The Economy's Still Doing Very Well

November 01, 2007
Despite the Gloom, More Bush Boom
By Lawrence Kudlow
If things are so bad, why are they so good?

With all the gloom coming out of Wall Street, the Democrats on the campaign trail and the mainstream media, a remarkable thing just happened: Real gross domestic product, the best summary report of the American economy, came in at a breathtaking 3.9 percent annual rate for the third quarter. In fact, following the 3.8 percent growth rate for the second quarter, the U.S. economy has posted its strongest quarterly growth in four years. The economy actually appears to be speeding up, following the relatively sluggish performance of the prior 18 months.


On top of this, the inflation rate is actually slowing down. The consumer spending deflator is reading 2.1 percent for the past year, compared to over 3 percent six quarters ago. The core inflation rate is down to 1.9 percent, below the Fed's 2 percent target.

Even employment is holding its own. According to Automatic Data Processing's private employment survey, which showed its strongest gain in four months, October looks like it will produce about 125,000 new jobs.

Meanwhile, rising exports of American goods and services are booming to such an extent that the deep housing recession is being cancelled out. And while many continue to predict a consumer collapse because of falling home prices and tighter credit, after-tax inflation-adjusted income is 4.1 percent ahead of last year, for a $344 billion gain, while the purchase cost of energy prices are flat. The little noticed factoid is that consumer energy use per unit of GDP has actually fallen by more than 50 percent in recent decades.

Again: If things are so bad, why are they so good?

The stock market roared after the Federal Reserve cut its target rate on Wednesday by 25 basis points to 4.5 percent. The rate cut was a small insurance policy, just in case the subprime credit crunch and the housing downturn take a larger toll on the economy.

But listening to the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday, you'd think it was 1929 all over again. The litany of scare-talk complaints includes China trade unfairness, globalization, immigration, income inequality, stagnant wages, a shrinking middle class, the sinking dollar and high oil prices.

Yes, there is home deflation on Main Street and loan deflation on Wall Street. It will continue. But what about the rest of the story? When you listen to the hedge-fund short-sellers and the liberal politicians as they attempt to discredit the Bush economic boom, you could almost fall for their bear-market seduction. But the seductress turns out to be an economic harlot -- not a beautiful woman.

The true message of the strong economy is that we're virtually guaranteed of a Goldilocks soft landing or better -- and certainly not a recession.

It's interesting that while the Bush tax cuts of 2003 continue to encourage investment and entrepreneurship, expanding national income and higher tax collections have brought the big bad budget deficit down to $160 billion, or roughly 1 percent of GDP. Using something called the primary deficit -- which extracts net interest on the debt and can be used to measure fiscal stimulus on the economy -- we actually have a 70 billion surplus.

These are all reasons why it would be foolhardy to embrace large-scale tax-hikes to allegedly fight the budget gap.

House tax chief Charlie Rangel's great idea to reduce the corporate income tax is the first pro-growth tax-cut measure from a Democrat in many years, and hopefully his effort will spur a discussion of full-scale tax reform by the Republican and Democratic candidates. But looking to the rest of Rangel's plan, there are ways to eliminate the alternative minimum tax that do not require big tax hikes on the most successful earners and investors.

For example, the Bush administration's tax-reform panel, chaired by former Sens. Connie Mack and John Breaux, proposed a growth-and-investment plan with only three income-tax brackets of 15, 25 and 30 percent. They would repeal the AMT and reduce the corporate tax to 30 percent. Capital gains and dividends would remain at 15 percent.

Or there's the new plan from Wisconsin House member Paul Ryan, which would move to a 10 percent and 25 percent tax system while also eliminating the dreaded AMT.

In other words, there are a lot of ways to gently nudge tax rates lower while broadening the tax base that would keep the Bush boom going well into the future.

The print and broadcast media do not give President Bush much credit for his economic policies. But somehow I have to wonder whether low unemployment, strong growth, negligible inflation and record stock markets do not deserve just a bit of praise.

It is still the greatest story never told.

What Liberal Media?

Sphere: Related Content

Just How Insane Are The Folks Who Post on Kos?

We've always known that the Kos-bloggers and other loony leftists out there are not entirely stable when it comes to political discourse. Nor are they as bright or as up on current events as those of us who consider ourselves true political junkies.

Kos is kind of like a game of pick-up football being played by a bunch of guys with anger management issues, who have no concept as to what the rules of the game are. Also the players are all blind and have no arms.

Here's a posting from Kos in which some of the astute minds of the left talk about the toll that the Bush presidency has taken on their personal lives.

So very sad.

angrybird: Have the Bush years taken a toll on your relationships?

I wrote a diary a short time ago about how the Bush administration helped ruin my marriage. It wasn't because my husband was a Bush supporter or anything...it was because of all the stresses from job loses, living without health insurance and getting sick, to my husband being forced to take a job where he wasn't home much that helped ruin my marriage.

However...I started thinking about other relationships that have indeed been killed because those people where Bush supporters.

...Please share your stories about how the bush administration has taken it's toll on your relationships; they can be stories from economy related to the personal. I promise you will feel better if you share :-)"



begone: Hmmm, my relationship with myself, mostly.

Before my head began exploding a few years ago in response
to Busharama, I'd exercise a lot... I mean, almost daily, joyous-type
exericising. Now I come home with a slight frown on my face and
come here to hear the news & be a mojo-mama even if too
tired to comment, and hang for hours here and on other blogs,
as if the light will shine again and I'll be present to hear the
BREAKING news about that.

Bush, I blame you for my new-ish extra 20 pounds....



delphine: I haven't had a relationship since he took office.

But I can say that I've been trashed by potential online dating partners for stating I couldn't date anyone who thinks bush is a good presznit....



cowgirl: I have two co-irkers who are die hard Bushies. I've known them for years. Although we weren't all that close, I've spent time with them outside of work, spent many breaks and lunches together, and generally liked them a whole lot.

Eventually, their support for Bush got to the point where talking with them simply infuriated me. I'm still polite and cordial with them, but we don't hang out the way we used to. It's just hard to fathom their belief system. How can they not be angry at the war alone? That many deaths makes me sick to many stomach, and they support it? W.T.F.

I'm not a violent person, but the last few times I discussed politics with them, I had the strongest urge to thump them upside their pointy little heads...HARD.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I guess.



Boadicaea: Somehow my family AND relationships are almost all at odds with me. If they're not pro-Bush, they're disparaging about my uphill efforts to do something about him ("You really think a march/what you write/a sign/etc. will make a difference?"). One of my oldest friends called me a "kook." And they all get frothy over who deserves their tax money.

The hardest is my dad, but he's steering clear of politics lately and I just spent six weeks with him with only a few mishaps. He's a retired USAF pilot and looks at everything as bad guys/good guys, liberal media, etc. We're both old enough now for thoughful avoidance; if I feel like the top of my head is about to blow off, I go somewhere far away. He knows why, but accepts it. We talk a lot about family and faith, so conversation isn't superficial.

There was an incident--he called me in to view a video he'd received in his email. Before I knew what it was, I was watching a smart bomb blow up a group of Iraqis--"bad guys"--while my dad raved about our advances in weaponry. He absolutely had no awareness of my reaction to the video and to his enjoyment of it.

I was down the hall, thinking I would puke, when he hollered "Do you want to see it again?" I knew if I said anything but no we'd have a horrible and fruitless spat, so I just disappeared for a few hours....



meldroc: Bush has also damaged my mental health.

After I actually took the trouble to inform myself about politics a couple years ago, and learned the true extent of the damage Bush has done to this country, I have a constant boiling rage inside me. Absolutely constant. Never ceases, though sometimes I can get it down to a simmer so I can go out in public and hang out with friends without doing something stupid. On top of the anger is a generous dose of fear and anxiety, coming directly from the Bush administration's march to fascism.

Frequently, I'm so intensely angry that I hit things. I just broke my bookshelf today because I hit it. My knuckles have decent callouses on them from hitting things, and various pieces of my property show signs of my rage. Thankfully, I've never turned violent against people since I was in high school, though I was sorely tempted to deviate the septum of a wingnut who called me a traitor and faggot to my face at the anti-war march last Saturday.

Of course, it's unhealthy to harbor this much anger, especially if I'm stuffing it down all the time so people around me don't see me acting borderline psychotic. These emotions leak out, turn into other emotions, like depression, which I've fought with since college. I've also developed a venomous hatred of Bush and his cronies and the 23-percenters that support him. Hatred's never a good emotion to hold, but there it is. I literally hate those motherf*ckers who are destroying our country.

By all rights, I should be getting help, but I'm not going to. I was soured on the psychiatry business by my experience with anti-depressants - I ended up nearly emotionless, apathetic, and lost my motivation and creative drive, and as a result, I was unemployed for three years and had to move back in with my parents. I was your classic anti-depressant zombie. They didn't like the changes to my personality either, and stopped paying for the meds. After I tapered off the anti-depressants, I got my drive back, I was able to find work as a software engineer again, move into my own apartment, and now I'm supporting myself again. On top of that, if I told a counselor about my feelings, or that I'm so afraid of my government that I literally spent several hundred dollars on a shotgun, a deadly weapon, to defend myself against my government, I'm afraid I could get thrown into the psych ward. And I value my freedom enough that I will not allow that to happen under any circumstances. So, no shrinks.

I haven't talked to my best friend and ex-roommate in weeks because of a few personal issues between us, including politics - he's Republican, and though he's no fan of Bush, he constantly mocks and belittles my politics when I talk to him. So I don't."


Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's a disease that effects one in four Americans. If you know someone who suffers from BDS, consult your psychiatrist and ask him about Lierbertrol. The drug that turns left-wing lunatics into mainstream Democrats.

Thanks to Right Wing News for bringing this to our attention.

Sphere: Related Content

Crooks and Fires

Hey Look! A natural disaster! Let's blame the president!

"...the ability of the state's National Guard has been compromised because too much of their equipment and personnel is in Iraq." Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

"How about sending our National Guard back from Iraq, so that we have those people available here to help us?" - CA. Lt. Gov. John Garamendi

Your BS detector should be going crazy right now.

While roughly 2,000 National Guard troops from CA are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 17,000 troops remain in the state to help with the fires if they are needed.

Just one more example of the Democrats attempting to politicize anything and everything. When will they have to deal with the blow back? Sadly in a state like CA, this type of repulsive and misleading rhetoric is generally rewarded by the voters and ignored by even those with integrity within the Democratic machine.

Sphere: Related Content

Socks The Prop

Socks the cat, whom helped Hillary Clinton revive her frigid image in the early Clinton years, was given away by the Senator and Democratic frontrunner after he was no longer needed for political purposes.

In the Clinton worldview, the family pet is not a beloved addition to the household, but is rather a tool to be used to advance the political ambitions of the clan.

Yet another relationship which appears to exsist for the sole purpose of gaining power. There's something a bit scary about that.

Sphere: Related Content

The Clinton Co-Opt. Version 2.0

Bill and Hillary Clinton are the ultimate political opportunists.

While the Bush and Reagan presidencies were essentially guided by ideology and core beliefs, the Clintons have shown that their political philosophy is far more flexible and can be bent and molded in order to maintain popularity and win elections. Whether or not you think this willingness to abandon principle for power is a good quality for “the leader of the free world” to have, is an argument for another time. However, if Hillary is elected president we will see political opportunism as we have never seen it before. While George W. Bush refused to sink to such a level in his administration’s infancy, we shouldn’t expect similar courtesy from Hillary towards her predecessor.

When George W. Bush first came to power, the economy had been well on its way into recession for several months. While it technically fell into recession within the first month of the Bush presidency, no serious economic analyst blamed Bush for the downturn. He had not passed a budget, nor had any of the president’s economic policies taken effect. It was essentially a recession that the president inherited from the Clinton years.

President Bush could have tried to make political hay out of the economy early on and blamed his predecessor for the slow rate of growth and in turn built support for his pro-growth tax policies. He did not. His supporters know that this president has never been the type of mudslinger that the Clintons were. It’s simply not in his nature. Hillary will not be as kind.

Despite Robert Reich and Paul Krugman’s insistence that a recession is right around the corner (a claim that they have been making since 2003) the economy remains strong and stable. However, recessions cannot be avoided forever. Even if a recession occurs a year or two into a Clinton presidency, Hillary will not hesitate to heap the blame on President Bush, especially if it advances her political goal of raising taxes. That kind of political move was beneath Bush, but Clinton will jump at the chance.

In addition to this, at the rate that federal revenues are pouring into the government's coffers, the budget will likely come into balance by 2009 or 2010. While the deficit has been dropping dramatically throughout the Bush presidency, due in large part to expedited growth because of the tax cuts, Hillary will find a way to take credit for yet another “Clinton Surplus.” She will most likely attempt to connect the inevitable balanced budget to a tax increase or allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. The truth of course is that, a third Bush term would result in a balanced budget as well, but the mainstream media should be more than willing to adopt the Clinton narrative on the coming Bush surplus.

The Iraq war will likely provide another opportunity for Hillary to accumulate some undeserved political capital. Although you wouldn’t know it from reading The New York Times, the situation in Iraq is improving rapidly.

Civilian and Iraqi military deaths are down nearly 75% since late August. Al Qaeda has been decimated, and the Iraqi people are finally starting to realize that America is in Iraq to help, not to colonize.

Despite the long, bloody march towards success in Iraq and the mistakes which have defined the campaign up until the surge strategy was implemented, will Hillary Clinton give credit to President Bush for the miracle of eventually creating not one, but two democracies in a region that has never seen one before? Not to mention overthrowing two brutal and tyrannical regimes? Of Course Not!

As long as there are still troops in Iraq, Hillary will attempt to take credit for success in the region, even if her policy is only a continuation of Bush’s policies. As soon as the last troop is pulled from Iraq, Hillary and the Democrats will claim that they achieved what the Republicans never could.

While President Bush is likely to oversee a size able American exodus from the nation towards the end of 2008, Hillary will still be more than willing to take credit for the incredible accomplishment which up until this point, Democrats have insisted was impossible.

Bill Clinton's administration took credit for a multitude of accomplishments which he had very little to do with.

He signed a Republican welfare reform bill after vetoing it twice and today takes credit for the bill's incredible results.

He took credit for an economic recovery that was already taking place when he took office. The reality is that Clinton postponed real economic growth by raising taxes when he came to power.

The Clintons fondly reminisce about peaceful days. That borrowed time was cashed in on September 11, 2001, by Al-Qaeda, which had been ignored during the Clinton years despite numerous attacks on American interests around the world.

The Clintons are masterful politicians and will do anything to gain power, keep it and build a legacy around the narrative which they build for themselves, often at the expense of others.

They will not hesitate to do so again and their allies in Congress and the media will aid and abet them in this endeavor. It will be up to historians to sift through the rhetoric and find the real story behind America's economic prosperity and success against terrorism in the 21st century.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Beneath Reproach

"Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

- Democratic Rep. Peter Stark

Sphere: Related Content

The Wizard Of Eid

"The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger." - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Sphere: Related Content

Increase in casualties = News, Decrease in Casualties = Not News

Sphere: Related Content

Polls and The Media

The best of times, the worst of times?
America’s public gloom contradicts people’s enduring, if private, confidence

By Michael Medved


It's no wonder that Americans feel so deeply disconnected from their elected leaders when their contradictory opinions show them similarly out of touch with themselves.

Public approval of Congress has plummeted to an historic low (18%, with a staggering 76% disapproval, according to a recent Gallup Poll) while an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey reports that more than two-thirds of us (68%) believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, when asked about our own lives, Americans express overwhelming contentment and dazzling confidence. In a mid-August Harris Poll that asked respondents to evaluate their satisfaction levels "with the life you lead," an amazing 94% declared themselves satisfied (with a clear majority — 56% — choosing the highest rating of "very satisfied"). Meanwhile, 62% expected their "personal situation" to get even better in the next five years, as opposed to a paltry 7% who anticipated that their circumstances would get worse.

(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)


On the surface, these responses look almost laughably inconsistent. Some 68% of us believe the nation is "off on the wrong track," but by a ratio of nearly 9-to-1 we're confident that our lives will improve, rather than deteriorate, in the next five years. Only 17% say our personal status "got worse" in the past five years (while 54% reported improvement), but by crushing margins of more than 4-to-1, we tell pollsters we disapprove of the job our leaders are doing.

In other words, Americans seem to embrace the odd conviction that each of us dwells upon some sun-kissed, optimistic island of happiness and advancement, while the rest of the country marches dramatically toward catastrophe and collapse.

The media influence

The most important explanation for this bizarre contradiction involves the impact of mass media in a nation where the average individual devotes close to 30 hours per week to his TV set. Instead of working in the news business, most broadcast journalists actually toil in the "bad news business," with natural disasters, bloody accidents, crime, terrorism, battlefield casualties, political conflict and economic threats dominating every day's televised reports. Reassuring news items can hardly rival terrifying dispatches when it comes to riveting the attention of a restless public, powerfully armed with a hair-trigger remote control. Most entertainment, very much including televised comedies, similarly emphasizes conflict, danger, degeneracy and embarrassment — The Sopranos can capture our attention far more readily than the Cleavers. Weekly series about wholesome, ordinary families making steady economic progress stand little chance of grabbing ratings or publicity in a ferociously competitive pop culture marketplace.

Politicians make an additional contribution to the prevailing gloom about the status and direction of the nation at large. It almost always makes sense for candidates and public officials to exaggerate problems and magnify threats. If they're challengers, they cite the miserable state of affairs in order to discredit incumbents, and if they're current office-holders, they emphasize the bad news in order to justify sweeping, ambitious and expensive new programs.

In the face of the grim conclusions conveyed by complaints of politicos and the inevitable alarms of broadcast media, Americans struggle to come to terms with the contrasting evidence of their own eyes and lives.

An ordinary American might worry about frightening talk of Iranian threats or trade imbalances, but that can't shake his pride in becoming a homeowner for the first time, or watching a child become the first one in family history to get a college education.

Economists and statisticians might argue back and forth about trends and living standards, but some new statistics from the IRS seem incontrovertible. In the most recent five years, the number of those earning less than an inflation-adjusted $25,000 a year shrank by 5.5% — representing 3.2 million fewer individuals who were trapped in those poverty level incomes. Meanwhile, the number of taxpayers making more than $100,000 per year grew by nearly 3.4 million and accounted for more than two-thirds of the total growth in the number of returns filed.

Anyone who questions the widespread conclusion that our personal circumstances have improved need only look to the urban area in which you live. Every major city — very much including previously forlorn "rust belt" metropolises such as Detroit and Cleveland — boasts new parks, condo developments, cultural facilities, highways and transit, and commercial districts. Nearly every downtown in the country has notably improved — and it's even tough to single out neighborhoods that have moved in the wrong direction. In recent years, gentrification has become a bigger, more hotly debated problem than the expansion of slums.

It's not surprising that Americans tell pollsters that they feel pleased with their improved circumstances in the past five years and see further enhancements ahead, regardless of the fulminations and failures of our political class.

Comfort closer to home

American satisfaction with the near-at-hand and cynicism about distant reality turned up clearly in the NBC News/Journal poll with contrasting attitudes toward local and national institutions. For instance, 54% expressed "high confidence" in "small business," but only 11% felt similarly positive toward "large corporations." Some 34% deemed "local government" worthy of "high confidence," as opposed to only 16% who felt the same way about the federal government — and 18% who trusted and respected "national news media."

In other words, Americans feel better about institutions and realities the closer they come to their own cities, their own neighborhoods, their own homes. They like and value their personal status, but fret or shrug over the state of the nation. In this context, nothing could improve the national mood more substantially than a new effort by influential figures in media and politics to apply some of our privately grateful, self-reliant and optimistic attitudes to public discussions of the society at large.

Nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Medved is the author of Right Turns. He is also a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Sphere: Related Content

The Case Of The Missing Media

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths

Period Total
Oct-07 127
Sep-07 842
Aug-07 1,674
Jul-07 1,690
Jun-07 1,345 - Surge Strategy Implemented
May-07 1,980
Apr-07 1,821
Mar-07 2,977
Feb-07 3,014
Jan-07 1,802
Dec-06 1,752
Nov-06 1,864
Oct-06 1,539
Sep-06 3,539
Aug-06 2,966
Jul-06 1,280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1,119
Apr-06 1,009
Mar-06 1,092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779

Alright Mainstream Media! Let's get working on those stories about the sucess of the surge! Hello? Is this thing on?

Information taken from icasualties.com

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Done

33-points behind eventual Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is looking to the far-left, anti-America crowd for support, in order to remain competitive.

Essentially, Obama is saying that he's ashamed to wear the American flag on his lapel.

Check it:

Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin

Oct 4 03:39 PM US/Eastern
By MIKE GLOVER
Associated Press Writer

WATERLOO, Iowa (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Asked about it Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens.

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."


So if by some miracle Obama were to win the White House next year, would he remove the American Flag from The White House? Perhaps as an apology to our European "friends" for our "arrogant" behavior in taking on a tyrannical dictator who had constantly ignored the will of the world and was believed to be stockpiling weapons of mass Destruction?

Seriously Barack. If you're ashamed to wear the symbol of America proudly, how can you be trusted to stand up to anti-American sentiment around the world?
The first time you meet Hugo Chavez are you going beg his forgiveness? "Your right Hugo. You've been right about everything. We're sorry. Please come to White House and tell us how much better things are in your dirt-poor, dictatorship than they are here."

But this is what the Move.On crowd loves to see. Candidates who do not believe that America is a force for good in the world, with noble intentions and a beacon of freedom. But who instead imply that American values are being pushed on the world because of our own hubris, that our society is unfair and unjust in almost every way and that we should be ashamed of who we are and what we do.

The John Edwards campaign is over, with his wife getting more media attention these days than the candidate himself.

The far-left activists who despise Hillary for her early support of the Iraq war and her refusal to commit to surrender in the region if she becomes President, are going to have to get behind someone. Knowing that he will not be the choice of mainstream Democrats in the primaries, by removing the symbol of America from his lapel, Obama has sent a signal to the far-left that he is their protest vote.

Politically it may not be such a bad move. Hillary will want to unite the party, after the primaries and by picking Obama as her running-mate she will get the radical elements of the far-left behind her and not risk losing them to a third-party, thus handing the race to the GOP.

But for Obama it's just political. That's what makes this latest move so disturbing.

Sphere: Related Content

Yet Another Thing Reagan Got Right........

'Star Wars' Indeed
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Security: Perhaps you haven't heard, since the media would rather ignore the success of what they've derided since Ronald Reagan floated the idea 24 years ago, but America now has a working missile defense system.


The news was not entirely ignored. The New York Times/International Herald Tribune covered it. But it has gone largely unreported elsewhere.

When a senior military officer says that a key defense system is operative, newspapers should splash that on their front pages and television and radio should begin their broadcasts with the news.

It's as if the media don't believe the U.S. is worth protecting.

But some Americans do, and last week they held another successful test. On Friday, the kill vehicle from an interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California hit a target dummy warhead launched in Alaska that had been tracked by radar at Beale Air Force Base, outside of Sacramento, Calif., as well as sea-based X-band radar and an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ship. Multiple tracking is an important factor in neutralizing decoys.

The outcome was enough for Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command U.S. Northern Command, to declare that the system is ready to be used at any time. With interceptor bases in Vandenberg or Ft. Greely, Alaska, the U.S. has formed a virtual shield that can protect the country from a limited missile attack launched from Asia.

"I'm fully confident that we have all of the pieces in place that, if the nation needed to, we could respond," the Air Force general said.

The media's weak coverage of this milestone should have been expected. They have long been an ally of the politically driven missile defense opponents who said the system was the foolish dream of a doddering old man. It will never work, they piously claimed. Can't hit a bullet with a bullet.

Yet the bullet has hit another bullet — six times out of the past nine tests since 2001. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, has noted the system has not had a major problem in more than two years.

"I think this goes a long way to answering" the skeptics' questions, Oberling said.

The system is, of course, limited. But its development will advance — unless it's derailed by senseless politics — as all technologies advance. Already it is able to sift through other objects in the sky, select its intended target and then destroy it.

The system's next test is scheduled for some time in the first half of 2008. From that test, its ability to deal with airborne decoys will be assessed. Further tests, and the inevitable improvements, such as multiple kill vehicles deployed from a single interceptor, will continue as long as there is a will to complete the job.

While the political left here and abroad continues to be skeptical, sober leaders in Japan, Poland and the Czech Republic have expressed interest in a system that Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy once derided as "Star Wars." At the same time, Russia has threatened to aim missiles at Europe if parts of the missile defense system are deployed on European soil.

Why so much fuss, we wonder, over a fanciful dream that can never be achieved?

Sphere: Related Content

Who Is Doctor Boyce Watkins?

"Who will win the battle between 50-Cent and Kanye?"

That's the question of the week on Dr. Boyce Watkin's Web-Site:

Your Black World

Important life altering questions like this, apparently qualify you to be a CNN analyst on the topic of race in America.

Dr. Watkins, a professor at Syracuse, attacked liberal (yes children, there are liberals on FOX)FNC commentator Juan Williams last week, for defending O'reilly when he was smeared by CNN.

It wasn't just an attack for defending someone whose political views Watkins disagreed with. Watkins called Williams a "Happy Negro."

For those of you who don't know, that's the same thing as calling a black person an "Uncle Tom" or a "House N*****." But for some reason Williams is the bad guy? CNN had Watkins on again once he called Williams a "Happy Negro" the first time.

Who's booking the guests over there at CNN? Danny Glover?

To give you even more of an idea of the level of rhetoric which Watkins deals in, I found this gem on his website as well:

"I was on the second show with a black conservative that runs some organization of black Republicans. Perhaps we shall call them the House of Coons."

Classy, huh?

The debate on race in America has changed dramatically over the last year. It started with the Duke lacrosse fiasco and has continued on until last week, when most American's ignored the Jena 6 story.

It has become evident that most American's no longer see the race issue as an "either you're with us, or you're against us" situation.

Dr. Watkins still thinks that blacks need to stand together regardless of whether their cause is just or not. Common sense African Americans however, are beggining to think for themselves and know that the N-Word needs to go and that Blacks should no longer be ostricized simply because they don't share the politcal beliefs of 90% of the black community or because they associate with conservatives.

Dr Watkins should apologize to Juan Williams for his incredibly offensive remarks.

Sphere: Related Content

Can CNN Sink Any Lower?

As if CNN hasn't shamed itself enough already in this whole O'Reilly/Media Matters mess, today they allowed another race-baiter to go on the air twice and refer to Juan Wiliams, who was on the air with O'Reilly when the conversation in question took place, as a "Happy Negro."

The cowardly CNN anchors didn't even challenge his remarks.

Nice. This guys name is Boyce Watkins, so make sure not to take him seriously the next time he pops up on the air.

Also check out "Media Research Center" in the "Links" section of this blog, for more on how this story is playing out.

Sphere: Related Content

No Gays In Iran Huh?

Sphere: Related Content

CNN SMEARS O'REILLY

You know, this whole liberal media bias thing, that conservatives like myself talk about all of the time, isn't just something we crazy Republicans made up one day because we were bored.

There are oodles of examples and the Internet has made it so much easier to point them out to all of the sceptics.

Now, I know that getting pummeled in the ratings night after night by someone whose political views they detest, must really suck for the folks over at CNN, but that's no excuse for the stunt that the network pulled on Monday.

CNN race corespondent Roland Martin took a few lines from O'Reilly's morning radio broadcast in which he was talking about his experiences at a restaurant in Harlem and proceeded to take them out of context in order to make them sound as if O'Reilly had said something racist. You can view the video here:

CNN Story

It turns out that CNN had gotten the quotes from the left-wing website, Media Matters, whose whole reason for being is to nit-pick every statement made by right- wing talk radio hosts and FNC commentators and then twist it so that it sounds like they're lying.


Now, I listened to the entire Radio Factor broadcast that morning. When listened to in its entirety there is nothing that could be construed as even remotely racist in what O'Reilly said. In fact its just the opposite. Don't believe me? Think I'm just some crazy right-winger trying to defend racists? Well then check it out. You can listen to the entire hour of the show here:

Monday's "Radio Factor." Hour Two.

This incident, in concurrence with the discount which The New York Times gave to Move.On for they're "General Betray Us" ad paints a picture of a mainstream media that is not only liberal, but also corrupt to the core.

They are so desperate to compete with FNC that they have become mouth pieces for vicious left-wing sites. The only practical purpose such sites serve is to be used as an outlet for individuals who hate the Bush administration and conservatives in general. Any self-respecting journalist could tell you that they should never, ever be used as a news source.

This whole incident is disgusting, but fortunately, O'Reilly is no shrinking violet. If there is any justice, this whole thing should be a lesson for CNN, just as the Move.On ad was a complete embarrassment for The Times and pretty much destroyed any credibility Move.On had to begin with.

As for Roland Martin, he's the new poster boy for irresponsible journalism, since Dan Rather needs to now be ridiculed for his insane lawsuit instead of for his bogus story.

They should give me his job.

Sphere: Related Content

Jena 6 Don't Deserve The Attention They're Getting

Everytime Jesse and Al take to the streets I tune out, and the Jena 6 situation presents a perfect opportunity to do so once again. The idea that 17-year old Mychal Bell, who undeniably added assault and battery to his already impressive wrap sheet, deserves anything better than prison is laughable.

Yet here's the black community and their enablers in the media and in congress turning these kids into heroes. Heather Mac Donald has an interesting take on the issues surrounding this farce.

Heather Mac Donald
The Jena Dodge
Demonstrators and the media avoid the stubborn truths of black social breakdown.
24 September 2007
Let’s assume the worst about Jena, Louisiana, and the charges of attempted murder brought against five black youths for beating a white student unconscious last December: that the district attorney’s indictments were motivated by rank racism, and that the racial tensions in this town of 3,000 are exclusively the product of white animus against blacks. Does it follow that this latest object of frenzy on the media’s racism beat is emblematic of America’s judicial system or the state of race relations today?

That is certainly what the ever-expanding army of racial victimologists and their media enablers would have you believe. Since the Jena story became international news last week, the media, the advocates, and pandering politicians have erupted in an outpouring of seeming joy at the alleged proof—after so much diligent trolling for evidence—that America remains a racist country. Senator Hillary Clinton told the NAACP: “This case reminds us that the scales of justice are seriously out of balance when it comes to charging, sentencing, and punishing African Americans.” Senator Christopher Dodd declared that Jena reveals that “de facto segregation”—in the spirit of Jim Crow—“is still very real” in many parts of America. Britain’s Observer announced that Jena shows “how lightly sleep the demons of racial prejudice in America’s deep south.” The New York Times has designated Jena “a high profile arena in the debate on racial bias in the judicial system”—a debate that perhaps not everyone was aware that we were having. J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: “I think a lot of people recognize that the criminal justice system grinds down people of color every day. Oftentimes, it’s nameless, it’s faceless. . . . People see Jena as the tip of the iceberg and ask: What lies beneath?” Needless to say, the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have vowed with Biblical thunder to avenge the Jena innocents and force America to own up to its mistreatment of blacks.

Unquestionably, the attempted murder charges (which were later dropped for four of the defendants, while a sixth assailant was booked as a juvenile) merit scrutiny. If the indictment in fact resulted from discrimination, then the prosecutor would deserve the strongest punishment—debarment at the very least and harsh federal penalties for civil rights violations. And the incident that seems to have led to the group assault on the white student—three students’ hanging of nooses from a school tree where white teens congregated—was a despicable provocation. If adults in Jena condoned such incendiary behavior, then these grown-up enablers truly are throwbacks to a vicious American past, and all citizens should revile them. There is evidence, however, that such adolescent cruelty is not official policy. The school principal told a black student who had inquired about the segregated tree that he could sit there or anywhere else he pleased.

But even if the worst possible interpretation of these events is merited, the massive international attention to this tiny town would seem vastly disproportionate to the cause, unless Jena stands for a more widespread problem. The idea behind the protests and the politicians’ exploitation of them is that just as these five youths were overcharged, the hundreds of thousands of blacks in prison are also the victims of systemic abuse. But for institutional racism, the black prison population would be much smaller.

This is an old complaint, for which no proof has ever been offered, Hillary Clinton’s irresponsible statement notwithstanding. The usual evidence in support of the charge that the criminal laws discriminate against blacks is the far stiffer sentences for selling and possessing crack cocaine compared with powdered cocaine. But that colorblind sentencing regimen, which dates from 1986, was a heartfelt effort to protect the overwhelmingly black victims of crack, not to penalize them. Black liberals such as Congressman Charles Rangel were loudest in sounding the alarm about the effects of crack in the black ghetto. Not even the most deluded racial apologists have ever explicitly suggested that racial bias motivated Congress’s efforts to combat a drug that results in much higher rates of violence among dealers and users, quicker and more onerous addiction, and more emergency room visits than its powdered cousin.

The reason that the black incarceration rate is the highest in the country is that blacks have the highest crime rate—by a long shot. Don’t trust the police, prosecutors, or judges to give a fair picture of black crime? Then go where the bodies are. Los Angeles is representative. In the first seven months of 2007, blacks in Los Angeles were murdered at a rate ten times that of whites and Asians. Who’s killing them? It’s not whites and Asians. While a minor proportion of the assailants of blacks are Hispanic, the vast majority are black themselves. Nationally, blacks commit murder at about eight times the frequency of whites. In New York, any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to have been committed by a black person than by a white person, according to the reports of victims and witnesses. Though they are only 24 percent of the city’s population, blacks committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in New York last year. Whites, who make up 34.5 percent of New Yorkers, committed only 5.3 percent of violent crimes. These ratios are similar across the country. In Los Angeles, blacks committed 41 percent of all robberies in 2001, according to victims’ descriptions, though they constitute only 11 percent of the city’s population. Robbery victims identified whites, who make up 30 percent of the Los Angeles population, just 4 percent of the time.

When attacking the justice system, racial agitators work mightily to change the subject from violence to drugs, using their flimsy argument that crack cocaine penalties are too high. But the vast preponderance of prisoners are in the pen for violence and property crime. In 2003, 52 percent of inmates in state prisons were serving time for violent offenses, 21 percent for property offenses, and only 20 percent for drug offenses. To be sure, black incarceration rates are off the charts. Black men were 41 percent of the more than 2 million men in federal, state, and local prisons at midyear 2006. At the end of 2005, there were 3,145 prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared with 1,244 inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 471 inmates per 100,000 white males. Is that because violent and property crime is overpenalized, as race advocates sometimes argue? No. Despite the advocates’ constant complaints about three-strikes laws, the criminal justice system actually underpenalizes crime because of inadequate prison space. Prosecutors cut deals to lessen sentences; sheriffs overseeing local jails regularly devise new schemes for dumping offenders back on the street to make room for the next batch. And in any case, even if penalties for particular offenses were too draconian, the punishments affect all offenders the same.

No one in the Jena stampede dares whisper a word about black crime, because it undercuts the portrait of a victimized race. You can listen to every protest across the country glorifying the “Jena Six” and you will never hear an acknowledgement of the massive social breakdown that is the black crime rate: no mention of the violence in inner-city schools that black students commit overwhelmingly; no mention of the rising homicides in midsize cities that young black males commit when they feel “disrespected.” It is not racism that is putting black men in jail; it’s their own behavior.

What about the broader significance of Jena? Again, assuming for the sake of argument that this minuscule Louisiana town seethes with the crudest bigotry, held uniquely by whites against integration-seeking blacks, is Jena’s supposed state of affairs a microcosm of America? To the contrary: there is not a single elite institution in the country that is not twisting itself into knots in favor of African-Americans. Every minimally selective college is desperately seeking to enroll more black students. Boosting black enrollment requires drastically lowering a college’s admissions criteria to overcome the intractable 200-point SAT gap between black and white high school students, but every college institutes such double standards for the sake of “diversity.” Any black student who graduates from high school with decent grades and respectable SATs will leapfrog over thousands of more qualified white and Asian students right into the Ivy League. Blacks are also the hottest commodity for exclusive private schools that serve as training grounds for the Ivies. Andover, Exeter, Choate, and every other fancy prep and day school practice the same double standards in their eagerness to admit African-American students. After college, law schools, business schools, medical schools, engineering schools, and others accept black students whose test scores would disqualify them if they were white or Asian.

The preferences continue into the professions. Wall Street law firms annually flagellate themselves over their lack of proportional representation of black associates and partners, even though the number of blacks who graduate from law school with grades and bar-exam scores comparable with the firms’ white hires is negligible. The lack of comparably qualified black candidates does not stop the law partnerships from hiring black associates, though. Corporations have saddled themselves with massive “diversity” bureaucracies whose only function is to justify hiring and promoting less qualified African-Americans and Hispanics. Newspapers, TV stations, and advertisers put enormous pressure on themselves to have blacks on their staffs and to show black faces to the world.

In short, the opportunities for blacks to roar ahead in the economy if they stay out of trouble, study, and apply themselves are legion, but the numbers taking advantage of these opportunities are not. California’s state superintendent of public instruction broke a longstanding taboo this August by pointing out that middle-class black students in the state score worse on math and English than poor white and Asian students—a disparity that applies across the country. The usual poverty excuse for black underachievement does not hold up.

The Jena protesters will go home in denial of these truths. In fact, the purpose of such mass celebrations—and that is indeed what they are—is to make sure that attention stays far away from the actual problems holding blacks back. Astronomical rates of black criminality are not the only topic that the Jena rallies have obscured. No one wallowing in Jena promotion has had the courage to speak about an even more important crisis, the breakdown of marriage. The nearly 70 percent national illegitimacy rate for blacks—a number that can approach 90 percent in inner cities—is a cataclysm. Its consequences go far beyond the harm to individual black children—especially boys—who grow up without fathers. The real poison of the marriage crisis is the message it sends to young men about personal responsibility. The first duty in civil society is toward one’s own children; everything else is built around it. But when boys are raised without any expectations that they will have to support their children and marry the mother of those children, they fail to learn the most basic lesson about responsibility. They also are freed from the civilizing force of the marriage requirement, which pressures young men to become attractive mates. With enough support, individuals can overcome the moral perils of the illegitimacy culture, but given the prevalence of black crime and disaffiliation from the working world, it’s clear that not enough young men are finding ways to do so.

The race industry will try to keep Jena in the media and political spotlight for as long as possible, and to reinforce the notion that this episode exemplifies blacks’ situation in America. But if there were many other instances of (arguable) overcharging for black crime, we would have heard about them by now. The orgy of Jena coverage will not just fail to improve the lagging performance of blacks; it will impede such improvement by strengthening the victim mentality. Both whites and blacks are complicit in this sabotage. These ecstatic festivals of racism-bashing are a crippling ritual in the codependency between absolution-seeking whites and angry blacks, a phenomenon that Shelby Steele has powerfully analyzed. The demonstrators exhibit a palpable desire for the moral clarity of the civil rights era, as do the reporters, who have covered their every utterance. “This is the first time something like this has happened for our generation,” one student told the New York Times. “You always heard about it from history books and relatives. This is a chance to experience it for ourselves.”

He’s right; there has been nothing like Selma or Montgomery for the current generation, because much of America has accomplished almost an about-face on race since the 1950s. The current martyrs to American bigotry are a far cry from Rosa Parks. Like the “Jena Six,” they tend to have committed acts of violence or other crimes for which they are allegedly being excessively punished. Think of the six high school hooligans from Decatur, Illinois, whom Jesse Jackson tried to beatify in 1999 when their schools expelled them for a violent stadium fight; their backgrounds included robbery, trespassing, truancy, and failing whole school years. We are only belatedly learning that Mychal Bell, the sole member of the “Jena Six” to have been prosecuted for knocking out and kicking Justin Barker, has a previous arrest record that includes battery and property damage. Barker’s injuries led to $14,000 in medical bills, according to a lawyer.

The Jena situation is undoubtedly a bit more complex than the tale that the press has woven of hate-filled whites and peace-loving blacks. But even if it were not, the catharsis that this morality play has offered to its participants is spurious. The real tragedy is the dysfunctional culture that holds back too many blacks from seizing the many opportunities open to them.
3

Stop Bitching! Start Snitching!

Sphere: Related Content

Is Bollinger Guilty Of Treason?

It is a word that's thrown around far too often these days by political alarmists, to the point where it has almost lost its meaning.

While it is important to keep the word "treason" in context in order to avoid a French Revolution style situation, when an instance of an American citizen or worse, an entire institution, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, comes up, it is essential that Americans recognize it for what it is.

By inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University Lee Bollinger is giving him a propaganda platform to say whatever negative thing he wants to say about America.

It is aid. It is comfort. It is harmful to our troops in the field and it is most certainly, disgusting.

We are currently at war with Iran's forces which are at Ahmadinejad's command.
He is directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers as well as the murders of hundreds of Iraqi citizens.

It's no different than if some college had invited Mussolini over at the height of WWII. Would we have stood for that? Of course not, he would have been arrested immediately.

Will the students of Columbia boo Ahmadinejad out of the building as they did Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist? I hope so, but I doubt it.

Will Americans finally begin to realize that not everyone should be given a pass when they repeat or facilitate dangerous words or behavior?

Will they realize that just because someone hides behind freedom of speech, that it does not make them a patriot nor does it make their words and actions patriotic?

Is Bollinger guilty of treason? I don't think so. But he's damn close.

Sphere: Related Content

The Move.On 25

Remember the names.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Sphere: Related Content

Would Columbia Invite Goebbels To Speak?/Kristol Clear #4

Columbia University:
Ahmadinejad Yes, ROTC No
Lee Bollinger's choice.
by William Kristol
09/20/2007 11:13:00 AM


TWO DAYS AGO, Columbia University announced that next Monday, September 24, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will speak and participate in a question and answer session with university faculty and students at Columbia. According to the university statement, "This opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran came about after Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations initiated contact with Columbia through a member of the faculty, Richard Bulliet, who is a specialist on Iran."

So at the request of the Iranian government, Columbia University will host the president of a terrorist regime which is right now responsible for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Indeed, this distinguished guest, who is so honoring Columbia by his presence, will be introduced by no one less than the president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger.

But not to worry: "President Bollinger will introduce the event by challenging President Ahmadinejad on a number of his controversial statements and his government's policies." Indeed, Bollinger manfully proclaimed in the university statement: "I also wanted to be sure the Iranians understood that I would myself introduce the event with a series of sharp challenges to the President on issues including:

* the Iranian President's denial of the Holocaust;

* his public call for the destruction of the state of Israel;

* his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;

* Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;

* his government's widely

documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and

* his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia's own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh."

One can imagine President Ahmadinejad nervously preparing for President Bollinger's "sharp challenges," and wondering whether those challenges will detract from the propaganda victory Bollinger's invitation has given him. He's undoubtedly concluded it won't be a big problem.

It should go without saying that the appropriate thing to do, when the Iranian ambassador called Columbia, would have been to say: No thanks. Or just, No. But that would be to expect too much of one of today's Ivy League university presidents.

In fact, the introduction with "sharp challenges" by Bollinger makes the situation even more of a disgrace. Now there will be the appearance of real dialogue, of Ahmadinejad answering challenges, which further legitimizes the notion that Holocaust denial, say, is a subject of legitimate and reasonable debate. But if Bollinger had chosen to deny Ahmadinejad's request, or not to dignify Ahmadinejad's appearance by his presence--then Bollinger would have been denied the opportunity to lecture us, in Columbia's press release, to this effect: "It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible. That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here....This is America at its best."

Actually, this is a liberal university president at his stupidest. As Powerline's Scott Johnson put it, "Columbia's prattle about free speech may be a tale told by an idiot, but it signifies something. And President Bollinger is a fool who is not excused from the dishonor he brings to his institution and his fellow citizens by the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing."

Meanwhile: As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus.
A perfect synecdoche for too much of American higher education: they are friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military.


--William Kristol

Sphere: Related Content

The Death Star Was An Inside Job

Check Out this Post by "Stormtroopers For Death Star Truth":
The Evidence

Sphere: Related Content

How Hunter S. Thompson Converted Me to Liberalism

Occasionally the people of the world are blessed with a piece of written work so brilliant that it changes the course of humanity as we know it.
The Bible, The Declaration of Independence, Atlas Shrugged, Dianetics.

Before he died author Hunter S. Thompson penned one of those pieces and it will stand through time as the document that not only ended the war in Iraq, but which also turned this nation from our fascist, imperialistic ways.

Please take a moment and read this piece, it truly transcends politics. It's really philosophy.



"We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world -- a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you."Well, shit on that dumbness, George W. Bush does not speak for me or my son or my mother or my friends or the people I respect in this world. We didn't vote for these cheap, greedy little killers who speak for America today -- and we will not vote for them again in 2002. Or 2004. Or ever. "Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush? "They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. "And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them."

I'd like to thank actor John Cusack for including Thompson's poignant words is an article he penned on Huff Po which also makes Hamlet look like a poem that Lenny Kravits wrote on a bathroom stall.

Thank you Hunter. Your words shall stand next to the Gettysburg Address in the annals of history.

Oh and if sarcasm isn't your thing, on a serious note if anyone is interested in taking out a full-page ad in The New York Times this month, I hear that they're going for half-price.

Sphere: Related Content

Good News is Bad For The Left/Bin Laden

Osama Bin Laden made a strategic mistake in his video message to the American people which was released last week.

His rantings against President Bush were clearly meant to appeal to the majority of Americans who disapprove of the way the president is handling his job and of the on going war in Iraq. Unfortunately for the terror leader, his hubris and misunderstanding of the depths of America's displeasure with its political leadership lead the generally savvy UBL to misread far-left "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as mainstream American sentiment.

His mistake was assuming that the American people dislike President Bush more than they dislike the perpetrator of 9/11 himself.

A vocal minority in this nation does, but Bin Laden overestimated their power and importance.

The far-left is now in full conspiracy mode.

If you turn on Air America or read the left-wing blogs these days the storyline being written is one of doctored video tapes, military leaders who are merely puppets of a lying administration and of a fictional civilian death toll which fluctuates from 400 to 650 thousand and which has no basis in reality. All conjecture, no facts leading to their conclusions.

The Democrats are beginning to see the fruits of their unforgivable politicization of the Iraq issue as the party leaders now have no choice but to spin good news coming out of the country in a negative light and hope for the worst in the military and political campaign.

Spinning numbers to paint a far more negative picture of reality in Iraq or giving credit to "warlords" rather than our troops are some of the tactics being employed by Chuck Schumer and others. However, when the Democrats find themselves at odds with the New York Times Editorial page, you know that there's trouble in Paradise.

Of course, at the Petraeus hearing today the shrill members of Code Pink interrupted the proceedings in order to put on their usual theatrics, which they are yet to realize are detrimental to their cause. The Democratic chairman more or less allowed it to happen, symbolic perhaps of the party's inability to control the cut-and run-left, not only politically, but also when it comes to maintaining order at the most important congressional hearing of the year.


Move.On .org's vile attack on Gen. Petraeus this afternoon should send a message to all reasonable Americans, that the far-left in this country is not interested in success in Iraq but is instead using character assassination to destroy political enemies,with no concern for the future of this nation or American troops on the ground. Not a single Democratic Presidential candidate has condemned the add. What does that tell you? Are Democrats more scared of the power that Move.On wields than of Bin Laden, who owned the airwaves yesterday echoing Move.On's talking points?

Bin Laden miscalculated. Independent voters may not agree with or support President Bush's policies, but they don't feel the disdain for him that they feel for Bin Laden or his Islamo-Fascist cohorts who killed 3,000 Americans six years ago today. The far-left does however. Keep that in mind on this dark anniversary.

Sphere: Related Content

Bin Laden/Edwards '08

Bin Laden's words are almost undistiguishable from those on the far-left. It seems that he has finally figured out that it is American Liberals who are his key to winning the War.

I've highlighted some of his appeals to the John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich crowd.


New OBL Tape: Iraq, Democratic Control

Share September 07, 2007 2:15 PM

ABC News' Jonathan Karl, Pierre Thomas, Luis Martinez and Theresa Cook Report: ABC News has obtained a transcript of the latest taped message from the United States' most wanted terrorist, and a senior U.S. intelligence official has confirmed to ABC News that "initial technical analysis suggests the voice on the tape is indeed Osama Bin Laden."

According to the transcript, which can be viewed by clicking here, bin Laden opens with "praise to Allah" and his "law of retaliation" -- "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the killer is killed."

Bin Laden also spoke to the ongoing situation in Iraq throughout the tape, heavily criticizing the Bush administration.

'One of Your Greatest Mistakes'

He says to the American people, "you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld…” - This is a direct appeal to the impeachemnt crowd and those who believe that members of The Bush Administration are war criminals.
"You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, TRANSLATION: "I SUPPORTED KERRY" which gave him a clear mandate from you -- with your full knowledge and consent -- to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then you claim to be innocent! The innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th -- were I to claim such a thing." A shout out to 9/11 conspiracy loons perhaps?
Bin Laden says President Bush's words echo "neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle."

'Democrats Haven't Made a Move'

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

ABC News Report

The transcript indicates that bin Laden refers to statements from U.S. soldiers in Iraq, from an interview taped by a British journalist.
Ways to Win the War

According to the transcript, bin Laden says there are two ways to end the war:

"The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you."

The second is to do away with the American democratic system of government. "It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations."



Ramblings and Time References

The rambling transcript also mentions French President Nicolas Sarkozy, which suggests the tape was made after Sarkozy's election in May.

While the exact date of the taping cannot be determined by bin Laden's words, he suggests it was made in August by saying, "... just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons." The anniversary was on Aug. 6.

He goes on to call Noam Chomsky "among one of the most capable of those from your own side," and mentions global warming and "the Kyoto accord."
- He sounds like a college professor.He also speaks to recent issues grabbing headlines in the United States, referring to "the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes..."

"To conclude," bin Laden says, "I invite you to embrace Islam." He goes on to say: "There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."

Perhaps now that liberal Democrats see how much they have in common with Osama, they will finally come around on Tax Cuts .

Sphere: Related Content

Katrina,Two Years Later. Another Perspective.

Those who should have been condemed the most after Katrina, weren't public office holders, but rather an agenda driven media and the long term consequences of big goverment.



September 01, 2006

The Unlearned Lesson of Katrina
By Robert Tracinski

In the press coverage of the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we expect a fair bit of the usual throwing around of blame for political advantage, but to my surprise that has not been the main theme of the coverage (though Ted Kennedy couldn't resist a crudely partisan tirade). Instead, the dominant theme of the anniversary coverage is what is not being mentioned. Having reported the wrong story about the flooding of New Orleans one year ago, the press is trying to protect its distortion by excising from history the events that gave many Americans their greatest shock.

What shocked many of us was not the hurricane itself, nor the response of the federal government--outrage against the Bush administration was cultivated later. What shocked us first was the response of the people of New Orleans themselves: the immediate looting, the collapse of the city government as demoralized local police walked off the job in the middle of an emergency, and the thousands of people wallowing in squalor while demanding that someone else come to help them. These are the facts that the mainstream media has downplayed or just plain ignored.

Ironically, it was the press itself that first brought this story to our attention, by focusing its reporting on the crime and squalor at the Superdome and the New Orleans convention center in the days after the levies failed. But the press soon began to backpedal, realizing that they had miscalculated. They showed us too much of the squalor, too much of the rampant looting and lawlessness, and too many ungrammatical ravings by foul-mouthed New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. The American people began to lose their initial reaction of sympathy and to wonder instead why so many inhabitants of New Orleans were more eager to blame others for their plight than they were to lift a finger on their own behalf.

The media had hoped for an opposite reaction. They wanted to induce guilt, telling the rest of the nation that the wretchedness of New Orleans was somehow our fault. For example, New York Times columnist Frank Rich lectured us that the poor people of New Orleans "were left behind to suffer and die when the people of means began sprinting toward higher ground. They are the ones who are always left behind, out of sight and out of mind, and I'd be surprised--given the history of this country--if that were to change now." Didn't we understand that the story was supposed to be about America's heartless indifference to the poor?

Let's take a critical look at the events, from a year's perspective, and see what the real story was.

The left is correct on one point: the story is all about federal spending and the welfare state--but not in the way that they think.

Frank Rich and company claimed that people were trapped in New Orleans because they had been abandoned for decades by a stingy government that denied them an adequate level of welfare handouts. In fact, New Orleans received a higher per-capita rate of federal welfare spending than most cities--a full 78 percent more than the national average--and the districts hardest hit by the flooding contained some of the city's largest public housing projects. The welfare state had showered its largesse on New Orleans, but with what result?

In fact, the disaster in New Orleans was caused, not by too little welfare spending, but by too much. Four decades of dependence on government left people without the resources--economic, intellectual, or moral--to plan ahead and provide for themselves in an emergency. I stated the lesson at the time:

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men....
People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them--this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.


In the week after the disaster, a New York Times reporter profiled two New Orleans families and their different reactions to Katrina. The main difference was not money; neither family was well-off. But one was from the lower middle class--people who are used to working for a living and providing for themselves--whereas the other family fully represented the welfare state mentality. The first family pooled their efforts with their extended family to drive out of New Orleans before the storm hit and stay at an inexpensive hotel farther inland. The other family didn't leave New Orleans until the flood waters reached their own home--and along the way, they blew their "last $25 dollars to buy fish and shrimp from men grilling them on the street"--with apparently nary a thought for what they would live on after dinnertime.

The main difference between these two families was not money but responsibility. That is also the difference between the people in New Orleans who stockpiled necessities like food, gasoline, and bottled water before the storm hit, and those who waited until after the storm and looted whatever they needed--which apparently included televisions, jewelry, and DVDs--from the local Wal-Mart. Many of these looters, especially those who struck within hours after the storm passed, were not in any kind of desperate need. As one of them explained to a reporter, "People who have been repressed all their lives, man, it's an opportunity to get back at society."

This fellow acquired his sense of ethics from the welfare state--and from its spokesmen, like Frank Rich.

This sense of victimhood and entitlement brings us to the other mainstream media claim about Katrina: that it unmasked America's institutionalized racism and showed, as one rapper proclaimed, that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." (It could be argued, incidentally, that "rap music" is itself the most insidious form of institutionalized racism today, peddling a debased view of blacks as thugs and whores that exceeds the wildest slanders of Ku Klux Klan propaganda.) But what are the actual facts about Katrina and race? The Coast Guard and National Guard toiled relentlessly for four days to rescue thousands of people from their roofs, saving as many as 50,000 people--most of them black. And an analysis of deaths from the hurricane showed that mortality rates were slightly higher for whites than for blacks. So much for the myth of the racist hurricane.

But that doesn't mean race was not an issue. Katrina exposed the virulent racism of many blacks, who are raised on a culture of victimhood and grievance and think the rest of the nation owes them a prosperous living. On September 10, for example, Fox News Channel broadcast a live interview with a Katrina evacuee in Houston, a self-parody of the Angry Young Black Man who demanded a $20,000 debit card from FEMA and shouted at the camera: "We didn't ask to come on that bus.... It's like a slave ship. It's just like, you know, back in history, you know, they put us on a slave ship.... Just give us what the f--- we deserve."

What was he describing as a "slave ship"? The buses sent to rescue people from New Orleans--the same buses whose absence in the first days after the flood were considered evidence of nationally institutionalized racism. There is certainly prejudice involved here; this young man has prejudged America as guilty, and he simply grabs at any rationalization that will confirm his bigotry.

Like this young man, the media has blamed Hurricane Katrina on a massive failure of government--which is also true, but again not in the way that they claim. It was not primarily a failure by the federal government, which is not supposed to be the first responder to a natural disaster. The first responders are supposed to be the state and local governments--who failed utterly.

Mayor Ray Nagin failed to devise or administer an evacuation plan--remember that famous photo of dozens of school buses that were left to be swamped by the flood waters instead of being used to evacuate flood victims?

Instead, Nagin spent the entire crisis complaining about what other people weren't doing to save his city. When asked where he was during the crucial moments of the disaster, Nagin snapped back, to the world at large, "Where were you?"--as if a random resident strolling the streets of Buffalo bears more responsibility for the plight of New Orleans than the city's own mayor.

That Ray Nagin is still mayor of New Orleans, one year later, is the worst possible indictment of the city's corrupt culture. In 1979, the people of Chicago voted out their mayor because he failed to ensure the timely plowing of the streets after a heavy snowstorm. Ray Nagin presided over an unprecedented collapse in city government, and the people of New Orleans re-elected him. A large number of New Orleans voters are still stuck in the fantasy of holding everyone responsible for their lives except themselves.

William Jefferson also represents the local political culture well. He's the congressman whose home district is in central New Orleans--and he's also the congressman recently caught hiding $90,000 worth of bribe money in his freezer. Nagin and Jefferson are typical political products of the welfare state. Their job is not to protect citizens' lives and property, but to dole out vast sums in vote-buying patronage to their supporters and constituents, and occasionally to skim a little off the top for themselves.

And that brings us to the role of the federal government. The federal government's problem is not lack of spending. Over the decades, Louisiana's congressional delegation has funneled billions of dollars to a vast system of canals and levees, which failed--not because they were inadequately funded, but because they were inadequately designed and built.

And what about federal spending on the rebuilding of New Orleans? The federal government, far from ignoring the Gulf Coast, has pledged the astonishing sum of $120 billion dollars, far more than for any previous natural disaster. Tens of billions have already poured out of the federal coffers--largely to disappear into the unreformed swamp of Louisiana political corruption.

Yes, this is about a failure of government, all right. It's about the failure of big government and the welfare state and the whole philosophy behind them. It is about the vital necessity to move away from government handouts and toward personal responsibility and private initiative. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that the moral difference between self-reliance and dependence on government is ultimately the difference between life and death.

The only institution for which the press has any praise on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is, naturally enough, the press. They have spent much of this week congratulating themselves on what a marvelous job they did--which is the surest indication that they have completely missed the real story.Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.

Now that we have had two years to clear our heads and come down off of the emotional, knee-jerk reactions to the Katrina story that we have gotten from the MSM, perhaps it is time to rethink just how much we want to invest in re-building the multi-time "Murder Capital of the U.S" title holder.

Sphere: Related Content