is — it's such a simple question and people around here in the real world, outside of Washington, D.C., want reporters to ask — President Obama, how are you going to pay for this $1 [trillion] or $2 [trillion] or $3 trillion health-care plan? How are you going to pay off the stimulus package, those borrowed dollars? How are you going to pay for so many things that you are proposing and you are implementing? Americans deserve to know what the plan is to fund these things, health care included.

See TIME's Sarah Palin cover.

See the fashion looks of Sarah Palin. [Why is this even included in TIME's coverage? Sophomoric double standard.]

Read a 2008 interview with Palin.
------------------------
Surprisingly fair coverage by a standard-bearer of the Obama-compliant, self-sodomizing, contemptible mainstream media. Call me amazed!

USA -- United Soviet America

United Soviet America is a banana republic.
United Soviet America is a banana republic.
United Soviet America is a banana republic.
You cannot repeat this mantra too often, for the simple fact is ... it's the truth.
--------------------
Patriot Post, Monday Brief
6 July 2009, Vol. 09 No. 27

THE FOUNDATION
"My anxious recollections, my sympathetic feeling, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." --George Washington


(Zelaya tried to usurp Honduras' constitution - no wonder Obama, Chavez, and the Castros support him).

LIBERTY
"Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback [last week] when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution. It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking. But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. ...[T]he Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground. ... [Hillary Clinton] accused Honduras of violating 'the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter' and said it 'should be condemned by all.' Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government. Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. ... The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and [OAS Secretary General José Miguel] Insulza expose their true colors." --columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady

RE: THE LEFT
"Help me out here. President Obama immediately 'meddles' in the affairs of Honduras, denouncing a military coup, the intent of which is to preserve the country's constitution, but when it comes to Iran's fraudulent election and the violent repression of demonstrators who wanted their votes counted, the president initially vacillates and equivocates. Are we expected to accept this as a consistent foreign policy? Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reluctant to call the removal of President Manuel Zelaya a coup, if for no other reason than it would stop U.S. aid flowing to the impoverished Central American nation. The fingerprints (or in this case the boot prints) of the Castro brothers, Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua are all over this. If one is known by the company one keeps, the specter of the Castros and their protégé dictators joining President Obama in denouncing the Honduran military coup is not reassuring. Clearly Zelaya was the choice of the dictators to help spread 'revolution' to America's back door. ... The threat by Chavez to send his troops into Honduras ought to be another signal to the Obama administration that thugs can't be made nice by talking to them. So far, the world's tyrants have been unresponsive to Obama's offer of a new start. ... They are getting the message, but it's a different one than President Obama hoped to send. The message is that Obama is weak and can be had. It is one thing for a president to be liked, but in a dangerous world with dictators who have, or wish to acquire, nuclear weapons and by these and other means destroy the United States, it is better that an American president be feared." --columnist Cal Thomas

OPINION IN BRIEF
"[I]s the U.S. at least consistent in its promises not to meddle? Not all the time. When Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel, the Obama administration made its distaste clear. It also has tried to find ways to isolate Hamid Karzai's elected government in Afghanistan -- and was initially not happy about the prospects of its re-election. Most recently, the U.S. condemned the Honduran military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya. The nation's supreme court had found his efforts to extend his presidential tenure in violation of its constitution, once Zelaya tried to finesse an illegal third term. In other words, the U.S. pressures other nations as it pleases -- though strangely now more to lean on friends than to criticize rivals and enemies. In contrast, had President Obama voiced early, consistent and sharp criticism of the Iranian crackdown, the theocracy would have worried that the president's stature could have galvanized global boycotts and embargos to isolate the theocracy and aid the dissidents. And the reformers in the streets could have become even more confident with a trademark Obama 'hope and change' endorsement. Internal democratic change in Iran is the only peaceful solution to stopping an Iranian bomb, three decades of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and a Middle East arms race. When thousands risked their lives for a better Iran, a better Middle East and a better world, we, the land of the free, simply were not with them."--Hoover Institution historian Victor Davis Hanson

THE GIPPER
"Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: 'People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.' Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God's Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said -- and I meant it -- American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom. Modern conservatism is an active, not a reactive philosophy. It's not just in opposition to those vices that debase character and community, but affirms values that are at the heart of civilization." --Ronald Reagan
[American foreign policy under Obama is hostile to freedom, and seeks to advance authoritarian/totalitarian ideologies in the name of tolerance and respect].

FOR THE RECORD
"Here's how to get a dubious bill into law, or at least past the U.S. House of Representatives, which of late has deserved to be called the lower chamber: -- 1) Make the bill long. Very long. So long no one may actually read it, supporters or opponents. 2) Introduce a 310-page horse-choker of an amendment at 3 in the morning on the day of the roll-call vote. So it can't be examined too closely or too long. Only after the bill passes may its true costs emerge. ... 3) Make sure that the bill itself, which was already 1,200 pages long before this super-sized amendment was added, surpasseth all understanding. (Which may be the only thing it has in common with the peace of God.) ... 4) Insert all kinds of exceptions into the bill so those special interests that stand to benefit by them -- whether regional, economic or ideological -- will join the stampede. 5) Coat the bill and the campaign for it with high-sounding sloganspeak, if not hysteria. Warn that The End Is Near unless this bill is passed, at least if you consider the year 2100 near. ... 6) If necessary, change the subject at the last minute. Say, from climate change to creating jobs. And, hesto presto, though the vote may be close (219 to 212), a confusing bill can be on its way to becoming even more confusing law. Which is just what happened the other day in the U.S. House of Representatives. ... 7) Forget the actual content of the bill, since few if any can understand it anyway. Instead, just recite talking points. It's a lot easier than actually thinking. ... Whoever said you never want to see sausage made or laws passed did a grave injustice to sausage-makers, who are surely engaged in a much more wholesome enterprise." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg
[It is this legislation that convinced me the US House of Representatives is a deliberarative worthy of the late Sadaam Hussein. It also convinces me that democracy is dying quickly in America. It further suggests that Obama's one overarching goal is to amend to 22nd Amendment, stand for a 3rd term, then abolish the 22nd Amendment altogether, and become Dictator of the USA, United Soviet America. No wonder Hugo, Fidel, and Daniel are his buddies. Look at who his enemies are: democratic states the world over.]

INSIGHT
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end." --English author George Orwell (1903-1950)
[This could serve as the US Democratic Party's Manifesto.]

GOVERNMENT
"Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust that our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections." --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams

POLITICAL FUTURES
"[Al] Franken is an admitted clown. As such, he will be the only admitted clown in the United States Senate, though he will be seated with such clownish figures as Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Harry Reid. ... Upon hearing of the [Minnesota Supreme] court's decision, Franken joked that he was 'thrilled and honored by the faith that Minnesotans have placed in' him. That is not a very funny joke, but Franken is not funny. By 'Minnesotans,' he probably is attempting irony in referring to his supporters on vote canvassing boards in several left-leaning counties, who turned up a sufficient number of thitherto-uncounted votes to give him the edge. In the Nov. 4 election, Coleman won by 725 votes. After a recount, he still won by 215. Then Franken's 'Minnesotans' got busy canvassing. They demanded that votes once disqualified in their counties be counted. They found thousands of absentee ballots previously rejected for such indelicacies as fabricated addresses. Coleman cried foul and asked that one statewide standard be applied to all recounts. However, he got nowhere with this plea for equal protection of the law, and in the meantime, Franken's larcenous operatives picked up 1,350 more absentee votes, some bearing the names of pop singers. Ultimately, Franken's team managed a 312-vote victory from the 2.9 million votes cast. The Wall Street Journal was not alone in its judgment that 'Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.'" --columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell
[Does anybody, literally anybody, seriously believe Franken did not steal the election? No one seriously doubts it, and no one seems prepared to do a damn thing about it. That is just how much power to intimidate the Obama regime has. The Court summarily ruled in the usurping power's favor, giving a Democratic Party defendant the right to ignore facts and evidence. The USA is well on its way to tyranny. And no one is willing to do much about it. Amazing!]

CULTURE
"The surrealism of celebrity pop culture erupts when a major celebrity dies. The sudden, mysterious death of Michael Jackson caused a near-total eclipse of the real news. The cable-news channels blurred into 24-7 wailing walls for the so-called 'King of Pop.' Television ratings surged with a big ka-ching. So much for the 'news' business. On Friday, for example, just 24 hours after the death news broke, anchors like NBC's Brian Williams fit the 'news' of Congress and recession and Iran into a neat thimble of snippets so they could devote most of the newscast to continued mourning of the man with the glittery glove. But what, exactly, is it that Michael Jackson brought to America that was so essential? An alien arriving from space would find him celebrated for dressing in shiny socks and dancing the 'moonwalk.' His music broke sales records and sets dance floors hopping, and his videos made people say 'I want my MTV.' But all this happened a long time ago, when MTV was a music channel. That is not how Michael Jackson dominated the pop-culture news scene for the past 15 years or so. What about Michael Jackson, the man? Was he, in the end, a good man? It seemed no one asked. Everyone wanted to celebrate the mystique of Jackson, but no one was comfortable focusing on the real Michael Jackson.... The coverage was an ocean wide -- and an inch deep." --Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(To submit or to view reader comments visit our Letters to the Editor page.)

"Independence Day -- it stirs my mind. I am thankful for the birth of our wonderful nation and the men and women who brought it into being. But I am saddened this Independence Day because our freedoms are being taken away as we stray into fascism. I've been a God-fearing, law-abiding citizen for as long as I can remember. It appears, however, that we are fast becoming, if not already, a nation that is no longer based on the rule of law. So at what point does civil disobedience become the right thing, again? Perhaps it's time for us to return to our roots in their purest form." --Arab, Alabama
[As El Rushbo calls it, Dependence Day. To accede to the rule of a demagogue is to invite tyranny. It is literally the duty of every American to resist Obama and his gang of thugs. To go along is to be a traitor to the Constitution and America.]

"For a long time, Honduras has been seen by the eyes of the international community as a small, impoverished country that survives on the handouts of the economic powers. To a certain extent this is true. We do depend on U.S. and European economies. We have no oil. We do not produce goods, and we do not export technology. Our main income comes from tourism. As of this moment, our country faces a challenge that may change our history for years or even decades to come. We have two choices. We can choose to bow our heads, bend our knees, be silent and let ex-president Zelaya come back to the presidential seat, and fall further down the spiral on which he has led us so far. We can let him take power and become another stronghold for Chavez's led socialism. We can choose to let Zelaya become one more dictator in the same fashion as Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, Rafael Correa, and the masterminds behind this all -- Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Our second choice is to take a stand. What we did was to defend and uphold our constitution. We said no to tyranny. That was our choice. We chose to live in freedom. To President Obama, to the UN, to the OAS, to the European Union, to The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, to the world, we say: We are a free, sovereign and independent country, and we choose to take a stand. We take a stand, even if we have to stand alone." --Tegucigalpa, Honduas

"Regarding the excitement in Honduras -- talk about support and defend. Perhaps someday our Constitution will be defended with equal fervor from all enemies domestic." --Yuma, Arizona

THE LAST WORD
"Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents -- call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever -- do. Which brings us ... to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the 'organizing' streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? Well, he said that he would raise capital gains tax rates, even if it reduced revenues, as a matter of fairness. It's only fair to make everyone poorer if you believe profits are inherently evil. He told Joe the Plumber he wants to spread the wealth around. He talked about confiscating Exxon Mobil's profits and giving them to consumers, saying 'they are not going to give up those profits easily.' He called Chrysler creditors 'speculators' and castigated them for refusing to accept his extortionist reorganization plan. He berated Wall Street for making profits, saying 'now is not (the) time' for them to 'rake in profits.' He and his wife even railed against the pursuit of profit in their respective commencement addresses. He abused the power of his office to steal money from GM and Chrysler shareholders and transfer it to the proletariat, I mean, the United Auto Workers. He redistributed taxpayer money from those who have paid their mortgages to those who have not. He is desperately trying to spread the misery and impoverish businesses and individuals through his cap and tax plan, which no proponent of economic growth and prosperity would consider supporting. And in addition to gobbling up other businesses and industries, he is trying to nationalize medicine -- to siphon off the evil surplus value charged by doctors and insurance companies -- on the flawed Marxist theory that he can reduce costs overall, when the reason health care costs have already skyrocketed is that market forces have been suppressed in the industry. You don't have to call him a Marxist, but at least understand where his heart is." --columnist David Limbaugh

*****

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

(Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

You have received this email because you are subscribed to The Patriot Post. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us and log in with your email address.

The Patriot Post is on Facebook! Become a fan — share your thoughts and opinions on news and policy issues, and post videos, photos & news links to share with like-minded conservatives.

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the "inalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2009 The Patriot Post.
-------------------------

Rush Limbaugh: Hospitality Industry Suffers Thanks to Obama's Assault on Prosperity

Obama living the good life, high on the hog, spending faster and deeper and richer on White House soirees and luaus and foreign and domestic trips -- all as entertainment! -- far greater spending on this than any previous President. Well, it's all part of his narcissistic delusion that America is happy to underwrite. Suckers!

And the Hospitality industry is going down the tubes. This caller runs a small business in that sector, and he's hurting brutally, thanks to Obama. Obama made several statements about the need for corporate entertainment spending to flatline ... to set an example during this deepening Obama recession. The pompous pretension of the man is hilarious. It's all having real effects on real people, though. Not that the mincing prancing Bureaucrat-in-Chief gives a damn. He's the perfect Dear Leader for the new socialist America.
--------------------
Hospitality Industry Suffers Thanks to Obama's Assault on Prosperity
by Rush Limbaugh, July 3, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Conan, as we go back to the phones. Conan in Charlottesville, Virginia. Nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Fifteen-handicap, two-supporting dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you very much, sir.

CALLER: Well, I represent an uncounted and invisible member of the unemployed class: the small business owner that can no longer afford to take a paycheck.

RUSH: Well, that's the same thing as being unemployed. How many employees do you have?

CALLER: Well, I had about 15. I'm down to 10, and my wife has gone from 10 to 5 in her business.

RUSH: So you're paying 10 employees while you get zilch?

CALLER: That's pretty much it, and my work week's a lot longer than 33 hours.

RUSH: Now, people are asking an obvious question. This is what they don't understand. "How can you pay yourself nothing and eat?"

CALLER: Living off of my savings.

RUSH: A-ha. Why don't you fire another worker and pay yourself?

CALLER: Then I'd be working 90 hours a week. So I'm hoping for a turnaround. I'm hoping Obama's war on corporate travel will end soon and my business will bounce back, and I hope people get a little more confident and my wife's business will bounce back.

RUSH: I'm glad you said that. I have so many friends in the hospitality business, and they are hurting. The hospitality golf business is suffering. My golf trip next week features some of the premiere golf courses in the country. I had no trouble getting them. Everybody is scared to go! The hospitality business is in deep trouble because Obama's got everybody afraid to act prosperous or go out and have a good time, while he's living it up with luaus and trips to France and trips to Camp David and so forth. I know presidents get their own entertainment budget and food, and he's gotta have blown past it. It's not that much. He's going to have to qualify all this as official state business to pay for all of it, luaus and all of that sort of thing -- and the Iranians didn't even show up for the hot dogs, or they're not going to.

I guess they took my advice. They're going to use Hebrew national hot dogs and keep the Iranians away. At any rate, he's in the corporate travel business and nobody is traveling corporately. The hospitality business is in deep trouble -- by design. Remember, it was Obama who said (doing Obama impression), "Hey, these days of traveling around, taking a jet to Las Vegas? Those days are over." He gets these big business guys in and says, "I'm the only guy standing between you and the pitchforks." Remember that? And he says, "Look, those days are over. We can't just eat what we want to eat and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees and expect the rest of the world to accept that. Those days are over."

Except for him. Interesting.

END TRANSCRIPT
----------------

Rush Limbaugh: Ice Forms in Gibbs WH Briefing Over Staged Obama Town Hall

Please somebody explain this to me. How can a democratic system in a civilized country have a President, a Head-of-State, who is never, I repeat, never subjected to simple, ordinary, unscripted questioning? As I stated in an earlier post, I'd love to see Obama, just once, survive for even 30 minutes in a Parliamentary-style chamber, being subjected to real, authentic, spirited, democratic questioning, not the sort of routine, thuggish, scripted, commie-style staged shit that happens all the time now in Obama's United Soviet America.
---------------------
Ice Forms in Gibbs WH Briefing Over Staged Obama Town Hall
by Rush Limbaugh, July 1, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Moments ago, I described to you, watching just as you would watch television, there are many things that you and I do that we do the same way. Although many of you doubt that, it's true. I watch TV the way everybody else does, and Obama was having a town hall meeting in Annandale, just outside Washington, right? He finally took, what, a G5 to fly there. At any rate, normally at these things, at these Obama town meetings, you've got these young, vivacious, excited, young cultists. They're out there and they're all jazzed, and they're all excited; why, he has arrived. This crowd looked dead. They looked like this was the last place they wanted to be. They did not look excited. They had long faces. They were frowning. And then I was told that there was sort of a dustup at the Robert Gibbs briefing at the White House. And it was. We have two sound bites, press secretary Robert Gibbs did the daily press briefing and during the Q&A Chip Reid of CBS said, "This town hall meeting that the president's doing later this afternoon, this is very tightly controlled. I mean the concept of a town hall is to have an open public forum and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and list of questions. Why do it that way?"

GIBBS: How about we do this? How about you can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked rather than preselecting your question based on something that may or may not come through.

REID: Why preselect? Why not just open it up to people and allow any question to come in?

GIBBS: Well, Chip, I think if you get on your computer from your e-mail address --

REID: I have, I have.

GIBBS: Have you sent in your question?

REID: I think that would it be inappropriate. This was for the public.

GIBBS: Well, I'm sorry. I'm confused. Are you not a member of the public?

RUSH: Ooh, ice, ice is forming in the Gibbs White House briefing room. This was a tightly controlled -- I wish I could give you the names here. Well, let me get to the second sound bite. I don't want to lose the context here. Next up Helen Thomas, and she's not digging any of this, either.

THOMAS: I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and--

GIBBS: You haven't even heard the questions!

REID: It doesn't matter. It's the process.

THOMAS: You have left--

REID: Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or who was screened or the question was screened.


GIBBS: Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?

THOMAS: It's a pattern of controlling the press.

GIBBS: How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press? Poorly, I might add. (laughter)

THOMAS: Your formal engagements are prepackaged.

GIBBS: How so?

REID: Well, in controlling the public--

THOMAS: By calling reporters the night before and telling them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.

GIBBS: I -- we've had this discussion ad nauseam.

THOMAS: Of course you would, because you don't have any answers.

RUSH: Whoa, Helen and Chip Reid having a cow at the Robert Gibbs press briefing. Now, what they're talking about, what's obviously outraged them here is the HuffPo guy got into the last formal press conference with a staged question, he was told the night before you gonna get in there on a temporary pass, a visitor pass and here's the question that we want you to ask and the guy was more than happy to do it. The question he asked was, "Mr. President, we're in contact with people inside Iran, Iranian citizens, and they are saying X, X, X." The whole thing was staged, and the press, see, they're outraged here that Gibbs would stage this. So what this means is, they know everything else has been staged. How did they know this town meeting was staged? They only know it because everything is. Folks, that ABC thing, that infomercial was staged. It was a filibuster. He got 60% of the time. And the questions were largely known. ABC didn't want anybody in there who didn't agree with the whole premise of socialized medicine, nationalized health care. So they know. They know.

The reason they're really mad is not the stuff is staged or they'd have blown up about it long before this, they're mad that an interloper got in amongst them at a serious press conference, the HuffPo. It's nothing more than an in-debt blog. It's nothing more than an in-debt blog, and these people, they are serious practitioners of the art of journalism, and to have an interloper thrown in there, they're as mad as when Al Sharpton discovered that a Jewish guy opened a clothing store in Harlem. Had to get that interloper out. Same thing here. But, regardless, it's fun to listen to them. And Gibbs didn't know what to do; he didn't know what to say. And when you watch this, if you do see any tape of this, you just take a look at the crowd, there was nothing they could do to hide the fact that this crowd was dead. It looked like, in fact, this crowd had been rounded up, that they were going to be doing something else like going to a movie or maybe half of them were going to the welfare office to get the check and they'd been interrupted, said, "Before you go get the check you're going in here to go listen to the president." Sat there, the sullen looks on their faces. It was amazing to see.

Now, here's the story. I can't mention any names, but, as you know, President Obama has many roundtables made up of private American citizens from various industries. He's got an economic roundtable; he has a banking roundtable, and all these other things. And at one of these meetings -- I'm not going to tell you which roundtable it was, but don't doubt me on this -- at one of these meetings they were all given questions to ask, televised around noon right when this program starts, this is back in the days when they had the work groups and the study groups, dispatch them out there to solve the problem in an afternoon. And they gave the participants in this particular roundtable the questions to ask. And so this guy in the roundtable asked the question that he was given, and President Obama botched it to smithereens. After the meeting, a key White House official approached this man and said, "How dare you embarrass the president this way." And this guy, "Okay, I see what's going on here." So he apologized, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I you know, you're right." They're scared to death of these people.

The guy gets back to where he lives and gets a call from a White House official, "This isn't over. I'm coming out and we're going to have lunch. You don't embarrass the president this way." I mean this is the Mayor Daley way, this is the Chicago thug way, and these people in the press know that all this stuff is staged. I mean how do they know today's was staged? Give me a wild guess? How did they know today's was staged? Did somebody leak it? It is my contention that all of them are staged, all these things are staged and they have been through the campaign. Somebody as preprogrammed as Obama is not going to -- the only time he takes a flier is with a press conference and that's when he gives people the evil eye. You know, the Hawaii stink eye, it's when he gives the stink eye. So there you have it. I was told it was good, and it turned out to be.

END TRANSCRIPT
---------------------

Rush Limbaugh: Comments on Sarah Palin's Resignation

I really began hating socialist America when I saw the treatment Palin and Prejean received at the hands of the new leftist majority in America. What a sewer of a country. Doesn't matter if you say, oh it's the elite, the leftist elite that's doing this. Blah blah. This is how America treats people of integrity and character because they hold conservative views, period. That makes it a shithole country in my book. America has forever lost my respect and affection.
----------------
Rush Limbaugh Comments on Sarah Palin's Resignation
by Rush Limbaugh, July 5, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Rush. I’m on a golf vacation, parts unknown, all week long. Six cities, six courses, starting today. On this Palin business, you know, one of the reasons I haven’t said anything to anybody is I don’t know what this means – and I think all of this is just speculation. We don’t know what her reasons for doing this are yet. The speculation here and the predictions here rival some of the irresponsibility I saw with people speculating on the cause of death of Michael Jackson when nobody knew – and we still don’t know with Michael Jackson. We think we do but we don’t. We haven’t had an official autopsy report.

As far as I know, nobody in Palin’s camp or Palin herself has said what the hell this is about and why she’s doing this. So everybody’s guessing and everybody’s applying their own, either inside-the-Beltway formulas to this... All I know is this: If Sarah Palin has any desire to do a TV show, to do speeches, to raise money, to earn money – whatever it’s for – if she has any desire for a future, be it in politics, be it in media or whatever, she’s going to have to do it in the Lower 48. She cannot do it in Alaska. It’s not going to get it done.

I don’t think this precludes her running for office down the road, the presidency in 2012, at all. I think these people saying that she’s an instant target because she quit, that’s just inside-the-Beltway formulaic and she’s not that. If anything this woman, her m.o. is outside-the-box and not formulaic. So until we know what this is all about, I think it’s just everybody trying to be the smartest person in the room trying to predict or analyze, when nobody can really know. All I know is that she is going to continue to fire-up people in the conservative Republican base as often as she speaks to ‘em.

Judging from my emails, I haven’t seen a whole lot of ‘em from people who are disappointed or who will throw her overboard like a lot of people are. It boils down to this: When you have so many establishment types – inside-the-Beltway, elite, establishment types (Republican, Democrat, it doesn’t matter) – just so eager to destroy this woman, it means they’re still scared to death of her. And that, to me, is the bottom line. You know, I’m living proof that you do things outside the box, that you don’t do them formulaically – and if you do it the right way, you don’t have to be part of a formula.

And I think it’s one of the problems with D.C. Beltway types and wannabe D.C. Beltway analyst types or whatever. So I hope this helps, but I’m not going to sit here and tell you I know for sure what this means because I don’t, ‘cause I haven’t heard her say – I haven’t heard anybody in her camp say – what this is all about and why she’s doing it. It’s all just speculation, and until we know, it’s just stupid to sit here and say, “I know for sure what she’s doing,” when nobody does except her – and she’ll tell us at some point, and then we’ll know.

END TRANSCRIPT
--------------

Rush Limbaugh: Hospitals Cave to Obama's Threats

I speak to Americans periodically, and the very limited sense I get is that very few Americans are willing to entertain the notion that Obama is anything but a warm, congenial, patriotic American with slight left-of-center politics, a man who intends to do the best he can for the US economy and build positive relationships with foreign states. How can people seriously believe that in light of Obama's every action. Every single thing he's done belies that chapter and verse, all the way down the line. So I'm losing faith in the basic intelligence of the American people, b/c it just makes no sense at all to hold such utterly delusional opinions about this Chicago thug ...

What Rush describes here, Obama's tried and tested technique of divide and conquer, taking each major stakeholder to a new policy aside, and basically putting the screws to 'em, getting their collegial warm & fuzzy support, and then moving on to his next target. How does he get away with it? It's like the Emperor's clothes story. No one wants to believe such a well-spoken guy is really the thug he is. They assume well, his strong-arming us in our group was an exception b/c he's really not the sorta guy atall atall ... It'll take a very very long time until the Emperor's naked Macchiavellianism and hatred for America filters through to the American people. Maybe it never will. Really, maybe it never never will ...
-----------------------
Hospitals Cave to Obama's Threats
by Rush Limbaugh, July 3, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Obama is close to having a number of hospitals, part of a hospital association, on his side now for national care. And I want to tell you how he does this. He calls in each part of the health care industry -- the hospitals, the insurance companies, big business retailers, big business providers -- and he makes it clear that they can join him or he will punish them. So what they do is cut the best deal they think they can and they [the Obama administration] announce that they are supported by doctors and hospitals. So he goes and speaks to the AMA and the AMA, "Oh, we're all for Obama," because he goes out and threatens these people. He brings them in in private -- we don't see these meetings -- and he says, "Join me or I'm going to ruin you; join me or you're going to pay the price." It was the same when he told the bankers, "I'm the only guy between you and the people with the pitchforks." Everybody is scared to death of the guy. This is the same trick that he pulled with Caterpillar.

You'll see the news that the American Hospital Association or whatever it's called has now aligned itself with Obama, that Walmart's lined itself up with Obama on his health care plan, and this is certainly him taking advantage of the fact that he knows that everybody is scared to death of him, and that everybody is scared to death of massive federal power being wielded against them. Remember they used to dump all over H.R. Haldeman as a "strongman" for Nixon doing this kind of stuff. Obama is treated as a visionary and a nice guy. You know what? What's missing here is courage and guts. These hospital people and the doctors and the CEOs, they need to challenge Obama. They need to challenge him, confront him, fight him, and expose him. These people can help beat Obama and his health care agenda. He's not invincible. But if you let a bully keep doing what he does, he's going to keep doing what he does. Otherwise you confront him and you take him down. And Obama is really using the power of the federal government much as a schoolyard bully terrorizes the playground.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: David in Chicago. Nice to have on the program, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. It's a pleasure. I'm a physician and a geriatrician, and I wanted to agree with you that President Obama's policies will eliminate competition from the health care marketplace and therefore eliminate motivation to innovate. Not just in technology, but in the health care systems and wide use of resources. Let me give you an example. Most of my patients have Medicare Advantage, which is a program that Obama has railed on and wants to eliminate. This works like an HMO, so my patients' Medicare benefits are reassigned to an insurance company which contracts with me. And if I can manage their health care within a certain amount, then I will actually do well. In other words, if I meet certain goals including patient satisfaction, I get a little bonus at the end of the year because I've managed their health care within that amount of money. President Obama has called this program wasteful spending and says that we're overpaying insurance companies.

RUSH: See, this is exactly what I mean. Here is a program relying on competition to keep costs down, which means it works. You have an incentive to keep your costs down, to keep your patients happy. You get a bonus. Medicare or Medicaid Plus is who pays you?

CALLER: Medicare pays the insurance company, which then contracts with me to manage the care well.

RUSH: Wouldn't you love it though if your patients could pay you?

CALLER: Well, those days are gone, I'm afraid.

RUSH: I refuse to believe that. See, I know what you're saying. I'm not arguing with you. I'm saying, in a philosophical sense, "those days are gone" is exactly why those days are gone. We're headed that way. "Those days are gone where the patients pay. Those days are gone." No, they're not gone! There's no reason to give up on them being gone. Anyway, this guy, this doctor, says Obama is targeting his plan to shut it down. He says it's wasteful. It works! It proves you don't need Obama's plan. That's why this doctor's arrangement here is under assault. I know this is hard to hear, that we've elected a president that wants to do that. I don't know any other way to say it, folks. It is true.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me squeeze one more in here before we have to split for the commercial time-out. Tucson, Arizona, it's Jack. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Longtime dittos to you there, Mr. Limbaugh.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I'm just wondering. You know, so many people seem to have missed one of the comments that Obama mentioned about health care only costing us about $175 a month. It seems to me that a lot of people miss the comment he made just before that where it said in ten years he expected people to be paying $175 a year.

RUSH: Yeah. I don't care whether he means next week or ten years from now. Nobody's going to be spending as little as $175 a month, a week, a year, whatever on health care. This is one of the things that's somewhat frustrating for a lot of us. There is no government program in existence that costs less than what they say it's going to cost. Every damned one of them costs more. There's no evidence. I mean, look at all the problems people encounter dealing with government agencies.

What evidence is there that this government or Obama or anybody else can tackle something as massive and intricate as health care? There is no evidence. So the selling point, the magic is the belief by some people that it isn't going to cost them anything, not even $175 a year. We've accepted way too many premises on all of this. We had a doctor call today and describes his day and how he gets paid. He gets paid by the insurance company. I said, "Don't you wish you got paid by the patient?"

"Oh, those days are long gone and will never be again."

They are not. No, they're not. There are still a lot of Americans that pay the doctors themselves -- and if it's good for some of us, why not for everybody? That's something to work toward. The way it used to be. I know how deep the culture is, but they're paying for it! The people that think they aren't are paying for it. It's the bottom line. Anyway, I appreciate the call out there. Thanks, Jack, very much.

END TRANSCRIPT
---------------

Mark Steyn: Global warming is so last century

This is the hilarious aspect of US leadership (sic) in the global warming fraudapalooza. The rest of the world is falling all over itself bailing on this turkey of an ideology. But of course, the Democrats are charging ahead, sure they're on the leading edge of the next big thing.

The list of countries that have totally or partially backed off bigtime from their climate change hysteria is instructive on many levels. I recall how Sarkozy in his maiden speech as M. le President, just 3 years ago, said that global warming was the most important issue facing the EU in this century. That was then, this is now. France, like most Western states, is quietly backing away from all the half-baked, science-challenged hysteria. It was always a political socialist project from the get-go. Meanwhile, Obama & Co., all turned out in tuxes & wedding gowns, are rushing down the aisle of an empty church 4 hours after the wedding was cancelled and everyone has long ago gone home.

Welcome to lagging laughing-stock America, studiously marching behind the fatuous Wizard-in-Chief Obama ... Obama is worse than Jimmy Cawtah.
------------------------
Mark Steyn: Global warming is so last century
[Obama, Democrats willing to wreck U.S. economy to battle a nonthreat].
by Mark Steyn

President Barack Obama was supposed to be "cool." But he isn't. He's square. Not just mildly so, but embarrassingly square. He's squaresville squared. It's like you're having a party with your friends, and he's the cringe-making middle-age parent who wants to show he digs where the young people are at by grooving around in the middle of the dance floor all night long.

How do I know? I've been there, and I've been square. By "there," I mean I've been in places that have tried all the cool Obama dance moves and eventually wised up to what utter clunkers they are.

A week ago, the House of Representatives passed some gargantuan "cap-and-trade" bill designed to "save" "the environment." Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, accused those Neanderthals who voted against the bill of committing "treason against the planet." By that standard, most of the planet is guilty of treason against the planet. I don't mean just in the sense that China, already the world's No. 1 CO2 emitter, and India and other rising economic powers have absolutely no intention of doing what the Democrats have done, no way, no how – because they don't see why they should stay poor just because New York Times columnists think it's good for them.

No, I mean that most of the developed world has already gone down the paved road of good intentions and is now frantically trying to pedal up out of it. New Zealand was one of the few Western nations to sign on to Kyoto and then attempt to abide by it – until New Zealanders realized they could only do so by destroying their economy. They introduced a Dem-style cap-and-trade regime – and last year they suspended it. In Australia, the Labor Government postponed implementation of its emissions-reduction program until 2011, and the Aussie Senate may scuttle it entirely. The Obama administration has gotten to the climate-change hop just as the glitter ball's stopped whirling, and the band's packing up its instruments.

The congressional cap-and-trade shtick would be tired even if weren't the familiar boondoggle of tax hikes, big-government microregulation and pork-a-palooza payoffs to preferred clients of the Democratic Party. Granted that carbon credits were already a dubious racket equivalent to the sale of "indulgences" in medieval Europe, the decision by congressional powerbrokers to give away credits to well-connected Democratic Party interests surely represents the environmental movement's formal Jumping of the Endangered Great White Shark.

Back at The New York Times, Thomas Friedman agreed the bill "stinks" and says "it's a mess" and he "detests" it, but nevertheless says we need to pass it because his "gut" tells him to. Maybe his gut's really telling him The New York Times canteen's daily specials have been adversely affected by the company's collapsing share price. Who knows? At any rate, for reasons not entirely obvious from his prose style, the eminent columnist believes himself to have a special influence on the youth of today and so directed the grand finale of his gut's analysis to them especially: "Attention, all young Americans," he proclaimed. "You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody's face. Get a million people on the Washington Mall, calling for a price on carbon."

Perhaps it'll work. Getting into Thomas Friedman's face, I see the ruddy bloom of late middle-age has not yet faded from it, so maybe, as his command of the lingo shows, he's hep to the scene. Maybe the kids'll abandon their Tweet cred for street cred. Maybe they'll get outta MySpace and into Sen. Robert Byrd's parking space.

I don't know how Mr. Friedman defines "young" but let's be generous: If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century. None. Admittedly the 21st century is only one century out of the many centuries of planetary existence, but it happens to be the one you're stuck living in. Alan Carlin, in a report for the Environmental Protection Racket – whoops, Environmental Protection Agency – that they attempted to suppress, says:

"Fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-06, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric C02 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-06, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there's been no net warming in the 21st century and, more accurately, a decline."

The Obama administration is getting into the global-warming beads and kaftan just as everyone else is beginning to toss 'em into the recycling bin. Same with government automobiles: Been there, drove that – from Eastern Europe to Northern Ireland.

There's something weirdly parochial about Obama, the supposed "citizen of the world." A recent piece of mine about "the Europeanization of America" prompted Randall Hoven of The American Thinker to respond that this was unfair … to Europeans. He has a point. While the U.S. is going full throttle for Scandinavia-a-go-go, the Continentals have begun to discern to the limits of Europeanization. In 2007, government spending in Europe averaged 46.2 percent of GDP; in America it was 37.4 percent, of which 20 percent was federal. A mere two years later, federal spending is up to 28.5 percent, so, even if state and local spending stand still, we're at 46 percent: the European average.

But, as Randall Hoven points out, the real story is that we're at 46 percent and climbing, while the Continentals are at 46 percent and heading down. In 1993, government spending averaged 52.2 percent in Europe, and 70.9 percent in Sweden. The Swedes have reduced government spending (as a fraction of GDP) by almost a third in the past 15 years. Their corporate tax rates are lower than ours. And that's before Obama's raised them. Last week, the doughnut chain Tim Hortons, which operates on both sides of the border but is incorporated in the state of Delaware, announced that it was reorganizing itself as a Canadian corporation to take advantage of Canadian tax rates.

"To take advantage of Canadian tax rates"? What kind of cockamamie phrase is that? And who'd have thought any columnist south of the border would ever have cause to type it?

The Europeans have figured out you can be too European for your own good, and are trying to reacquaint themselves with the real world. But not Obama. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! Male unemployment has hit 10 percent? The stimulus is a bust? It's stimulating nothing but non-jobs like Executive Stimulus Coordinator for Community Organization Stimulus Assistance Programs? Hey, let's spend even more, even faster, even less stimulatingly!

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and their chums are spending at a rate that threatens American stability. And, except for the scale and the dollar figure, it's all been tried before, and it's all failed before. There's nothing cool about Obama. He's a nonstop square dance, swinging us around till we're dozy, and he's got all the dough. Happy Independence Day.

©MARK STEYN
-------------

WSJ: The Carbonated Congress

There was a socialist party leader in Canada many years ago (NDP) who ran a very effective election campaign on the slogan that many prominent corporations receiving tax breaks at the time were corporate welfare bums. It resonated with the public that corporations should not, in the ordinary course of things, receive credits from the government to further their operations.

This is precisely what the cap-and-tax boondoggle will amount to. The carbon permits, and the offsets they represent (some businesses subsidizing others to make reductions in carbon emissions), will be paid for by levying a huge tax on energy used. The government and corporations receive the monetary benefits; consumers will be paying for it twice over: in higher energy prices, and higher taxes on energy.

The US government is going one better on Canada's NDP party: the US economy will have two new players, corporate welfare bums and government welfare bums, all paid for by the hapless taxpayer -- suckers!
----------------------
The Carbonated Congress
[Orszag nails it: The 'largest corporate welfare program' ever].
Wall Street Journal, 3 July 2009

President Obama is calling the climate bill that the House passed last week an "extraordinary" achievement, and so it is. The 1,200-page wonder manages the supreme feat of being both hugely expensive while doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

The Washington press corps is playing the bill's 219-212 passage as a political triumph, even though one of five Democrats voted against it. The real story is what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House baron Henry Waxman and the President himself had to concede to secure even that eyelash margin among the House's liberal majority. Not even Tom DeLay would have imagined the extravaganza of log-rolling, vote-buying, outright corporate bribes, side deals, subsidies and policy loopholes. Every green goal, even taken on its own terms, was watered down or given up for the sake of political rents.

Begin with the supposed point of the exercise -- i.e., creating an artificial scarcity of carbon in the name of climate change. The House trimmed Mr. Obama's favored 25% reduction by 2020 to 17% in order to win over Democrats leery of imposing a huge upfront tax on their constituents; then they raised the reduction to 83% in the out-years to placate the greens. Even that 17% is not binding, since it would be largely reached with so-called offsets, through which some businesses subsidize others to make emissions reductions that probably would have happened anyway.

Even if the law works as intended, over the next decade or two real U.S. greenhouse emissions might be reduced by 2% compared to business as usual. However, consumers would still face higher prices for electric power, transportation and most goods and services as this inefficient and indirect tax flowed down the energy chain.

The sound bite is that this policy would only cost households "a postage stamp a day." But that's true only as long as the program doesn't really cut emissions. The goal here is to tell voters they'll pay nothing in order to get the cap-and-tax bureaucracy in place -- even though the whole idea is to raise prices to change American behavior. At the same time -- wink, wink -- Democrats tell the greens they can tighten the emissions vise gradually over time.

Meanwhile, Congress had to bribe every business or interest that could afford a competent lobbyist. Carbon permits are valuable, yet the House says only 28% of the allowances would be auctioned off; the rest would be given away. In March, White House budget director Peter Orszag told Congress that "If you didn't auction the permit, it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States."

Naturally, Democrats did exactly that. To avoid windfall profits, they then chose to control prices, asking state regulators to require utilities to use the free permits to insulate ratepayers from price increases. (This also obviates the anticarbon incentives, but never mind.) Auctions would reduce political favoritism and interference, as well as provide revenue to cut taxes to offset higher energy costs. But auctions don't buy votes.

Then there was the peace treaty signed with Agriculture Chairman Colin Peterson, which banned the EPA from studying the carbon produced by corn ethanol and transferred farm emissions to the Ag Department, which mainly exists to defend farm subsidies. Not to mention the 310-page trade amendment that was introduced at 3:09 a.m. When Congress voted on the bill later that day, the House clerk didn't even have an official copy.

The revisions were demanded by coal-dependent Rust Belt Democrats to require tariffs on goods from countries that don't also reduce their emissions. Democrats were thus admitting that the critics are right that this new energy tax would send U.S. jobs overseas. But instead of voting no, their price for voting yes is to impose another tax on imports from China and India, among others. So a Smoot-Hawley green tariff is now official Democratic policy.

Mr. Obama's lobbyists first acquiesced to this tariff change to get the bill passed. Afterwards the President said he disliked "sending any protectionist signals" amid a world recession, but he refused to say whether this protectionism was enough to veto the bill. Then in a Saturday victory lap, he talked about green jobs and a new clean energy economy, but he made no reference to cap and trade -- no doubt because he knows that energy taxes are unpopular and that the bill faces an even tougher slog in the Senate.

Mr. Obama wants something tangible to take to the U.N. climate confab in Denmark in December, but the more important issue is what this exercise says about his approach to governance. The President seems to believe that the Carter and Clinton Presidencies failed by fighting too much with Democrats in Congress. So his solution is to abdicate his agenda to Congress -- first the stimulus, now cap and trade, and soon health care. We wish he had told us he was running to be Prime Minister.
---------------------
A Prime Minister would not get away with this. A Prime Minister, accountable to very hostile opposition benches in the House of Commons would be raked over the coals daily for such a patent subterfuge. Any attempt to bring in such subversive, dishonest, statist legislation would be slapped down in a matter of days. It would likely lead to a vote of non-confidence and the collapase of the government. The American system moves so slowly, with so little scrutiny, so little day-to-day accountability before legislators who disagree with the intent of such a bill. The President can cooperate with Congress, as he is, and give them what they want in order to get the statist architecture in place. It's a tragedy largely attributable to the ease with which the President can game the system.

El Rushbo: Our Miraculous Declaration of Independence (and Rush's Clubs)

Many non-Americans would argue that the principles set down in the US Declaration of Independence are about as close to flawless and timeless as one could want. On the other hand, the reality of the US political system flies wholly in the face of that. The US Congress is arguably the Western world's worst, most corrupt deliberative body. And its true colors are coming out in spades now. The notion of a Supreme Court is anathema, and its chief objective seems to be to recalibrate, undo, or wholly redefine the laws that the legislative produces. The US political system seems like a a rusted-out, creaking engine with one part working in contradiction to other parts. Moreover there is no preset, obligatory forum where the head of government is compelled to answer pointed, detailed, often very hostile questioning from the party out of power. In place of having a President held accountable in the daily rough-and-tumble of questioning in a House of Commons, in place of that America has this creaking machinery of check-and-balance. It results in a system that encourages incessant culture wars-style trench warfare, but in a highly diffuse manner, dispersed across broad strata. If the media fails in its role, the system suffers. It's very difficult to hold an imperial President accountable short of threatening impeachment. In most Parliamentary systems (especially in English-speaking nations) we equate the American system to a banana republic style of governance, with all the attendant weaknesses and susceptibility to corruption.

The effort to jettison the Queen as head-of-state in Australia foundered largely on the mistaken belief it would produce an American-style Presidency.

So it's an irony that the world so admires the US Constitution, and deplores the reality of its corrupt, ineffective, undemocratic Congress. It's remarkable that no nation in the last 60 years has sought to emulate the American political system, in a time when so many other aspects of American life have been quite willingly imitated.
---------------------------
Our Miraculous Declaration of Independence (and Rush's Clubs)
by Rush Limbaugh, July 3, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Jerry in Cookeville, Tennessee. Hi, Jerry. Thank you for calling. You're on Open Line Friday. You're next.

CALLER: Hi, Rush.

RUSH: Hi.

CALLER: First off, I'd just like to say to you and all your staff, a very happy Independence Day. Out of 233 years, this might be the last one as we know it to be a real Independence Day. I called to ask you: "What kind of golf clubs do you use?" I mean, are they Pings, or --

RUSH: No. My bag is full of different kinds. I have a Cleveland Launcher driver that's 8.5 degrees loft. It's about three or four years old, and nothing I've tried since is as good. I love the damn thing. My irons, 4-iron through wedge, are TaylorMade r7s, and I have a couple of Vokey 54- and 60-degree wedges. Utility clubs, 3- and 4-iron are TaylorMade. (interruption) What are you laughing at in there Dawn? Golf game -- well, he asked. It's Open Line Friday. And I use the Scotty Cameron custom-made for me putter.

CALLER: Have you ever used the foot wedge? Those are pretty handy sometimes when you're in tough shots.

RUSH: When nobody's looking, yes.

CALLER: Oh, absolutely. It's the club that's not in your bag.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: But if I could just change the subject real quickly: Our president -- then he was Senator Obama -- kept saying that he wanted to change the fundamental values of America. Those are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So nobody should be surprised by what he's doing.

RUSH: It's not just Obama. You know, you raise a good point. The American left -- Obama makes it plain. He looks at the Constitution as constraining him. He said the other day the Constitution prevents us from taking bold action real fast. If he could get rid of it to where he could wave his magic wand or do things by executive fiat, he would do them. But the whole left looks at the Declaration of Independence that way. You have to understand: the left in this country, for the longest time, despises the Declaration. This whole notion that we are all endowed by our Creator (they hate that; they don't believe in God) with certain inalienable rights? See, when you say that we're all "endowed with certain inalienable rights," that's final. There is no more. You can't add to it. "Certain inalienable rights" is final. "...among these are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." Those are final. You can't build on them. All you can do is take away. The left doesn't like any of this and they certainly don't like the US Constitution. It's been this way for a long time.

The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence -- I have a great piece on it here from... Well, the Heritage Foundation has a good one, but there's also one here from the American Thinker that I'll have to find. It's brilliantly put together about how the Founding Fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence didn't put it up to vote. They didn't poll it. They didn't do anything that politicians today do. It makes the point that if the Declaration had been put up for a vote in colonial times, it might have failed, because we had the same mix of people back then. They were scared to death of the King, scared to death of ruffling any feathers. "No, no, no! I don't want to go on my own. I don't want to fly alone." They didn't do that. They knew that they had... Well, it was a miracle. The whole thing in Philadelphia and the Declaration and later the Constitution, it's a miracle. There's no more perfect form of government that's been devised. I know Churchill's line is surviving, regardless.

But nevertheless, you can't go beyond certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness," these are final concepts. They're not things that have starting points that you build on. What they are are things that have to be torn down and broken apart, and there have been people trying to do this since the days of ratification. It just so happens that in our lifetimes, those forces have become powerful enough to get elected now. And that's the battle that we face. The battle really is over the founding of this country and what kind of country it's going to be. And when Obama talks about "remaking" America, the caller here is exactly right. "Remaking America" means destroying these traditions, institutions that have defined America and its greatness since the founding.

END TRANSCRIPT
--------------

El Rushbo: America Needs to Stand Up to This Schoolyard Bully's Failed Agenda

Obama's policies on the economy have been so tangibly, provably, undeniably disastrous thus far -- not one measure he's passed has had an even marginally positive effect on the economy -- that it leads to an Occam's razor either/or conclusion. Either Obama is: 1) too stupid to realize the effect his policies are having, i.e. he's doing his best in a conscientious effort to revive the US economy, or 2) he knows perfectly well the effect his policies are having and will continue to have, and in fact they are designed to do precisely what they are doing, in order to achieve an objective different from what we believe he's shooting for. And that objective is control, massive government, cradle-to-grave, overarching control of the erstwhile private sectors of American life. Clearly Rush concludes Obama is doing the latter. I must admit it beggars belief that Obama could make so many mistakes, such fundamental mistakes on the economy. I'm forced to agree that they may in fact not be mistakes at all.

This is a huge problem. If Obama is merely the former, if he's a Jimmy Carter making a hash of the economy, eventually he'll see his mistakes and be compelled to make course corrections. But if he's not a Jimmy Carter, he's basically achieving what he intends to achieve, to bring down the US economy and increase dependency on the state. Only in this manner can he eradicate the (socialist) perceived source of inequality -- private capital, profit, and prosperity. This is indeed consistent with the teachings he was exposed to for 20+ years. The problem with that is there won't be any course correction. America's economy will keep plunging. His job is to jolly us along, get us to accept that it's all necessary and there's blue skies ahead.

I've heard no one come out and say this as unequivocally as El Rushbo has done. God protect him. It's only a matter of time until Obama sends his brownshirt death squads after critics who refuse to shut up.
----------------------
America Needs to Stand Up to This Schoolyard Bully's Failed Agenda
by Rush Limbaugh, July 3, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We always try to go to the phones earlier than normal today. Normally we don't get to the phones 'til the second hour of this program, but on Friday -- since we're urging people, inviting them to call and telling them the show is theirs, the content's theirs when we go to the phones -- we try to go earlier, and I'm going to do that today. We're gonna start with Edgar in Atlanta. It's great to have you with us, Edgar. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Back in January, you said you were going to let us know when it's time to panic. And I don't want to wait 'til I hear you broadcasting from New Zealand. I feel...

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: I feel the time is here, and I'm wondering: At what point does secession become a real option? Because I feel like the left and the right in this country, we're just irreconcilable.

RUSH: Wait a second. Secession? Who seceding from where?

CALLER: I'm ready to go to whatever state wants to secede first, Rush.

RUSH: Well, that's Texas. They're the only one talking about it.

CALLER: Then let it be Texas.

RUSH: And, by the way, Texas is in the best economic shape of any state in the country in terms of job losses and budget deficits and so forth -- and there's no state income tax in Texas.

CALLER: Well, in my mind, Rush, we've separated into a country of a host organism and parasites, and we don't need them. We don't need the left, Rush, but they need us because without us they're broke. And I think if Texas seceded, us productive people and businesses would flock there, and eventually the blue states of America would collapse.

RUSH: Well, we've gotta face reality, Edgar. Nobody is going to secede from anything. I mean, Governor Perry in Texas talked about it and things blew up. I mean, there might be some people in Texas that wouldn't mind it but it isn't going to happen. I want to focus on something that you said that you just glanced over. You just sort of threw it away out there.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: You said that the left and right are "irreconcilable."

CALLER: I believe that.

RUSH: I do, too! I've always said that. That's why I'm against bipartisanship! That's why I'm against compromise. That's why the only thing that matters is beating them.

CALLER: Well, maybe what we need is a two-state solution. I think they'll collapse under their own weight eventually without us.

RUSH: Well, what he's saying here is that without the productive class in this country to tax, that the left has no money. Wrong. They're printing it now. We don't have the money now. Obama is purposely destroying the private sector by printing money. This year alone we're going to be over budget by $2.2 trillion. We don't have money that he's spending now. The money that he is spending technically hasn't even been earned yet. The money he's spending now will be earned by people's children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but he's printing it now, spending it now. You know, every time I have a show like I had yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, where I unabashedly say that President Obama is seeking to destroy the US economy, I get lots of e-mail. "Rush, do you really believe that?" That's so hard for people to grasp. It's so difficult for people to put their arms around, a US president that wants to destroy the economy.

Look, what is the centerpiece of Barack Obama's agenda to accomplish what he wants? It is health care. Nationalized, single-payer, public-option health care. Because that, as Mona Charen said in a column, is ball game. If that happens, every aspect of life is subject to regulation by the federal government on the basis of saving money for health care costs. That will be what they say. The objective is just to simply exert power and the control over people. And once health care is the single responsibility of the government -- not you, but the single responsibility of the government -- they will have infinite power. We aren't even able to define it now, but infinite power to regulate the way individuals live and work and play.

There's no end to this. Now, if that's your centerpiece, and if you need that to accomplish your ultimate objective (which is the expansion of federal government, a totalitarian state, or however you want to characterize it) wouldn't you need as many people in economic pain as possible? Health care insurance, as we all know, is not "portable." If your health care insurance is provided by your employer and you happen to lose your job, you don't keep your health care insurance because you're not paying for it, he is. Now, when you lose your job, you keep your car insurance because you're paying for that, but you don't keep your health insurance. So this whole notion of portability has been a gigantic argument with the leftists demanding portability, meaning you don't ever lose your health insurance.

Well, okay. Who's going to pay it if you get canned or if you quit and your employer is paying your health care insurance or most of it? Who's going to pick up the tab? That's where Obama wants to step in, in one of just many areas. Now, if the central objective is health care -- because getting nationalized health care permits you this cradle-to-grave, Nanny State control over individuals and every aspect of their lives -- if you really want it, wouldn't it really be easier to make sure that more and more people have lost theirs? They know that they have drummed up in people's heads the importance of health care. People are more frightened of going a day without health care in this country than they are of getting on an airplane with one wing.

The psychology has succeeded. People are scared to death to go one day without health care. You get canned -- and right now, over two million people have lost her jobs since Obama was elected, and there's not one policy prescription he has proposed to reduce that, to reverse it. Everything he's doing is going to encourage more unemployment. Because he wants it, because the more people who are unemployed with the fear of health care, the more they're going to demand somebody "do something" to restore their health care. He's got all the retailers and the doctors joining up and the hospitals. That's what I mean.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It's not just health care that Obama seeks -- and that's the biggie, because that encompasses every aspect of our lives. Once the federal government is in charge of that there's no rolling that back. Well, not instantly. Too many people will have their lives personally intertwined, changed with government. It's gotta be stopped. But it's not just health care. If you look at the economy in general, we've been trying for nine months now the political solution: stimulate, Keynesian economics, spend, spend, spend, spend. Stimulate, stimulate, stimulate! In fact, if I may be so bold and so honest, the stimulus package is not even that. It was advertised and promoted as shovel-ready. "We're going to build schools, Mr. Limbaugh, and we're going to build roads and bridges and we're going to rebuild the infrastructure." None of that's happening. I think 6% of the stimulus has been spent, and now they're talking about a second one?

The purpose of that stimulus was not to create jobs. That's not what government does. The only way government does that is when they hire people, and that's not what this was about, as far as the people were told. The people were told that this is going to put them back at work. There's a chart I saw today, and I'm going to try to describe this. As you know, describing charts on radio is a challenge that very few broadcast professionals would ever take. I, my friends, will take it because I am a great chart reader -- and I also happen to tell a great story. This chart shows since I think World War II, maybe it's World War I, the beginning of every recession in terms of job losses. And each one of these recessions has a color-coded line so you can follow each year or each recession that happened. And the chart is one of these left-to-right charts and it's a giant V-chart except that the V is a different size for every recession. Some recessions lasted longer than others and some were deeper. But at every point in this chart there is an end to the falling unemployment and a dramatic uptick to complete the right side of the V as jobs are gained.


Now, you have to know history, 'cause the chart does not explain this. You have to know history to be able to determine, "Well, what's the magic?" What happened here that reversed the left side of the V, which is unemployment going down and all of a sudden it bottoms out (and peaks) and starts going up -- and it's dramatic. You look at the 1981-82 recession, and you can see when we came out of it, and you know why. You know what brought us out of it. And practically every other one of these recessions, if you just know history, you know what brought us out of it: incentives in the private sector led to people hiring more people to work and more tax revenues and all that. The recession that we are currently in is a red line, and there is no V yet. It is just almost a direct plunge. You ought to see this. It's a direct plunge, almost like that Air France plane took into the Atlantic, and there's no end in sight for this. All these other recessions you can see the V, the right-hand side of the V going up where employment starts to pick up, but there's no end in sight for this, and it's deeper. This V, the left side of this recession V... I ought to double-check. I think it's deeper than any of the others on the chart or very close to it.

Now, obviously because of the way this chart is, this chart charts every recovery from a recession in terms of employment. There is none yet in this recession. So that line is a stand alone. It's by itself. It's bright red. So you ask yourself, "What's going to be the magic that starts people back to work?" I'm telling you there isn't one Obama or Democrat Party policy that's going to cause that to happen. The Obama policies are going to keep that line plunging, keep the left side of the V down, keep employment going down. We're losing jobs. There's not one thing being proposed even! There's not one thing being proposed. The list of tax increases Obama is talking about will choke off any job creation. The unknown in the future is: "Are we actually gonna get this cap-and-trade fiasco? Are we actually going to get health care?" Those two great unknowns have paralyzed business. You can't make long-term plans unless you know what the game's going to be and what the rules are, and right now nobody knows the rules.


If you're smart and running a small business, your effort now is not to hire workers; it's to stay in business. And you're looking down the road and saying, "Okay, what happens to me and my business if cap-and-trade's passed? What happens to me if health care passes?" And, by evidence of what's happened the last nine months, you have to say things are going to get even worse because the government sector is going to get bigger, and to get bigger the government sector has to deplete the private sector. The government can't produce anything. It can print, but it can't produce anything. Not without the private sector working -- and that's being dwindled away. It's being attacked. It's under attack daily by this administration. There's no end in sight to it, and there's not one policy that they're prepared to enact that would bring it about. While they talk about bringing it about -- they talk a good game, they talk about restoring jobs and all that -- it's not happening. The talk is meaningless because it's deflective.

So businesses, they're not poised to start hiring anybody here. In the unemployment numbers, it's not just that they're worse in some cases than ever. It's not just that we're at 9.5% unemployment. It's not just that we've lost over two million jobs since January. We're also working fewer hours a week. The average work week now is 33 hours. The Drive-Bys are not reporting this. I mean, you have to dig deep to find it. The average work week is 40 hours and people are working 33. What does that mean? Well, it means that a lot more people have been laid off, fired, and hired back at part-timers, or they're being furloughed. But regardless the reason, when people are working fewer hours, there is, by definition, less productivity. Manufacturing is way down -- and, yes, we still do manufacture in this country.


I mentioned this website earlier. There's a story here by Richard Bernstein at BusinessInsider.com, Why is weak employment a surprise? He's asked the question here that we all ask. Every time the State-Run Media reports economic numbers they're always surprised. It was "unexpectedly high" or "unexpectedly low," but the experts are always just bamboozled by it. So he says: "Today's weaker-than-expected employment report sent the financial and commodities markets reeling. But why was this report such a significant surprise to anyone? I'm not particularly bearish or bullish with respect to stocks right now, but I am a pragmatist. The fact is that the leading indicators of employment have been weakening, yet the consensus has been ready to reap the fruits of the so-called 'green shoots.'" There aren't any green shoots! People are responding to Obama's words. "We're about to come back," and, you know, "We've bottomed out," or, "Our backs are no longer against the wall," but the job losses keep coming.

"First, let's set the record straight. Employment is NOT a lagging indicator. Some indicators of employment, like jobless claims and the length of the work week, are actually official leading indicators of the economy. Payroll employment is a coincident indicator. It is actually somewhat odd that investors are currently paying so much attention to true lagging indicators related to inflation. Wage pressures, and not commodity prices, are the true catalysts for inflation. Wage increases, abnormal credit creation, and excess demand relative to supply come first, and inflation comes second. There are no wage pressures, there's not a lot of credit being created, and output gaps abound, so why is everyone focused on lagging inflation indicators?"

Well, the answer is because everybody wants to try to convince the American people it's not as bad as it is, and it's going to get better real soon, but it's not 'cause there's nothing in place to get it better. The things that are in place are obstacles to economic improvement, and they've been purposely put there. "Second, the monthly payroll report, like the one issued today, is full of largely coincident data. However, it does have one piece of leading data: the length of the work week. This is generally considered a leading indicator because employers will tend to adjust the number of hours their employees work before hiring or firing them. For example, it would be normal for companies to begin to pay existing workers overtime before they hire additional workers because of the uncertainty related to the initial upturn in a production or service cycle." People may not believe the first indication of economic return, so rather go out and hire new people, you just take your existing staff and pay them overtime.

"However, commentators rarely highlight the length of the work week when discussing the monthly employment report. What has been happening to the length of the work week? It has hit all-time lows the last two months. That’s right. The only official leading indicator in the employment report has hit all-time lows the last two months. Who has reported that? No one. ... Could it be that momentum, rather than fundamentals, remains the defining aspect to most investment strategies? Prudent investors should be watching sound leading indicators, and not the markets’ short-term momentum for clues as to whether the 'green shoots' will sprout flowers or weeds."

Let me get something at the bottom of the stack. I put at the bottom of the stack. I was going to gloss over it but now I'm not. It's a CNBC.com post from yesterday. "The financial system is crashing and action must be taken by the US government to convert debt into equity to produce a more stable environment, Nassim Taleb, author of 'The Black Swan,' told CNBC Thursday. 'You may have green shoots, whatever you want to call them, you may have temporary relief, but you are still in a world that's breaking,' Taleb said on 'Squawk Box.' [sic] Anything that's fragile like the financial system will eventually crash, he said. 'We're in the middle of a crash,' Taleb said. 'So if I'm going to forecast something, it is that it's going to get worse, not better.' The government needs to deleverage debt and not try stimulus packages that will inflate assets, he said."

You know, when I read these guys say, "The governments needs to do this, and the government needs to do that," it's as though these people in government are making honest mistakes. Nobody's this stupid in government to make these honest mistakes! This has been tried countless times in the past, the world over. It doesn't work unless your objective is something else. If your objective is to wreck the economy -- to cause more chaos, more unemployment, create greater dependence on government -- then this is a championship policy. But it is not a championship policy to revive the US economy, and everybody involved in this knows it. This is why some of these people involved in this need to be seriously questioned about their intentions for this country. This is not merely an economic mistake. This is not a divergent opinion. This is not left economics versus right economics. Economics is economics. It's science. There are left-right disagreements in it obviously, but what Obama is doing here, there is nobody that can say, "This is an honest attempt at really doing what they think is best." Maybe so, but for them, not you and not us!

So when I read these guys, "The government needs to deleverage debt." The government's doing purposely what it intends to do! It intends stimulus packages that will inflate assets and not create jobs. This guy said, "What makes me very pessimistic in not seeing any leadership or awareness on parts of government on what has to be done," as though they're just ignorant and making mistakes. People don't have the guts to say what's really happening here -- and this is purposeful. His solution, this debt business of, "Look, we're not helping anybody when we foreclose on them. We've gotta deleverage some of this debt. Rather than foreclose on people, the banks," I'm summarizing what he says, "need to lower the monthly payment and take an equity stake in the house,"which, of course, they already have. The mortgage holder already has an equity stake. "But get rid of some of the debt and turn the debt into equity," that's what he's saying," and that will help stave off the financial crisis."

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's the guy from CNBC's Squawk on the Street yesterday. It's Universal Investments principal and author of The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb. The co-host, Carl Quintanilla, is talking to him. Here, in his own words, is what I just quoted him as saying.

TALEB: Anything that's fragile eventually will crash. And the system is very fragile. It is crashing. We're in the middle of a crash. So if I was going to forecast something, I know it's going to get worse, not better. The monkey on our back is the debt. Okay, we have huge amount of debt. Instead of the government doing that, now they're trying to look at stimulus plans and things that may inflate assets. And that may run out of control. So instead of deflating debt, they're thinking of inflating assets or -- actually, they don't even know what they're doing --

RUSH: They do.

TALEB: -- because they're doing a lot of contradictory things. So this is what makes me very pessimistic, not to see any leadership or any awareness on the part of the government --

RUSH: Wait a second. This should have ended.

TALEB: -- of what needs to be done, which is to deleverage by, I don't know, somewhere between 40 and $70 trillion worldwide.

RUSH: They didn't give me a full transcript. I thought it was over 15 seconds. I'm sorry for talking over that, folks. Anyway, when he says they "don't even know what they're doing" and they're doing "a lot of contradictory things." They do know what they're doing. Obama knows what he's doing. Obama may not be a macroeconomist. I mean, he may not be up there plotting and planning every day's economic machinations, but he's got a vision. His vision is emperor. His vision is all-empowered leader for life. The government has got to take over and correct the injustices of this country. Wealth and profit are injustices. They are immoral, as far as Obama looks at it. The more wealth, the more prosperity he can wipe out, he thinks he's doing a morally good thing -- and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt saying that.

He's grown up surrounded by people who despise prosperity and wealth because they believe it's the epitome of inequality, and they also believe that prosperity and wealth exist because of thievery or other means by which ill-gotten gains produce the wealth and the prosperity. It's always happening on the backs of Obama's type of people, and so he's got to make the world right. He's gotta make the country right and he's gotta cut it down to size. Now, he may not be sitting there every day plotting virtually every aspect of this, but there's an overall vision -- and it's happening. They know what they're doing. They're too stupid to not know what they're doing. That's what makes this scary. And rather than these CEOs bending over backwards and joining his team out of fear, they need to stand up and say, "Stop! You're not going to bully us anymore into doing things that are not helpful to the country."

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I can't stop laughing here, folks, and you're going to hear it again very soon. Colin Powell is a guest again on CNN this coming Sunday. All of a sudden he can't believe the amount of debt and spending that's going on in America. Ha! (laughing)


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Last hour I spoke of this chart -- this employment, unemployment chart -- of every recession since World War II to the present. Remember when I was talking about the V charts? They're not actually all V's. There are some U's. It's not a dramatic increase when the uptick in jobs happens. Anyway, I posted that chart at RushLimbaugh.com. You can see it now. It's from BusinessInsider.com, and the thing to look at is every recession has an end, and you can clearly see it on this chart, in terms of we're talking employment versus unemployment. When the unemployment uptick begins it's dramatic, and there's a reason that it happens in each case if you know history. Then you'll find the color of the line for this recession is bright red and it's still plunging. There's no hint of any kind of an uptick whatsoever. So it's there for one and all to see, even though you probably don't need to see it since I did superb job of describing it to you, but I'm sure that when you look at it, you'll say, "It's just exactly like Rush talked about," which is one of many elements of the magic part of the content of this program.

END TRANSCRIPT
--------------

WSJ: Tilting at Windmill Jobs

Morris is right in his book on the catastrophe America faces under Obama. I often wonder why Americans are allowing such an extremist policy agenda to be rammed down their throats with very little push-back against this authoritarian America-hater. I have no definitive answers, only theories and possibilities. The economy will get much much worse because there are too many O-bots in United Soviet America who want to see Obama transform America. They are getting their wish in spades.
-------------------------
Tilting at Windmill Jobs
[The 'stimulus' promised a jobless peak of 8%; it's now 9.5%].
Wall Street Journal, 3 July 2009

About the best we can say about yesterday's June jobs report is that employment is usually a lagging economic indicator. At least we hope it is, because the loss of 467,000 jobs for the month is one more sign that the economy still hasn't hit bottom despite months of epic fiscal and monetary reflation.

The report is in many ways even uglier than the headline numbers. Average hours worked per week dropped to 33, the lowest level in at least 40 years. This means that millions of full-time workers are being downgraded to part-time, as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water. Because people are working less, wages have fallen by 0.3% this year. Factories are operating at only 65% capacity, while the overall jobless rate hit 9.5%. Throw in discouraged workers who want full-time work, and the labor underutilization rate climbed to 16.5%.

The news is even worse for young people, with nearly one in four teenagers unemployed. Congress has scheduled an increase in the minimum wage later this month, which will price even more of these unskilled youths out of a vital start on the career ladder. One useful policy response would be for Congress to rescind the wage hike to $7.25 an hour (from $6.55) that is scheduled for July 24. But the union economic model that now dominates Washington holds that wages only matter for those who already have jobs. The jobs that are never created don't count.

The goods producing sector -- Americans who make things -- shed 223,000 more jobs last month. Asked about these job losses by the Associated Press yesterday, President Obama said Congress should pass his cap-and-tax on carbon energy because "if we're weatherizing every building and home in America, if we are creating windmills and solar panels and biofuel facilities, that is a huge promising area not only for jobs here in the United States, but also for export growth." But even under the most optimistic scenario, not every hard-hat worker in America can make windmill blades and solar panels. With manufacturing on its back, enacting a new energy tax to drive more jobs offshore is crazy even on Keynesian grounds.

Of course, the economy can't keep falling forever, and most forecasters still see a recovery starting this year. The decline in manufacturing slowed last month and housing sales have picked up -- both positive leading indicators. The plunge in inventories means industrial production and durable goods orders are bound to increase. Consumers are also spending more again, albeit with more caution than if gasoline hadn't increased by $1 a gallon in recent months and if they felt more confident about their job security.

The real question is how strong and sustained any expansion will be. If the "stimulus" were working as advertised, it ought to be very strong. Washington has thrown trillions of dollars at this recession, including that famous $787 billion in more spending that was supposed to yield $1.50 in growth for every $1 spent. This followed the $168 billion or so stimulus that George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi promised in February 2008 would prevent a recession. The jobless rate that month was 4.8%.

Most of this government spending has gone to transfer payments -- Medicaid, jobless benefits and the like -- that do nothing for jobs or growth. The spending that might create jobs -- on roads, say -- is dribbling out with typical government efficiency. Meanwhile, the money for all of this has to come from somewhere, and Democrats are already saying it will require big (unstimulating) tax increases in 2011, and perhaps sooner.

The Administration argues that the recession would be worse without the stimulus, which is impossible to disprove. However, it's worth recalling that Mr. Obama's economists predicted late last year that the stimulus would keep the jobless rate from exceeding 8%. That was a percentage point and a half ago. It's far more likely that the economy would have been better off without the spending, and the higher taxes and debt financing that it implies.

As always, a sustained expansion and job creation must come from private investment and risk-taking. Yet as America's entrepreneurs look at Washington they see uncertainty and higher costs from a $1 trillion health-care bill; higher energy costs from the cap-and-tax bill that just passed the House (see below); new restraints on consumer lending in the financial reform bill; new tariffs and threats of trade protection; limits on compensation and banker baiting; and the possibility of easier unionization, among numerous other Congressional brainstorms.

None of this inspires "animal spirits." The best thing Mr. Obama could do to create jobs would be to declare he's dropping all of this and starting over.
---
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
----------------------

WSJ: The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic

With each day the evidence proliferates, that the Obama regime: 1) attempts to suppress in-house reports contrary to its ideology; 2) launches vicious ad hominem attacks against effective critics; 3) threatens with censure/penalties those who defy Obama's will (i.e. banks returning TARP money); 4) attempts to co-opt what little media scrutiny exists (i.e. intimidatory tactics deployed against Fox & Rush); 5) engages in a blistering public duel with senior officials from previous administrations who dare disagree with The One (i.e. with Cheney on Obama's ruinous, puerile foreign policies). The evidence that Obama is the most authoritarian President America has ever seen are stacking up. All of which makes this attack on a climate change skeptic just more of the same opacity, jackboot intolerance, and thuggish behavior this regime is becoming famous for.
----------------------
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic
[The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign].
by Kimberley A. Strassel



Wherever Jim Hansen is right now -- whatever speech the "censored" NASA scientist is giving -- perhaps he'll find time to mention the plight of Alan Carlin. Though don't count on it.

Mr. Hansen, as everyone in this solar system knows, is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting in 2004, he launched a campaign against the Bush administration, claiming it was censoring his global-warming thoughts and fiddling with the science. It was all a bit of a hoot, given Mr. Hansen was already a world-famous devotee of the theory of man-made global warming, a reputation earned with some 1,400 speeches he'd given, many while working for Mr. Bush. But it gave Democrats a fun talking point, one the Obama team later picked up.

Alan Carlin, 35-year Environmental Protection Agency veteran
So much so that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.

Write to kim@wsj.com
--------------------