Tag Archive for: Barack Obama

In the dictionary under weakness, there’s a picture of —

Slide15-300x180The dictionary defines weak as liable to yield, break or collapse under pressure or strain; not having much political strength, governing power or authority; impotent, ineffectual, or inadequate…well, you get the idea.

This week we saw clearly the contrast between weak and strong. This week President Obama did his NCAA basketball bracket, delightfully referred to as “Barack-etology.” discussed mom jeans with Ryan Seacrest, and chatted up Ellen Degeneres about Obamacare and those critical issues on “House of Cards” and “Scandal.”

In the same week, the territory (Crimea) of a sovereign nation (Ukraine) was annexed by an invading one (Russia). Down South, would-be football champions dream of going “between the hedges.” Instead, we have a President who went “between two ferns” — and that’s supposed to instill confidence? Nah, that’s a display of weakness, regardless of how liberals see it themselves.

Now, some believe President Obama is displaying the highest degree of strength and resolve — by not fighting back. They think only a real strong guy can say “there will be no military option.” It reminds me of another heroic Obama administration idea: the Combat Restraint Medal. Yep, a medal to be rewarded to combat troops for NOT firing back at the enemy. Only in Obamaworld is not shooting back at the enemy reason for an award.

In the world of progressive socialists, crushing your political opposition by using governmental power is strength. I call it tyranny. However, not standing up to a dictator who has invaded a sovereign free nation is showing strength? Both instances show weakness. Rhetoric about standing with protesters is courageous — unless of course those protesters are Iranian and belong to the Green movement. Then no one stands for you.

Liberal progressives are very adept at changing the meaning of words, altering the lexicon and turning words upside down. After all, a terrorist attack is just a man-caused disaster or workplace violence. Ergo weak is relative, according to the “living” meaning of the word. What a crock!

America, we elected a president who believed we needed to improve our global image. Someone who thought that it was more important to be “liked” — as if foreign policy is a Facebook page — than respected. We elected a person as Commander-in-Chief who truly believes “peace through strength” is an imposing and threatening mantra, and prefers “peace through appeasement” as a means to make friends. We elected a person who hasn’t a clue about geo-political strategy — as he evidenced by his sarcastic remark to Gov. Mitt Romney telling him “the 80s are asking for their foreign policy back.”

The only thing Barack Hussein Obama has brought to America is domestic tyranny and a cult of personality — neither impress the current list of despots, dictators, autocrats, and theocrats who now salivate at the naiveté and weakness of this “prankster.” Both are making us weak, at home and abroad.

So what does this mean for the American Republic? It means we have three more years during which we shall suffer, unless we wise up and take the gavel away from Harry Reid in the US Senate. But then again, Obama, keeper of the pen and phone, has shown his abject disdain for the rule of law and our governing Republican principles of separation of powers, coequal branches of government, and checks and balances. Has anyone ever had a front row seat to a train wreck? You do now. Sadly, there are those who actually bought the tickets — twice—and the rest of us are forced to watch. Heck, we’re all on the train.

The spinmeisters can try all they want, but you cannot deny the fact that Obama is weak and it is crippling America. The seminal question is, how low does America have to go? Have we now decided as a people that we no longer wish to lead? We no longer aspire to be exceptional? Are we fine with just sitting around watching reality TV shows, getting fat, and smoking dope while a new era of global brutes step forward? Barack Obama is forcing us to decide, and define, who we are: weak or strong.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

‘RESET’ in Russian means ‘invade Ukraine’

The official ceremony in which US. State Secretary Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a pretty plastic “Reset” button that had a mistranslated Russian word “peregruzka” written in Roman characters, was the first act of the “new and improved” foreign policy of the Obama administration. It happened almost exactly five years ago, in March of 2009, during Hillary’s visit to Moscow. We covered this event twice:

How Do You Say ‘Hillary’s Gaffe’ in Russian?

Middle Finger to Obama On Russian TV Is Not What It Seems

A lot has happened since the “new and improved” foreign policy took effect, backed up by the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to Obama in advance for his expected achievements. During these short five years, glorious improvements have been popping up, almost spontaneously, all over the map – North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and now Russia.

To really understand how it happened, let’s go to the roots and reconstruct the initial Moscow meeting between Hillary and Lavrov, using advanced techniques in reading lips and body language on the available footage.

HILLARY: America gives Russia this pretty button. It says “reset” in English and in Russian, I think.
LAVROV: Well, I do not think it means what you think it means. See? This here in Russian means “Invade Ukraine.”
HILLARY: Whatever. (Both smile for the cameras)

reset

Click on image for a larger view.

US Army troop cuts: Hagel and Obama seem determined to decimate our military capability by Allen West

Early this morning I received an email from Mrs. Annie Shyne, a former constituent, whose son Nicholas received a nomination from our congressional office to the US Naval Academy where he is now a plebe.

She was distressed over the intentions of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former US Army Soldier, to decimate our military capability with deep US Army troop cuts. Her email expressed concern for her son and his future as a commissioned officer in the Navy or Marine Corps. She was even more disturbed over the abandonment our military families will receive by way of cuts to commissary services and pay freezes. We recently reported the level of food stamp usage by our military families and its unconscionable increase.

Then this morning, I tuned in to hear SecDef Hagel attempt to explain this ill-conceived budget decision — which certainly has our enemies cheering. It seems Hagel, in his insidious and dubious manner, fails to realize that the most technologically advanced weapon on the battlefield is a trained, resolute, and determined warrior.

Instead of “investing” in the most important task of our federal government — providing for the common defense — we shall now focus on “investing” in the expansion of the welfare nanny-state. There is no doubt where President Obama’s priorities lie.

We have departed from the maxim of “peace through strength” to a belief in “appeasement through weakness.” Obama somehow believes kumbaya is a strategic objective. And don’t give me the crap about drones, because we learned during Vietnam that a president should not be directing strikes from the White House – implemented by another failed progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

We should be examining how we create the capability and capacity to meet the challenges of the enemy globally. That means looking at each geographic AOR (Area of Responsibility; CENTCOM, AFRICOM, EUCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, NORTHCOM) and ensuring they have the appropriate level of force mix to meet the threats in their AORs.

We don’t need massive endeavors into new technologies, we need a massive focus on capability to meet and defeat the enemy by way of deterrence. Of course I support the defense industry, but the defense industry should not be the drivers of our national security strategy.

For Obama and Hagel to believe taking the US Army down to pre-World War II levels is a smart decision evidences their abject stupidity in comprehending the global conflagrations in which we are embroiled — the enemy has a vote. This whole inane statement about “pivoting to the Asian-Pacific rim” is more empty rhetoric as we decimate our US Naval strength while China builds theirs.

Barack Hussein Obama cannot be seen as a Commander-in-Chief and I will never refer to him that way. His fundamental transformation of America means weakening our nation and leaving our Republic less secure. I can just imagine how appreciative and elated his Muslim Brotherhood friends are at this point, to include Turkey’s President Erdogan, as well as the mad mullahs in Iran.

Why would any mother like Annie Shyne want her son or daughter to serve under this charlatan? The real “War on Women?” It’s the Obama vision to have more American mothers welcoming their children home in flag-draped caskets — as we’ve seen under his purview in Afghanistan, where deaths have skyrocketed.

This is my Army for whom I gave 22 years of honorable service and where I have a nephew and many a dear friend serving. I will be damned if I allow these progressive socialists to put their lives in danger. This, my fellow Americans, is why we need conservative American leaders who have served and are willing to lay down their life for this nation. Not some sorry Obama lapdog.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Inside Obama’s Head

In the August 18, 2011 edition of The American Thinker, writer Matt Patterson published an article titled, “Obama: The Affirmative Action President.”

Patterson wrote, “Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?”

He continued, “Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a ‘community organizer;’ a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.”

Looking at Obama from a distance, Patterson provides an accurate picture of how any objective observer might see him.  But how does Obama see himself?  Putting ourselves inside his skin and inside his head would be a far more interesting and instructive exercise.

Just imagine a young black man living in a family of all white people… mother, grandfather, and grandmother… after having been deserted by his black father.  Just as welfare recipients come to resent the hand that feeds them, it is easy to see how a young black man growing up in a white family, his skin color a constant reminder that he was “different,” would come to resent his white parent and grandparents… and by extension, all white people.

Obama stressed his struggle with self-identity in his book Dreams from My Father.  Regarding white people, he said, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

In describing the man who gave him the only job he ever held outside the halls of government, his job as a “community organizer” in south Chicago, he said, “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe.  And white.”

By the time he entered college, Obama was fully committed to the racial divide between blacks and whites.  Of his years as a student at Occidental College, he wrote, “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names… I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own.  It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

We have all been confronted on occasion by challenges for which we felt totally unprepared…  challenges that appeared insurmountable.  That being the case, it is all the more mystifying how a man of Obama’s meager background and experience could believe that he should be seen as a viable candidate for president of the United States.  How could a young man, such as Patterson describes, suddenly see himself in that role, knowing that he has never run so much as a sidewalk lemonade stand, knowing that he has no qualifications whatsoever for the job?

What must it be like to one day look into a mirror and say to the person reflected therin, “You’re a pretty good looking guy.  You were lucky enough to grow up in the tropics, in Hawaii and Indonesia, and even though your parents and grandparents weren’t wealthy, you were lucky enough to go to a private prep school and Ivy League colleges on someone else’s dime.  You spent several years working with black activists on the streets of Chicago and you spent a few years as a back-bencher in the Illinois state senate.  Hey!!  You’re something really special!  You should run for president of the United States.”  What sort of man could have that conversation with himself… and do it with a straight face?

Fortunately for Obama, there was an oversupply of pent-up white guilt within the ranks of the Democrat Party.  And in spite of the fact that party leaders knew him to be not only unqualified, but ineligible as well, he was the sort of “rock star” politician who would appeal to white liberals and young white Democrats.  It mattered little that he would be incapable of governing; all they cared about was that he would look good before the TV cameras and that he could read convincingly from a teleprompter.  They would put the necessary words in his mouth.

But, of all of Obama’s current responsibilities, his relationship with the military is where he appears to be most out of place and ill at ease… a pair of brown shoes at a black tie ball.  In neither of his memoirs does he give the slightest hint that he ever considered enrolling in the ROTC programs at either Occidental College or Columbia University.  Yet, just sixteen years after graduating from Harvard Law School, he stood before the American people and proclaimed that he felt capable of serving as commander in chief of the largest and most powerful military machine in the history of the world.  What sort of outsized ego would that require?

Those of us who’ve placed our lives on the line as members of the uniformed services can’t help but experience a stomach-turning revulsion each time we see Obama bounding down the steps of Marine One on the south lawn of the White House, flashing a sloppy half-salute at the well-turned out young Marine standing at the base of the stairs.  Any normal person of Obama’s background and experience would feel an overwhelming sense of inadequacy.  But what goes though Obama’s mind?  And what goes through the minds of those young Marines?

To serve as a member of the Silent Drill Platoon and Color Guard at the 8th & I Street Barracks in Washington… the Marine contingent responsible for guard and escort duty at the White House… is a much coveted assignment in the Marine Corps.  But it would be interesting to know what went through the minds of all those young Marines when they first learned that Barack Obama,  a man who was too cowardly to wear the uniform of the U.S. military, a usurper who was ineligible to serve in the office, would be occupying the White House for at least the next four years.  How could they bring themselves to salute a man so undeserving of their respect?

Most Marines would rather take their chances on the field of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan than to suffer the embarrassment of standing in the rain next to Obama, dressed in spiffy blue-white dress uniform, holding an umbrella over the usurper’s head while he addressed a small group of fawning sycophants in the White House rose garden.

And while it is easy to understand the revulsion felt by the men and women of the enlisted ranks, what goes through the minds of long-serving generals and admirals, their chests covered with row upon row of medals and service ribbons, evidence of their long service to God and country,  when they are forced to salute him and address him as “sir” or “mister president?”  What sort of colossal ego does it take for such an unremarkable man to expect that kind of treatment from men and women of real accomplishment?

What all of this tells us is that what motivates Barack Obama is far more than a super-inflated ego, far more than pathological narcissism.  He is, as Dr. Samuel Vaknin has described him, a “total incognito with zero accomplishment.”  But even that does not describe how Obama sees himself, what goes on inside his head.  Instead, we can only conclude that Obama’s opinion of himself is simply beyond human comprehension.  Just as the human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite nature of the universe, neither can the human mind comprehend the boundaries of what Obama appears to see in himself.

When Obama proclaimed in his June 4, 2008 nomination acceptance speech that, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” most of us laughed because we knew that just the opposite was true.  But there were many who actually believed him and were inspired by his soaring rhetoric.  What those of us who laughed knew, intuitively, is that what appeared to be bravado was actually a cover for nothingness.

What best describes Obama is a brief two sentence quotation from Eric Hoffer, the renowned longshoreman/philosopher, who said, “Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness.  The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”

Yes, Barack Obama is an evil man and the political philosophy that guiders his every word and deed are truly ugly.  It is that evil and that ugliness that Obama seeks to hide by his bravado and his pretentiousness; it is the emptiness of his promise of hope and change that is at the heart of his pretentions.

And while a majority of Americans still find Obama to be “likeable,” an even larger majority have come to see that there is no real substance to him.  As Hofer tells us, “The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”   Where Barack Obama is concerned, there is no there, there.

Apostle Barack. Are you kidding me?

If I’m not mistaken, the first commandment goes something like this, “I am the Lord your God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.” It’s worked pretty well for the last few thousand years, but apparently a certain college professor at Florida A&M University (doggone, why is it always Florida?) has elevated President Barack Hussein Obama to a place that is indeed above his pay grade.

According the Independent Journal Review, if you’re looking for an amusing read, you might want pick up The Gospel According to Apostle Barack: In Search of a More Perfect Political Union as Heaven Here on Earth. Heck, for just $3.03, you can get a Kindle version of the book by Barbara A. Thompson, a “highly esteemed” professor at Florida A & M University, which explores the author’s “miraculous” dream about President Barack Obama.

Here’s how Professor Thompson describes being touched:

When I began to contemplate ways to assist Barack in his 2012 re-election bid something miraculous happened. I felt God’s (His) Spirit beckoning me in my dreams at night. Listening, cautiously, I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor.

Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side. He had the answers to unlock the kingdom of “heaven here on earth” for his followers. The answers were repeated – over and over – in speeches Barack had made from his presidential announcement to his inaugural address. Those speeches or his teachings contained the answers to the middle class and working poor people living in a “heaven here on earth.” For when the answers were unlocked and enacted, Apostle Barack’s vision of America would be realized.

Excuse me. I need to get that bucket handy. In the meantime, you might enjoy this commentary from ET Williams, the ”Doctor Of Common Sense.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Nn6XSPw2Ogs[/youtube]

The book reviewer says, “I must caution that the book comes poorly recommended, with an average 1.3 out of 5 stars from 51 customer reviews.” Well thank goodness for that!

I doubt Professor Thompson had a dream — more like a nightmare — and she certainly did not feel God’s Holy Spirit. Maybe she heard the same voices Salman Rushdie described in his 1988 novel, “The Satanic Verses” — oh, and in case you missed it, those peaceful Iranian mullahs just reissued their death fatwa against Rushdie. And we trust them with nuclear negotiations? But I digress…

But getting back to Professor Thompson, would you want your child attending her lectures? Maybe this explains why homeschooling and online/for profit colleges and universities are on the rise.

To Professor Thompson I say, the first amendment is your right and a beautiful thing. However, I would also recommend, since you are seemingly quite the Biblical scholar, to heed the words of the wisest man who ever walked the earth, (and that damn sure ain’t Barack Obama) in King Solomon, Book of Proverbs 17:28 “Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com. Featured image courtesy of Independent Journal Review.

Obama’s despotic rule: Montesquieu knew this would happen

As I look back on this past week, I have to summarize it in one word: crisis.

Domestically we face a constitutional crisis with a president who doesn’t believe he must adhere to our fundamental system of governance. If you have some time, take a read through or refresh yourself on the “Spirit of the Laws” by Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu in 1748.

In that simple treatise, Montesquieu presented the idea of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and coequal branches of government. These ideas were adopted by our Founding Fathers, more specifically, James Madison, as he wrote the Constitution of the United States and the Federalist Papers – which I believe President Obama, the self-proclaimed constitutional scholar, has never read.

Montesquieu said, “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty. The same monarch or senate would enact tyrannical laws and execute them in a tyrannical manner.”

Montesquieu believed liberty was impossible if the judicial branch was not separated from the legislative and executive powers. He believed if the judiciary were combined with legislative power, individual life and liberty would be vulnerable to arbitrary control. Even worse, if the judiciary were combined with executive powers, judges would be oppressive and violent.

In the worst case of all, the same person or body would control all three powers.

Montesquieu, a champion of individual dignity and liberty, raised his voice against the despotic rule of the Bourbon monarchy of Louis XIV who boasted, “I am the state.” Montesquieu knew well that “constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority until he is confronted with limits.”

But as Montesquieu stood up to the despotic rule of the king, who will stand up to the despotic rule of Obama?

If no one accepts this mantle and casts down the gauntlet, the constitutional crisis we face will only be exacerbated. The cancer will further metastasize.

We are in the sixth year of Obama, and I predicted if we reelected this charlatan to a second term it would be the greatest Pavlovian experiment the world has ever known. America would reward the most abhorrent of behavior — and lo and behold, “yes we did.” America is in crisis. Who will be our Montesquieu? Who will stand in the arena as our Maximus?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appears on AllenBWest.com.

The New Liberal Killing Fields

As President Obama returns from a well deserved and earned two-week vacation in Hawaii – ok, being quite facetious here – I wonder if he did any reflection between rounds of golf. And why is it that the First Lady remained in Hawaii to celebrate her 50th birthday?

Regardless, I reflected upon the words of George Santayana, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Reason being, as President Obama returns to Washington DC he is part of a repeat of history. After the fall of South Vietnam the rise of Southeast Asian communism ensued, Cambodia was embroiled in a five-year civil war, 1970-1975, resulting in the ascension of the Khmer Rouge. Under the brutal leadership of Pol Pot the following four years resulted in one of the most horrific acts of genocide.

It what would come to be known as the “Killing Fields” the Khymer Rouge reign contributed to the deaths of between 1.7 to 2.5 million. Pol Pot presided over a communist dictatorship that imposed a radical form of agrarian socialism on the country. His government forced urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects. The combined effects of executions, forced labor, malnutrition, and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population.

His death grip over the Democratic Kampuchea (funny how communists and socialists always call themselves Democratic) ended with the Cambodian-Vietnamese War.

Then as now, the liberal progressives of the Democrat (there’s that word again) party ardently protested and undermined the efforts of our military forces – then Vietnam, now Iraq. Then it was communism, now it is Islamic totalitarianism. Then it was the killing fields of Pol Pot, today the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. Just as the Democrats abandoned Southeast Asia, now they have abandoned the Middle East.

President Obama as true to his colors, believed that a political promise was far more important than a strategic decision. Therefore, against the recommendations of Commanders on the ground, he decided against any residual force to remain in Iraq. There will be the detractors who will say, Americans were tired of fighting. My response is that America was not fighting, it was committed Men and Women, warriors, who had defeated a vile, vicious Islamic terrorist, jihadist enemy.

Just as men like my older Brother had embarked to fight in Vietnam, yet again, politicians let them down – some things never change.

Leadership, principled, courageous leadership, would have explained to the American people why a complete withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq would not bode well. Leadership would have reminded the American people of the killing fields of Pol Pot.

Leadership would have held a press conference and stated, “I have consulted with the Commanders on the ground in Iraq, combat leaders, and concur with their recommendation for a residual force. Our men and women in Iraq have done that which many, to include myself and others in my party said was impossible. Against all odds they persevered, displayed American warrior resolve, and defeated Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. Now, those of you would say, it is time to withdraw, retreat, claim victory, but that is not how we sustain these fragile gains. We will maintain a residual force in Iraq that will provide an external cordon for this fledgling but historic land and people to recover. We will position our forces along the borders with Syria and Iran in order to interdict any terrorist elements. As well, we shall station forces in northern Iraq to foster military to military relations with our Kurdish friends and ensure their security along with any Christian (Assyrian and Chaldean) minorities. This may not be a popular decision, but I am not here to be a popular person, but a strategic minded President, a visionary leader. I have studied history and recall what happened after our precipitous, and dishonorable, exit from Vietnam and the killing fields of Pol Pot and the bloodthirsty communists. We shall not abandon those who risked their lives to support our efforts in Iraq. We shall not steal defeat from the jaws of success. We shall not dishonor the sacrifices of so many who over these eight years gave the last full measure of devotion. We will not let up and now is the time, now is a moment when we can, and we will, drive a stake into the heart of Islamic terrorism and send a clear message, “you can run but America will ensure that you will die tired”.

Instead, America saw a charlatan, a political imposter who, with the aid of a complicit, propagandized media, made our Nation believe there was honor in retreating. That combined with the insidious lie, “Al Qaeda is decimated and on the run” now means that a new killing field is being harvested. It is happening on the ground where American blood was shed in order to plant the seeds of liberty and freedom from islamists.

Thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama the black Al Qaeda flag now flies in Fallujah and may soon fly in Ramadi, it already flies in Benghazi.

Secretary of State John Kerry has stated that we will not send US troops – he lies. Unlike the Vietnam where he went to visit, this enemy will not rest until they have restored a global caliphate, and it starts in the Middle East. Somewhere, sometime, we will have to send US troops, again.

I served in Operation Desert Shield/ Storm. I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. And I spent two and a half years in southern Afghanistan supporting Operation Enduring Freedom as a civilian-military advisor to the Afghan National Army. I wonder how long it will be before the Taliban flag is flying once again in Kandahar?

The Big Political Issue for 2014: “Income Equality”

Amy Payne from the Heritage Foundation reports, “Do a Google News search for ‘income inequality’ and it will remove any doubt that this is already the political issue of 2014.”

Both parties has been gearing up for months. The liberal Center for American Progress launched a new center devoted to the subject, and President Obama has been making it a centerpiece of his speeches. Even Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) and challenger former Governor, now Democrat candidate, Charlie Crist have made income inequality an issue in their campaigns.

“Get ready to hear about “fairness”—because some people make more money than others, and this isn’t fair. How can you sit by and watch this happen? What is the government going to do about it?”, writes Payne. “It’s a popular argument because everyone—even Warren Buffett—wants to make more money. When someone tells you that what you’re being paid isn’t fair, it’s easy to agree. And if that someone tells you that you can march in a protest and instantly make more money—well, that’s a lot quicker and easier than working toward your next promotion.”

Payne warns, “Quick and easy—that’s the allure of the left’s argument. But there are two things you should know about it.”

1. It’s too good to be true.

The income inequality outrage is based on the idea that the people at the bottom of the economic ladder are stuck there indefinitely. But America isn’t “Downton Abbey”—you’re not stuck in the place where you were born. The chauffeur’s son can become…whatever he wants to be in America.

This uniquely American advantage is called mobility. People can move up—and down—the income ladder. In fact, “the recent rise in income disparities has not caused a decline in upward mobility,” reported Heritage’s Rea Hederman and David Azerrad in an in-depth study of the issue. They debunked the foundation of the left’s assumptions:

Standards of living have increased for everyone—as have incomes—and mobility, however one measures it, remains robust. Simply put, how much the top 1 percent of the population earns has no bearing on whether the bottom 20 percent can move up.

A focus on minimum-wage workers can also be a red herring. Heritage’s James Sherk and John Ligon note that “Over two-thirds of workers starting out at the minimum wage earn more than that a year later.”

2. It hurts people.

The left’s income inequality argument has a sad and destructive irony: If it’s made into public policy, it makes it more difficult for people to get a job and achieve their American Dream.

President Obama and his allies in Congress are already pushing for a minimum wage increase in the new year. Heritage’s Sherk and Ligon are very clear when it comes to the possible consequences of doing this: It “would force employers to curtail hiring.”

Less hiring. Fewer job opportunities. That does not help the men and women looking for work, who need to put food on the table and shoes on their kids’ feet.

The New York Times notes, however, that the issue of the minimum wage could help liberal politicians looking for voter turnout in the upcoming midterm election. And that’s all it is: a political ploy that manipulates Americans in the name of power.

EDITORS NOTE: Income equality is all about coveting what someone else has. Coveting has been recognized for centuries as a powerful force for political and social evil. That is why it is a sin and one of the Bible’s Ten Commandments as written in Exodus 20 (NIV version):  “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Why the Israeli-Palestinian Agreement Is Absurd

It makes sense that the Israel-Palestinian agreement is being made with Obama and Kerry in charge. The deal offers a kind of neo-mandate, with an American presence entrenched in the Jordan Valley for the next 10 years.  That’s no joke.

Let’s look at a different but parallel “pacification” effort and see what happened there. The Afghanistan peace talks with Taliban have gone absolutely dreadfully, and President Karzai is very dissatisfied. The results are–not surprisingly–unsatisfactory.

Let’s consider casualties in that case and a couple of others.

As of the end of 2013, roughly 3,000 Western troops have been killed in Afghanistan. Western forces will retreat with their tails between their legs and will probably abandon the government to horrible massacres and long wars following a Taliban victory.

Since the start of the ongoing civil war in Syria, there have been about 200,000 casualties–mostly civilians. A truly staggering number.

The population of the West Bank is about 3.1 million; if losses will be proportional to those in neighboring nations, the cost of American soldier’s lives would be high.

So, if the Obama/Kerry peace deal does go through, what would the risks be?

  • Dozens of Israeli civilians would be at risk of being killed by cross-border Palestinian-Arab and Islamist terrorist attacks, even if the settlements did not exist.
  • And of course, how fast would U.S. troops respond to such attacks?
  • Might there be an intifada in Jordan, a neighboring country with a Palestinian majority and a very strong Muslim Brotherhood opposition?
  • Remember too that the peace treaty would be incomplete, unable to involve the Hamas-led Gaza Strip. And incomplete peace treaties cannot stand.

In the Gaza Strip, there are more than 1.6 million people under the rule of Hamas. This government will do everything it can to sabotage the peace process. And U.S. help to the PA will be presented as collaboration with the infidels. There is no possibility of their participation in this agreement. That means that even in the best of circumstances, even if the PA is at peace with Israel, Hamas will be in an ongoing war with Israel.

So what great advantage is peace with the West Bank and war with Gaza?

It is predictable that Hamas will attempt to carry out cross-border raids and fire missiles at Israel. What is the U.S. position on that? Is the United States at war with Hamas? CIA director John Brennan, the architect of Obama ideology, publically–but not officially–has said that he wants to make peace with Hamas.

Is the PA going to cooperate with Hamas or at least radical segments of the PA? Remember during the Second Intifada, from 2000 to 2005, Fatah did cooperate with Hamas.

Moreover, if Fatah were to change its policy, it might get support from countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and so on. Turkey, for example–which is now a conduit for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, and al-Qa’ida obtaining arms–knows that most of its policy with the Arabs will be dependent on its degree of support to the Palestinians, including cooperation if there is a Palestinian state. The fact is that Turkey has pinned its hopes on Turkish influence in the Arab world, and to associate with aggressive support of Palestine would be key to its popularity. What if aid from Turkey and these other countries prepares Palestine to fight?

What is the United States, an ally with Israel, going to do if Palestine is created by its own agreement but wages a war of terrorism against Israel?

By the way, let’s remember that Mahmoud Abbas will probably be replaced in the next few years. It is very hard to predict whom he will be replaced by, but the most popular candidate is a serious hardliner.

Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin al-Mutairi stated, “Oh servants of Allah, how saddening and very painful it is to see many Muslim youths glued to TV screens at cafes or at home, passionately watching entertainment shows, like the Football World Cup, in despicable subjugation to the abominations of the other nations–as if we were not a nation with a brilliant history and a lofty civilization.”

And guess who they blame?

“The Jews were successful in preoccupying the Muslim youth–except those protected by Allah–with the most inane matters, distracting them from important things…”

It is important to understand that millions of people believe this–thoroughly and completely–and can be motivated by these kinds of arguments to the point of killing or supporting terrorism. This is reality; even if it is not unanimous, it is a major motive. If you don’t understand that a majority of people in the Arab-Islamic world believe this, you cannot understand this is the majority view. Certainly Obama and Kerry do not understand this.

So, what are the potential issues that stem from this mindset?

  • Any Muslim killed by a Christian American soldier will be a reason for revenge. This is to engage in a blood feud. Even if a terrorist band has captured a kindergarten and shot children, there will be sympathy in the streets among Arabs and Muslims. If Palestinians are killed by Americans, there will be retaliation.
  •  A terrorist attack at a Kansas airport, Boston, or Fort Hood would be viewed as justification for causalities in Palestine.
  • Remember that the prospects for Arab terrorist movements are much better than Afghan ones, because they have many weapon suppliers–including Libya, Lebanon, al-Qa’ida, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
  • Also, in comparison with populated Afghan villages, Palestinians are concentrated in villages and small towns. Let us consider the American patrol knocking down doors in Jordan Valley towns.

In short, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is not going to be a picnic. Hamas and likely Fatah as well will attempt to kill Americans and commit terrorism. Forget Iranian nuclear weapons; this will be a war of AK-47s and rockets from Gaza. Does Obama Care?

This is definitely a war in which America will get bogged down, or the United States may stay a few years and leave. Just look at the situation in Afghanistan–either this agreement will never be implemented or it will be a disaster.

Another Grim Year with Obama

The fifth year in the political marriage between Barack Obama and the rest of America has the look of a divorce in which a lot of Americans are wondering how we can rid ourselves of the worst President in the history of the nation. That’s not just my opinion.

As 2013 comes to a close it is abundantly clear that even the starry-eyed journalists and political pundits who thought Obama was as close to the Second Coming as American politics had ever known were having, not just doubts, but serious regrets. The White House press corps is now in a state of rebellion.

As the year began, Victor David Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and respected conservative commentator, took a look back at George W. Bush, the predecessor that Obama blamed for everything so often it became a joke.

“George W. Bush left office in January 2009 with one of the lowest job-approval ratings for a president (34%) since Gallup started compiling them—as compared to Harry Truman’s low of 32%, Richard Nixon’s of 24%, and Jimmy Carter’s of 34%–and to the general derision of the media,” wrote Hanson. Obama is likely to achieve a rating less than these predecessors.

Bush has distinguished himself by never publicly commenting on Obama while he has held office. When his presidential library was opened in April, Bush’s approval rating was 47%, but it is worth noting that Bush was in office when 9/11 occurred, followed by combat action in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Just before Bush left office, a financial crisis struck the nation.

The signs of dissatisfaction with Obama and his policies were evident as 2013 began. A January Gallup poll found that American opinion of the country’s state of affairs was at its lowest point since 1979. Fewer than four-in-ten Americans (39%) rated the U.S. in a positive manner. By February, the national debt during Obama’s presidency had increased $5.9 trillion, more than it had increased under all presidents from George Washington to Bill Clinton combined.

By April the New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, was continuing to put distance between Obama and herself. “Unfortunately, he still has not learned how to govern” wrote Dowd, adding “No one on Capitol Hill is scared of him.” Obama had devoted so much time to fundraising and non-stop campaigning, that governing was obviously not a priority, but that is exactly why Presidents are elected.

By May, Politico.com reporters, Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei noted that Republicans in the House had one-third of its committees investigating scandals and wrong-doing by the Obama administration. “Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this President to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.”

By July, a Washington Times editorial, “Obama’s Feats of Weakness” observed that “Since Mr. Obama took office, the opinion of the United States generally has declined in every country surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project…Despite the vaunted White House effort to reach out to Muslim-majority countries, U.S. favorability ratings in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Pakistan are below where they were in 2008 when George W. Bush was at the helm.”

As 2013 comes to a close, longtime former allies such as Saudi Arabia are openly berating Obama for the secret deal negotiated with Iran. Egypt, a former ally, feels betrayed by Obama for his support of the Muslim Brotherhood and, Israel was being visited by Secretary John Kerry to express his opposition to new housing in Jerusalem, but he has put Israel at great risk of annihilation by Iranian nuclear weapon. The Washington Times opined that “There’s a reason Mr. Obama has not been a strong leader internationally. He never set out to be one because he has never believed in the exceptional mission of the United States.”

During the October government shutdown, Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, noted that Obama “[W]on’t negotiate with Republicans, though the fate of Obamacare, funding of the government, and the future of the economic recovery are at stake.” A veteran observer of the White House, Barnes said, “His approach—dealing with a deadlock by not dealing with it—is unprecedented. He has gone where no president has gone before.”

Earlier, in June, Barnes said “the Obama administration is in an unexpected and sharp state of decline. Mr. Obama has little influence on Congress. His presidency has no theme. He pivots nervously from issue to issue.”

When the Obamacare website debuted on October 1st, it was such a disaster that it was a perfect reflection of a horrendous piece of legislation that is causing widespread dismay and disruption affecting millions of Americans.

When you add in the residue from first term scandals such as Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the use of the IRS to harass conservative groups seeking non-profit tax status, it was obvious to all but mindless Obama devotees that we face three years of further decline at home and internationally.

There is still massive unemployment. There are still massive numbers on government welfare programs and the nation’s health care system and insurance industry is being massively disrupted. The economy is improving incrementally, almost despite the administration’s policies.

To say that 2013 has been a bad year for Obama is also to say it has been a bad year for over three hundred million Americans. As Obamacare kicks in, 2014 will be a year its hidden taxes take effect. In November, voters will have the midterm elections to begin ending the a record of failed domestic and foreign affairs.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

PODCAST: How Mother Nature will Accelerate the Looming Fiscal Avalanche

Many are writing about the looming fiscal cliff that Congress and the Obama administration will deal with upon return from the Thanksgiving break. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) warns of a looming fiscal avalanche.

In After Fiscal Cliff Comes Fiscal Avalanche, Rejection of U.S. Debt, Senator Lee writes, “While Washington is preoccupied with the so-called fiscal cliff, little attention has been given to the fiscal avalanche that will occur if we continue down an unsustainable, long-term path, causing markets to turn sour on U.S. debt and leading to a spike in interest rates.”

Senator Lee states, “The Congressional Budget Office projects that under the most likely policy scenario, in 30 years, net interest payments on the debt could total $3.8 trillion in today’s dollars. That is more than total government spending for 2011.”

Robert Wiedemer co-author of America’s Bubble Economy – Aftershock wrote America has suffered through a number of financial bubbles and the aftershock following each. To date each of these bubbles, the most recent being the housing bubble, have burst and fallen onto two other looming bubbles. These two bubbles are the “dollar bubble” and the “debt bubble”. Wiedemer predicts these two bubbles will burst when pricked by the pin called “inflation”.

The government fiscal policies which have lead the US to the fiscal avalanche may be helped along by mother nature.

Relying heavily on the research of experts globally, as well as his own original research that correctly predicted the change in the Sun’s behavior, Mr. John L. Casey has spelled out in his book Cold Sun a convincing case that a new cold era has arrived. In Cold Sun, Mr. Casey presents the evidence showing:

1. Global warming ended years ago.
2. The Sun has entered an ominous state of ‘hibernation.’
3. The Earth’s ocean and atmospheric temperatures are dropping rapidly and are now on a long term decline for the next thirty years.
4. Glacial ice worldwide is growing again and the threat of rising sea levels is over.
5. Why we should be preparing now for the coming cold and its ill-effects including record earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions as well as global agricultural devastation.

Mr. Casey’s predictions of mother nature taking her own course fly in the face of current government policies at the national, state and local levels. In this exclusive interview Mr. Casey explains how mother nature will have her way no matter what we try to do:

While government is focused on reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, the earth is in fact cooling. According to Casey this cooling will shorten the growing season causing food prices to increase, require more fuel and energy to heat homes and businesses. The US will experience an increase in the number of natural disasters costing human life loss and property damage on a grand scale. The US ability to recover from such natural disasters here and globally will be restricted by our debt and cost to service that debt in the long term.

The world’s growing population depends on food. Brian M. Carney in his article for the Wall Street Journal asks, “Can The World Still Feed Itself?“. Mr. Carney interviews Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Chairman of Nestle’ the world’s largest food-production company. According to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, “Politicians do not understand that between the food market and the energy market, there is a close link.” That link is the calorie.

Carney reports, “The energy stored in a bushel of corn can fuel a car or feed a person. And increasingly, thanks to ethanol mandates and subsidies in the U.S. and bio-fuel incentives in Europe, crops formerly grown for food or livestock feed are being grown for fuel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent estimate predicts that this year, for the first time, American farmers will harvest more corn for ethanol than for feed. In Europe some 50% of the rapeseed crop is going into bio-fuel production, according to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe, while “world-wide about 18% of sugar is being used for bio-fuel today.”

What does this all mean?

If John Casey is correct in his predictions, and SSRC always is, then cold weather brings with it a shorter growing season and increased demand for fuel to keep people warm. Therefore, we must have policies that increase calories, not decrease the food supply.

These natural events will occur during the same 30 year period where our payments on the national debt will increase to $3.8 trillion.

RELATED COLUMN: Are we living in the Hunger Games?

Common Core scandal: Medical and disciplinary reports on children hacked

As the Florida Department of Education, Governor Rick Scott, former Governor Jeb Bush and key Florida legislators move forward to implement Common Core State Standards in the sunshine state a database in Long Island’s Sachem School District is compromised.

Nancy Smith from Sunshine State News reports, “On Long Island earlier this month a hacker apparently was able to access records in the Sachem School District and leak personal student data to a web forum. The records included medical and disciplinary reports.” According to The Journal News, in Westchester, Rockland, Putnam counties, N.Y., the database uploads to Web Cloud run by inBloom, a nonprofit group funded by the Gates Foundation and supported by Amazon.

“Surprisingly, the breach didn’t come as a great shock to the community. Even before it transpired, parents and teachers were concerned about data collection and the potential of sharing it or stealing it,” writes Smith.  Also reported in The Journal News, “More than 20 districts in the Lower Hudson Valley have pulled out of New York’s participation in the federal Race to the Top initiative, hoping that doing so will allow them to withhold certain data. Since the state has said that this strategy will not work, districts are now writing to inBloom directly and requesting that their student records be deleted.”

Governor Scott has raised concerns about the data mining portion of Common Core but has not supported legislation to either delay or stop its implementation in Florida. Florida Representative Debbie Mayfield (R-FL District 54) has introduced HB 25 to delay implementation until the costs and impact of Common Core can be determined.

Dr. Karen Effrem, President of Education Liberty Watch.

Dr. Karen Effrem, President of Education Liberty Watch and a co-founder of the Florida Stop Common Core Coalition, and Randy Osborne, Director of Education for Heartland Research and the Florida Eagle Forum, did a Policy Analysis of Common Core in Florida. Effrem and Osborne state, “The Common Core standards, along with the aligned curriculum and the mining of nearly 400 data points reveal that the goal of the standards is not simply to improve academic achievement but also to instill federally determined attitudes and mindsets in students including political and religious beliefs. According to the US Department of Education, this will be carefully regulated through the extensive data-mining of both students and teachers using devices such as ‘facial expression cameras,’ ‘posture analysis seats,’ ‘a pressure mouse,’ and ‘wireless skin conductance sensors’ as well as the use of the actual assessments. The federal government asserts that to secure their definition of improving the quality of education, a student’s right to privacy may be sacrificed.”

Commenting on the Sachem School District data compromise Effrem states, “A number of standards will be used for the psychological training of children starting at a young age … One of the main goals for uniform national assessments is for the federal government to have access to highly personal individual student data. It isn’t just teachers and school officials who can request and get students’ records. It’s also ‘a contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions … Common Core completely strips the child of privacy.”

Dr. Effrem writes, “The utter failure of proponents of Common Core to make rational arguments about this imposed system of inferior, psychosocial workforce training standards, national tests and data collection has stimulated them to lash out to mock and marginalize anyone who opposes it. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has joined former Governor Jeb Bush and Senate President Don Gaetz in now bipartisan sneering derision of parental and citizen concerns. Duncan created a firestorm on Friday (11/15) with his mocking, racist attack on mothers that oppose Common Core: ‘It’s fascinating to me that some of the pushback is coming from, sort of, white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were, and that’s pretty scary. You’ve bet your house and where you live and everything on, ‘My child’s going to be prepared.’ That can be a punch in the gut.'” Duncan has since issued an apology for his remarks.

A new Facebook group, Moms Against Duncan (MAD), has almost 1600 members since then and the comments on Twitter have been overwhelmingly critical. Conservative columnists and liberal moms have joined together in righteous anger against these thoughtless remarks.

History tells us the larger the Common Core database becomes the more likely it will be target by those who would do children harm. Will Governor Scott and the proponents of Common Core listen to moms and take heed? Time will tell.

RELATED DOCUMENTS:

Comments on the Psychological and Developmental Aspects of the Florida’s Common Core Standards by Dr. Karen Effrem – Download PDF

Comments on Florida ELA Common Core Standards by Dr. Sandra Stotsky – Download PDF

Comments on FL Math Common Core Standards by Ze’ev Wurman – Download PDF

Common Core = Conditions + Coercion + Conflict of Interest

WDW – FL received an email from a frustrated parent in Florida who was tired of the “script” being repeated to her. Her opposition to Common Core came after months of research and really trying to understand all of it.  She is just one voice among many parents that feel the same way. . In her email she states, “Please see attached doc[cument] that I have been working on. The concept of the doc[ument] was to take all those quotes that came from [Secretary of Education Arne] Duncan, [Microsoft founder Bill] Gates, [President] Obama, etc and to put them all into a doc[ument] that helped to clearly debunk the standards and all the claims that are being made in regards to them … from the original source. ”

Read  the report titled “Welcome to the new Common Core fuzzy math: CC = Conditions + Coercion + Conflict of Interest“.

The following are excerpts from her document:

We also changed the way we do business at the Department of Education. Instead of issuing top-down edicts, we provided incentives for and supports for states districts, schools and local communities to undertake reform themselves, including offering more flexibility to states in the form of waivers from No Child Left Behind … The Obama Record in Education, Secretary Duncan’s Remarks to the Mom Congress, April 30, 2012

bush obama duncan

President Obama, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in Miami. Photo courtesy of the Miami-Herald.

“Why deal with pesky Congress when you get to make all the rules?” said Michael Petrilli, executive vice president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The department doesn’t have the authority to declare waivers high-risk, he said, and one of the states should call Duncan’s bluff.

States are awarded points for their compliance with a rubric of standards on issues like teacher evaluations and the number of charter schools, and applicants compete for a share of the $3.4 billion pool. The program, which began with $4.6 billion in stimulus funds, has been credited with galvanizing almost every state to either make significant changes to education laws, gain support of teacher unions, or to raise education standards across the board—all without distributing a penny in federal money. Education reforms spark ‘quiet revolution’ By ABBY PHILLIP, July 27, 2010.

Read the full document here.

“While sometimes I’ve been called an architect of their standards, I think their true architecture is evidence,” Coleman said. “That’s the binding secret of the standards.” Coleman, Zimba and Sue Pimentel, an education consultant, made sure the standards reflect the skills students need to succeed after high school.

National Governors Association:

According to the latest IRS 990 form for the NGA’s Center for Best Practices, the nonprofit arm of NGA that shares “a common pool of cash and investments” in 2010 received 80 percent of its $14.8 million annual income from taxpayers. Tax documents also show that back in 2004, the earliest available documents traced, NGA received $31 million from taxpayers. Tax funding has made up most of NGA’s income every year in between.

Despite its heavy tax support, NGA is not required to make meetings, votes, and materials public like government bodies, and it has not done so for its work on Common Core.

NGA is a private trade organization whose actions have no legal binding on states. Governors do vote during NGA’s two annual meetings to express shared priorities, former Virginia Gov. George Allen (R) told School Reform News, but “by the time they vote on a position the [resolutions] get watered down so much any objections are already accommodated. It’s unlike legislatures, with committee hearings and votes.”

Previous School Reform News reports have revealed state and federal tax money provide approximately half of CCSSO’s operating funds, and that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation money has been intimately involved in this behind-closed-doors process. ‘State-Led’ Common Core Pushed by Federally Funded Nonprofit, By: Joy Pullman, Heartland Institute, April 24, 2013.

When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well—and that will unleash powerful market forces in the service of better teaching. For the first time, there will be a large base of customers eager to buy products that can help every kid learn and every teacher get better. Imagine having the people who create electrifying video games applying their intelligence to online tools that pull kids in and make algebra fun. Bill Gates – National Conference of State Legislatures, July 21, 2009

A government shutdown is a good thing!

shutdown if that is what it takes signThe government shutdown at midnight is a “sequester” of non-essential government employees. That is a good thing according to Brian S. Wesbury.

According to Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist for First Trust, “It looks like House and Senate won’t come to a budget agreement by midnight and, as a result, the federal government is going to partially shut down starting Tuesday morning. Run for the hills? Armageddon: right? Nope!”

Westbury notes, “As we said a few weeks ago, a shutdown is not as scary as it seems. Money still flows into the Treasury Department and money still flows out, for Social Security or to make interest payments on the debt, for example. The military, border control, food inspections, air traffic, prisons, weather service, and post office, all keep going. And, as long as the Treasury Department has room to continue its ‘extraordinary measures’ or if the debt limit goes up in the meantime, Treasury still pays the debt as it comes due, without missing a beat.”

There have been many government shutdowns.

“Some pundits and analysts say a shutdown will hurt the economy, but it’s hard to say that based on history. The Washington Post recently listed every shutdown from 1976 to 1996. There were 17 shutdowns totaling 110 days. Out of those 110 days, only 6 days were during recessions. That’s very few given that we were in recession about 14% of the time during that twenty–year period,” writes Wesbury.

The last and longest shutdown doesn’t appear to have hurt the economy either writes Wesbury.

“That was the three-week shutdown from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996 under President Clinton. Real GDP grew 2.3% in the year before the shutdown, a 2.9% annual rate in Q4-1995 and then at a 2.6% pace in Q1-1996, despite the shutdown and the East Coast Blizzard, a multiple day massive snowstorm in January that was followed by large floods,” states Wesbury.

So getting rid of the government fat is a good thing for the economy. Perhaps Washington, D.C. staffers and government workers will now understand what their Main Street counterparts are facing.

Palm Beach County official won’t be disciplined for “Qur’an preaches hate” Facebook post

Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch reports:

John Jamason

Hamas-linked CAIR has been demanding that the county take action against Jamason. I wrote about whether or not what he said was true here. County officials didn’t say what they should have said, which is that noting a demonstrable fact about the Qur’an is not illegal in the United States, and even disliking Islam is not illegal in the United States, as we are not (yet) a Sharia state. Instead, they weaseled out a bit by simply noting that they couldn’t do anything since Jamason didn’t write the post while on the job, but in any case the good news is that he will not be disciplined and free speech survives (just barely) into another day.

I do hope WPTV will get around to correcting that typo in its headline, as entertaining as it is.

“John Jamason: Palm Beach County pubic [sic] information officer won’t be disciplined after Islam post,” from WPTV.com, September 18:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – The administrator for Palm Beach County said there will be no disciplinary action taken against a county worker who posted hateful comments about Islam.County public information officer John Jamason sparked outrage last week on 9/11.

He posted on his personal Facebook page that “all Islam is radical … The Quran is a book that preaches hate”.

The county administrator said Jamason’s comments were personal and not made during work, so his statements did not violate rules.