Are you with Obama or Rush?

Hey Liberals, I'm with Rush and if Republican Senators know what's good for them, they will be as well.

MoveOn.org and the other Liberal organizations are about to begin running a series of radio ads in targeted states aimed at bullying those Republican Senators most vulnerable into siding with Democrats and President Obama against the American people. Typical of Liberal tactics, they begin their argument with a lie. Lying by omission is just as evil, just as corrupt as lying with intent.

Taking Rush Limbaugh's reasonable statement that we want President Obama to fail if success means he manages to get his socialist, big government in control of our economy, policies passed into law. For those who are interested in the truth rather than Democrat propaganda, here is the relevant portion of and a link to Mr. Limbaugh's actual statement:

Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails

January 16, 2009

"...My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

Look, what he's [Obama] talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

That is the truth. Those are the words-in context-without the distortion of the Leftist hate groups, without the embellishment of those who want to institute the policies and regulations which history has proven repeatedly are a prescription for failure.

Taking the words of a man out of context to intimidate, bully or cow people into supporting a policy which is demonstrably against the best interests of the American people and which will not provide any real improvement in the economy or "create" any real jobs, while not unexpected coming from those who have a long history of attempting to deceive the American people, is contemptible and cynical. Hopefully it is destined to fail.

Here is a portion of Politico's report on the new deceptive ads these organizations plan to begin running:

Are you with Obama or Rush?

By JONATHAN MARTIN
1/29/09 8:00 PM EST Updated: 1/30/09 4:37 AM EST

President Obama and a key outside ally are stepping up efforts to ensure passage of the massive economic stimulus package, reaching out to Congress with both carrots and sticks.

While the president and his top aides are using all the trappings of the office, courting members through phone calls, cocktail parties, West Wing sit-downs and even a politically mixed Super Bowl party, liberal groups are dispensing with the niceties and seeking to drive a wedge between Republicans and one of the right’s most influential leaders.

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

Republican members of the Senate, don't be fooled, don't be cowed, don't let Liberals tell you how your constituents feel. The rank and file Republican voter stands foursquare against this fake stimulus package.

We see it for what it truly is, an attempt to assert greater government control over the American economy and the lives of American citizens. It is a pork-barrel spending plan which offers little in the way of "job relief." Any jobs it "creates" will be temporary and contribute little towards solving our financial crisis.

The sheer hubris and hypocrisy of the Left, who spent endless hours, wrote endless words, produced hateful movies, and expended countless dollars hoping that President Bush would fail, in now, with astounding cynicism, taking umbrage at Mr. Limbaugh's words, leaves one breathless.

Pelosi: Bush 'a total failure'

By Alexander Mooney, CNN
Fri July 18, 2008

(CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Bush "a total failure" on Thursday, among the California Democrat's harshest assessments to date of the president.

"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an exclusive interview.

This is the same woman who yesterday said:

"I came to DC to be non-partisan, not bi-partisan or partisan."

Liar! You are one of the most partisan people in Washington DC. You have been the most partisan Speaker of the House in recent memory.

What did Senator Harry Reid have to say about President Bush? Check this out:

I really do believe that President Bush is the worst president we've ever had. ['Meet the Press' transcript for Jan. 4, 2009]

I'm sorry Madame Speaker, that honor belongs to a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. What did Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to say about the troop surge?

"As many had forseen [sic], the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation." [Breitbart, June 13 2007, Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush]

These two, who are now so outraged at the words of a private citizen criticizing President Obama, made their declaration of failure less than two weeks after the last of the troops involved in the surge had arrived in Iraq. Clearly they were hoping for the surge to fail.

I call upon all Republicans and all Conservatives to reject this campaign of lies and e-mail, call, or write your senators and members of congress and urge them to vote "no" on this pork-laden spending bill.

Republican Senators must develop some backbone and tell President Obama that this kind of partisan Democrat Party campaign of hate and lies will not sway them from doing what is good for the nation by refusing to support this attempt by Democrats to return to the demonstrably failed policies of Roosevelt's New Deal. As Benjamin Franklin told his colleagues during the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

"Gentlemen, we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly hang separately."

For too long, even when Republicans controlled both houses, our congressmen and women have stood passively as they were pilloried and attacked by those on the Left. They have repeatedly allowed those on the Left, both in the media and in the Democrat Party, to set and control our national dialogue using their particular brand of hatred and lies.

Now as before, in 1994, Rush Limbaugh is pointing out the path to a Republican victory. We have only to listen and find the inner strength to do what is right. Shutdown the Senate if need be. Weather the storm of lies and refute them with the truth. Force Democrats to rewrite the bill with real measure that will make a real difference.

Demand real concessions from them or let them hang. Demand the elimination of the Capital Gains Tax and a substantial reduction in the Corporate Tax Rates. If they refuse, force them to take full responsibility for their choices. Do not support them; do not give them the cover they seek.

No more ladies and gentlemen, no more should we let ourselves be railroaded by those who claim bipartisanship while relentlessly attacking our party, our president and our nation and all for which they have stood for in the past. Lies must be met with truth; attacks with aggressive response, not passive equinimity.

Democrats have shown us the way through their aggressive techniques, funded by those who have no love for our nation, no respect for our people, and no affinity for that which has made our nation and our economy the envy of the world.

Tell these anti-American conspirators:

"No more!" "No more lies, no more distortion, and no more free ride. If you lie about us, we will reveal the lies by telling the truth. If you distort what we say, we will tell the American voters the facts. If you attack us, we will attack back by informing the American people."

Senators of the Republican caucus:

"Stand up! Stand up and reject this dangerous Liberal spending bill. Stand up for the American people and force Democrats to present a bill that will actually do something to help this economy and our American citizens."

Now is the time for all Republicans to take their case to the people, just as the people are now making known their distaste for this massive, budget bursting, deficit exploding, spending bill.

For years we have been hearing members of the Democrat Party rail against "deficits as far as the eye can see, yet now we have these same Democrats offering the American people deficits as far as the mind can imagine.

Don't let this happen!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

On the Stimulus Package: The "No" Vote Was the Bipartisan Vote

Will Malven

Every time a Liberal says the word "bipartisan," you should run for the hills. In the Liberal lexicon the word "bipartisan" means Conservatives agree with us. It never means members of the Left and members of the Right will get together and hammer out an agreement which contains some of what Liberals want and some of what Conservatives want.

So when you hear a Democrat Congressman say that they want a bipartisan bill, what they are actually saying is "Republicans, give us some cover so we don't get blamed for our failures."

In yesterday's House vote on the Democrat conceived, Democrat written, and Democrat planned "stimulus package," H.R. 1, an amazing thing happened; 11 Democrats joined with all 166 of the Republicans to vote against the bill. That's a bipartisan vote against the bill.

Now the bill passed anyway, but it passed on a strictly partisan yes vote - 244 Democrats voted "yes" and passed the bill over the objections of a bipartisan minority.

Funny, I keep hearing Democrats talking about "bipartisanship" all of the time yet when it comes down to actually offering a bill on the House floor, they rewrote the House rules to prevent any meaningful way for Republicans to influence what the bill said or how the money was to be spent.

So yesterday, we got a taste of bipartisanship. Problem was, Democrats weren't interested in it...except for that 11. I am certain that Speaker Pelosi will personally let those eleven Democrats who opted for bipartisanship know how much she appreciated their efforts.

Well so much for "change." Looks like Democrats will run things in the House of Representatives the way they always have...like a Democrat Party dictatorship. Too bad there weren't more Democrats willing to place their country above partisan politics and vote against this abomination.

Well, I have little hope that Republicans will demonstrate the sort of backbone in the Senate that they suddenly developed in the House, but one can always hope.

There are entirely too many people in our Congress who believe that bad legislation is better than no legislation at all and far too many of those are calling themselves Republicans...even if they do vote more like Democrats.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Time for ABC to Send George Stephanopoulos Packing

Will Malven

One of the most critical aspects of a journalist's credibility is his ability to at least appear to be objective. So what happens when one of the biggest names in network journalism George Stephanopoulos host of ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" is revealed to be in constant contact with other former Clinton Administration advisors using their collective knowledge and political acumen to aid President Obama's Chief of Staff in performing his job?

The answer to that question will reveal just how dedicated the management of ABC is to the basic tenets of objective journalism; dedicated or contemptuous.

This is the story as reported in the Politico:

By: John F. Harris
Editor in Chief of the Politico

The conversations don’t begin with hello. They don’t end with goodbye. Most often they pick up with a low, drawling voice uttering something between a sentence and a grunt.

“Wahzgoanawn?”

For those accustomed to hearing James Carville only when he is trying to enunciate more clearly for television, that translates to: "What's going on?"

So begins another morning in what may count as Washington’s longest-running conversation — a street-corner bull session between four old friends who suddenly find themselves standing once more at the busiest intersection of politics and media in Washington.

Carville calls White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel calls ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos.

A bit later, CNN commentator Paul Begala, who is not quite the early bird that his friends are, will complete the circle with a rapid set of calls to all three.

Different versions of this round-robin chatter have been taking place, with few interruptions, every workday for nearly a generation.

With this story and its disturbing revelation that far from severing his ties as a political operative for the Democrat Party, Mr. Stephanopoulos continues to use them to Democrat advantage, even as he positions himself as an objective interlocutor on ABC's Sunday morning Political round up.

Clearly the program needs to be labeled as a clearly biased opinion program (as we already know it to be) rather than the objective journalistic program it claims to be. Just as one cannot serve both God and Mammon, Stephanopoulos cannot serve both his masters in the Democrat hierarchy and the Obama Administration and the basic tenets of his chosen profession, journalism.

The Politico article further states the following about this issue:

It is a sensitive point for Stephanopoulos, who shot to fame as a Bill Clinton retainer and has worked hard to fashion a reputation as an independent journalist.

He said he does not surrender that role when he gets on the calls, nor does he surrender personal feelings that go back nearly 20 years.

“We are all good friends,” he said. “We just like talking to each other, and I learn a lot from it ... and that’s why we have been doing it for so long.”

What a cozy...and innocent picture he paints.

Allow me to put this into perspective for a moment by dredging up an incident that Liberals would now like to forget as it applies very well to this case. Does the name James Dale Guckert ring a bell? Maybe you know him better by his Nome de plume, Jeff Gannon.

Jeff Gannon was the unfortunate individual who made the mistake of asking what some White House reporters believed to be a "softball question" of President Bush during a White House press conference on January 26, 2005. As a result of his actions, Mr. Guckert's entire career and his personal life were placed under a Liberal microscope.

While it is true that Mr. Guckert had a rather sordid and checkered past, the attacks and scrutiny to which he was subjected went well beyond the pale. Those same Liberals who endlessly claim to be supportive of "gay rights" immediately began to ridicule Mr. Guckert for being gay. They published nude pictures of him he had posted when he was a gay prostitute (are you paying attention Congressman Barney Frank?) on their Left-wing websites and used every means at their disposal to destroy him...simply because he asked the President a "friendly question" during a press conference.

Now, as George Stephanopoulos was, himself, a prostitute of sort; selling his services as a political operative to whatever Democrat candidate desired them, perhaps he deserves the same scrutiny as he performs his duties at ABC.

I, in no way, defend Mr. Guckert/Gannon's past, but I do believe that "fair is fair" and if one individual's credentials as a journalist are rendered questionable by a mere question, then shouldn't an individual who still functions as an unofficial advisor to the Chief of Staff of the sitting president be subjected to the same journalistic standards?

Watching Mr. Stephanopoulos's program should relieve any doubt that he is about as biased a mediator as there is in television news, short of those programs clearly offered as editorial in intent. Even the journalists and commentators Mr. Stephanopoulos invites to his round-table discussions reflect his pro-Democrat biases. It is very rare indeed that there are more who are sympathetic to Republicans than those who sympathize with Democrat...it is even rare if there is a balanced panel.

Nope, I believe the jury is in on Mr. Stephanopoulos. The only question remaining is what, if anything is the network management going to do about it. If they wish to maintain any credibility at all, they have no choice but to find a different host for their program. To do otherwise will reveal them to be the Leftward biased network we Conservatives have known them to be for decades.

Time to go George.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Apology Accepted. Congressman Gingrey Apologizes to Rush Limbaugh

The true sign of a gentleman and an adult is his ability to acknowledge his errors and to apologize when his errors cause offense.

Let it be said far and wide that Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) is an adult and a gentleman. The Congressman made a mistake in his zeal to praise Republican Congressional Leadership and defend them in their efforts to stop the Obama Administration in its headlong sprint to drag America into the mire of socialism.

Though his motives were pure, his words caught many of us Conservatives by surprise and, judging by his reaction, elicited a storm of protest from many of Rush Limbaugh's 30 million listeners by phone and e-mail (like mine).

This morning, Representative Gingrey telephoned Rush's program and apologized to Rush and his audience. He explained the reason for his ill-considered statement and expressed his support for Rush and gratitude to Rush for his work in support of the Republican Party.

As one might expect, Rush was gracious in his acceptance and understanding of the Representatives reasoning.

Here is the e-mail I just received from Congressman Gingrey's office at 4:53PM:

Reply from Congressman Phil Gingrey

January 28, 2009

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my comments as they were reported by the Politico. I appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns on this matter.

I believe I was sent to Washington to fight for and defend the traditional values of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the lives of the unborn. In my six years in Washington, I have led the charge on many of these issues. In fact, in 2008 The National Journal ranked me the most conservative Member of the House of Representatives.

With respect to my comments regarding commentators who each and every day speak out in defense of these values, I regret and apologize for that fact these comments have offended and upset not only my constituents but also listeners throughout the country. I am sorry to see how my comments have been reported and read much harsher than intended. I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.

Now more than ever, there is a need to articulate a clear conservative message for moving our nation forward. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement's conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans-myself included-turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination. At the end of the day, every member of the conservative movement, from political commentators and thinkers to elected officials, share an important and common purpose in advancing the cause of liberty, reigning in a bloated federal government, and defending our traditional family values.

My vanity would wish that this was a direct and personal response from the congressman, but I am not so far detached from reality as to believe that, nor that my email of this morning was anything more than one of a large number from those who were taken aback at the Politico's story.

Even so, I greatly appreciate the timely response of his office and the fact that he so quickly moved to correct his mistake. Would that Congress was filled with more men of his character and willingness to own up when they are wrong.

I would never expect President Obama or any of his fellow Democrats to do so short of doing so at the point of a gun...or camera lens and only then after a long and drawn out series of denials, accusations aimed at their critics, and lies.

It is nice to be on the side of the adults in this political conflict rather than with the hating, name calling, and sophomoric (sophomoronic?) members of the Left.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

An Open Letter to Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

Politico today featured an article in which they report that Congressman Phil Gingrey has taken exception to Rush Limbaugh's comment that Obama is

“obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

To say that I am astounded that any Republican in Congress would be critical of Mr. Limbaugh's statement, which was nothing but a statement of facts would be an understatement, but for the fact that Republicans, up until recently, have shown little stomach for either attacking Democrats or defending (now former) President Bush.

Here is a portion of the article:

House GOP member to Rush: Back off

By JONATHAN MARTIN
1/27/09 4:13 PM EST Updated: 1/27/09 7:32 PM EST

Rush Limbaugh may command a large following, but his caustic comments Monday about the GOP’s congressional leadership have at least one Republican House member defending his colleagues and offering an unusually candid critique of the talk radio powerhouse and his fellow commentators.

Responding to President Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, the conservative talkmeister said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

On occasion, Mr. Congressman, "brick throwing" is necessary, and I haven't seen many bricks directed at the Democrats by members of the Republican caucus over the past eight years. All I have seen is a lot of Republican members of Congress ducking as they flew back from your Democrat Party colleagues both at you and your President.

To state that Republican voices on the national stage have been silent over the past eight years would be to make the understatement of the decade. Republicans throughout the eight years of President Bush's administration have rushed to bask in the glow when he was popular, and have been conspicuous by their absence when he was taking the heat.

Perhaps now, even with House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell now beginning to speak out, a little chiding is still deserved.

I am gratified that Messrs. Boehner and McConnell have begun to fight back. They deserve kudos even if they are only doing what they are supposed to be doing. Would that more Republican members of Congress would do so.

Anyway, I have written the following email to Congressman Gingrey in hopes that it will spur Republican House and Senate members to develop a little backbone and oppose our rapidly accelerating slide into the morass of socialism.

Here's the letter:

Dear Congressman Gingrey,

For over a decade, even while in control of both the House and the Senate, Republican members of Congress have sat on their collective hands as their Democrat colleagues and members of the mainstream media continually attacked, slandered, and lied about President Bush and the Republican Congress. One of the few voices from the Right taking a stand in defense of our President and our Party was radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.

While you and your colleagues sought to curry favor with a press which will never support a true Conservative Republican agenda, Rush was out there attacking the lies of the Democrats and warning Republicans of our upcoming electoral route.

I am appalled that you would choose to attack the most influential and outspoken defenders of our Party rather than directing your fire at the target which most needs attacking, the Democrat Party. You should be out there thanking Mr. Limbaugh for defending our party when individuals like you were attempting to maintain a low profile and failed to stand up to defend your president.

While it is true that Rush can be somewhat of a “bomb-thrower,” somebody has to speak out and defend the party and the principles upon which our platform stands. I can’t say as I have heard of you or very many of your colleagues doing so. Perhaps if you and your colleagues were less concerned about protecting your political careers and more about doing what is right, Mr. Limbaugh wouldn’t be forced to be so outspoken.

The statement made by Rush Limbaugh at which you have taken such umbrage was the truth. I’m sorry if that upsets your little Congressional Ostrich paradigm, but it is time for all good Republicans to take a firm and vocal stand against the insanity now taking place in Washington D.C.

Please Mr. Representative Gingrey, stand up for you party and its ideals. Yes, Messrs, Boehner and McConnell are doing a fine job…now. I am, at last, proud of a member of my party for standing firm in opposition to what is rapidly becoming the most Liberal administration in the last 60 years. Stand up, sir! Be courageous. Spread the word to your colleagues, the Republican rank and file are tired of Congressional Republicans’ weak and invisible voices.

You can’t go back and remedy the failures of you and your fellow members to be forthright in you defense of President Bush; he is gone and history will judge him far better than even some in his party have chosen to, but you can oppose what President Obama and the Democrat leadership are attempting to achieve currently.

America and the Republican Party can no longer afford for Republican leaders, like you and your colleagues, to mince words and observe political niceties when $2 trillion or more is about to be added to our national deficit. Stand fast! Speak out! Be bold!

Instead of allowing Leader Boehner and Leader McConnell to take all of the heat, stand at their side and weather the storm with them. The American people will come around if they are given strong reason to do so.

Conservatism is not dead or dying, it remains the heart and soul of our people. Yes they can have their heads turned by an attractive, smooth talking con-man, but when the awaken from their trance, they need men and women of strong Conservative values to speak out and show them the truth.

Please sir, we out here in real America are begging you and your colleagues to protect us from this Leftist ideologue and his congressional allies.

Take courage sir, we are out here. Direct your ire and indignation towards those who deserve it, not those who are waging the war we all need to be waging.

Thank-you for your sevice to our nation, now get out there and fight!!!

Sincerely,

Will Malven
http://houstonconservative.com

P.S. I am posting a copy of this email on my website for all to read and comment on.

Let's hope we see some action from Republicans in Congress now. They should be defending freedom of speech and Mr. Limbaugh, as well as Sean Hannity and former Speaker Newt Gingrich rather than taking umbrage at their purposeful and accurate comments.

Democrat's are even now circulating a petition against Rush Limbaugh. While he is perfectly capable of defending himself, it would be nice if our Republican members of Congress would defend those who have so strongly and resolutely defended them even when they lacked the backbone to defend themselves.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Statement on Governor Rick Perry’s State of the State Address

Statement by Justin Keener, Vice President of Policy and Communications

“We applaud Gov. Rick Perry’s focus on fiscal responsibility in his remarks today. This is the time for state government to restrain spending, not to increase taxes or expand programs. Texas must continue to lead by example, rather than to follow other large states like California down the path to bankruptcy.

“We join Gov. Perry in urging the Texas Legislature to take the next step toward full government financial transparency. Especially during difficult economic times, we need to engage all interested Texans in the battle to root out government waste and inefficiency at both the state and local levels.

“The legislature should also heed Gov. Perry’s call to finish the job of protecting Texans’ property rights from eminent domain abuse. The Legislature took a good first step shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, but it now needs to finish the job of protecting Texas property owners.

“Gov. Perry’s support for increasing the amount of funding for incentive pay and removing the legislative cap on open-enrollment charter schools shows that he understands the importance of promoting competition within Texas public schools.”

Justin Keener is Vice President of Policy and Communications for the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Paul Krugman's "Bad Faith" Editorial

Original title - Paul Krugman, I "Pwn" You

In yesterday's New York Lies Times Paul Krugman, Op-Ed writer for the Times, professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University and recently announced Nobel Prize Laureate (announced on October 13, 2008), wrote an editorial "Bad Faith Economics" intimating that everyone who opposes the Democrat/Obama stimulus package is doing so in "bad faith." Purporting to "debunk" the arguments of those who oppose the new administration's $825 billion stimulus package...he failed...miserably.

I'll begin with his dismissal of House Minority Leader John Boehner's comment that the provision which expands Medicaid family-planning services is a plan to "spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives," as a "cheap shot." If that is so, then he also needs to direct his indigntion at Speaker Pelosi. In her Sunday interview with NBC's George Stephanpoulos the following exchange took place:

STEPHANOPOULOS: "Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?"

PELOSI: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Apparently Mrs. Pelosi agrees with Leader Boehner's characterization if Krugman doesn't. But them, Krugman probably believes that pointing out Liberal hypocrisy is a "cheap shot."

Moving on, Krugman says:

First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

He goes on:

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 — and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.

Krugman is wrong on almost every point. Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget, says:

"Our analysis indicates that at least 75 percent of the overall package will be spent over the next year and a half." [Emphasis added]

So much for that "several years" assertion, Mr. Nobel laureate-to-be. If Mr. Orszag is correct, then the math is pretty straight forward, so much so that even a Nobel laureate in Economics should be able to do it.

Do the math Mr. Krugman, that just about 75% of the $825 billion in the first year or, using your figure, .75 X $275,000 = $206,000 per job created. $206,000 vs. your claimed $100,000. That's an error of 106%. Time for a little remedial math Mr. Krugman.

Is that the sort of math you have to do to become a Nobel laureate? If you wish to be a stickler (you do, don't you Mr. Krugman?), Mr. Orszag did specify eighteen months versus the twelve you claim is being asserted (that's still well short of your claim of "several years" isn't it Mr. Bad Faith?), so we can further reduce the number to so reflect that difference. We're still looking at over $150,000 per job developed.

Excuse me Mr. Krugman, you're still off by over 50%. Not very good for a Nobel laureate-to-be.

Lastly, you assume that there will be no further calls for more stimuli in the future; an assumption that history doesn't support.

• The $700 billion TARP program was also supposed to be a one-time occurrence, yet here we are again.
• Additionally, Congress and President Bush dropped a "one-time only" stimulus of $168 billion last year.
• Congress and President Bush also dropped almost $20 billion on GM and Chrysler.
• GM is already making noise that it needs more.

There's one more wrinkle in Krugman's argument; that $275,000 argument is based on a best case scenario. It assumes that the Democrat/Obama plan creates all of the jobs it presupposes according to the most optimistic estimates. If the stimulus plan doesn't create as many jobs, that $275,000 number comes closer and closer to being accurate.

Most government plans don't come close to being as successful as they are projected to be...nor as inexpensive. When is the last time you've heard of a government project coming in "on time and on budget?"

Look for further spending requests by this administration.

Now Mr. "Bad Faith" really kicks in his cynicism:

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

Let's discuss a specious argument why don't we. No one who opposes these stimulus packages, Keynesian economics, or excessive government spending has ever made the argument you are purporting to "debunk;" ever. How very typical of a Liberal, Keynesian Kool-Aid drinker like you, Mr. Krugman to trot out a straw horse and then attack it, claiming thereby to have refuted your opponents' arguments.

What we do assert is that tax-cuts, in particular tax-cuts in capital gains and corporate taxes, inject money faster than this stimulus package will, targets the people most capable of creating the jobs you claim to want to create, and invariably result in higher tax revenues.

We also assert the truth of what you sneer at. The people are better able and more suited to determine how to spend their money than some government bureaucrat is.

History again provides the answer here. Every time there has been a sizable tax cut in America, federal revenues increased significantly. It happened during the Kennedy administration, again in the Reagan administration and once more in President Bush's administration.

The "Reagan Recovery" lasted over a decade...into the Clinton administration...I'd call that pretty clear evidence.

Mr. Nobel laureate-to-be then comes up with an assertion for which he provides no supporting evidence:

"...it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.

This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general."

...I guess we are just supposed to take his word for it, like that $100,000 number he pulled out of the air (or somewhere much closer to his person).

Lastly Mr. Krugman asserts that since interest rates are already essentially a zero per cent, a large-scale fiscal stimulus package is all that's:

"left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse."

We conservatives are deliberately being obtuse because we have examined history and know that the path you and your Democrat allies in Congress and in the White House are pursuing is doomed to fail...and possibly exacerbate an already bad situation.

Roosevelt's "New Deal" Keynesian economics plan lengthened the Great Recession of the 1930's to the point that it required a world war to revitalize the economy. Unemployment, which peaked at 23% did drop initially down to 13% mainly as a result of the short term effects of Roosevelt's stimulus package, but led to a recession which resulted in unemployment rising back up to 17%.

Not a very enviable record and not one I would wish to repeat.

The actual reason that all of these people want a stimulus package, besides the obvious fact that it provides them increased control over the economy, is that they do not believe in capitalism.

They do not have faith in our economic system. They believe in the socialist model, thus they see only doom and gloom on the horizon. They are unable to imagine the possibility that our economy could recover on its own. This is why they don't want to allow failing businesses to fail. They don't see such failures as windows of opportunity for other entrepreneurs; they see only limitations and boundaries.

They do not believe in this great system our forefathers left to us. They believe in Europe. Being risk averse, they want the European model of socialism where businesses are protected from failure as are the people. Problem is, that model doesn't work.

I'm sorry. Our forefathers left Europe to build a better way, not so that we could later return to the fold.

Sorry for the length of this post, but Krugman's own "bad faith" demanded no less.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Obama's "Bipartisanship"

"I won. I'm the President."

So begins President Barrack Obama's Administration of "openness" and "bipartisanship."

It's an interesting way of building "bipartisanship" in writing legislation to confront the largest single issue facing America today, telling members of the opposition party whom you invited to your meeting on solving the financial crisis, I hear what you are saying but "I won. I'm the President."

Obama basically told the Republican members of Congress, "You can sit in on our meetings, but I'm not interested in anything you have to offer." It's a refrain often repeated among Democrats in Washington D.C., "Elections have consequences."

Here's the Politico's article on the exchange:

Obama to GOP: 'I won'

By JONATHAN MARTIN & CAROL E. LEE
1/23/09 1:25 PM EST

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

It's a lesson I wish all Republican legislators would burn into their memories...Democrats don't believe in true "bipartisanship." What Democrats mean when they say "bipartisanship" is I want you to agree with me. They have never believed in any system in which two parties with diametrically opposed philosophies come together and through a system of give and take, hammer out an agreement containing the best, most effective portions of each one's ideas.

Democrat's concept of "give and take" is you give and I'll take. The sentiment has been echoed in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ham-handed governance in the House. She has passed new House rules which strip the opposition of any capability for Republicans to influence Democrat Party initiatives or impair their progress towards becoming law. Pelosi's mantra has been, "Elections have consequences," as she bullies her agenda through the House.

Remember now both President Obama and Speaker Pelosi promised a new era of "bipartisanship" when they took their seats.

“Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship,” Pelosi said at a midday press conference, her first in the wake of the Tuesday victory. [Roll Call: Hoyer, Murtha Battle By Jennifer Yachnin and John Bresnahan, November 9, 2006]

In his less than stellar inaugural speech, President Barack Hussein Obama said much the same thing in these little lies gems:

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

...the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply..."

Earlier, during his campaign for the Presidency, Obama said:

"As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done..."

...Both at the state legislative level and at the federal legislative level, I have always been able to work together with Republicans to find compromise and to find common ground." [Fox News Sunday, on April 27]

To further rub it in, I'll quote Mr. Obama again:

"Don't tell me words don't matter. Just words? Just speeches?" [February 16, 2008, Milwalkee, Wisconsin Speech]

So what conclusions are we to draw from President Obama's comment during the White House budget meeting?

"I won."

The meaning is very clear:

"[My own] words don't matter"

"Republicans should be seen, but not heard."

"Thank-you for sharing."

Just as Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi's words were empty rhetoric, so are President Obama's. Democrats have their agenda. That agenda is quite clear; huge government projects, socialized medicine, a takeover of the entire financial system, massive increases in government spending and decreases in individual freedoms.

Their vision is a monolithic state controlled by an elite federal cadre (made up of themselves) with no room for dissent or objection from those with alternative ideas.

Hmmm...sounds a lot like the old Soviet Union.

As with all proclaimed Democrat Party ideals, freedom of speech, applies only to Democrats, not the rank and file American citizen and absolutely not any Republicans.

And they will codify it to be so if they are allowed to reign unchecked.

Republican legislators need to disabuse themselves of the idea of "bipartisanship" if they are going to protect our rights. They need to decide upon whose side they are on. They need to develop backbones. They need to understand fully the fact that they will never have the press on their side if they stand up for the individual's rights and freedoms. They need to be willing to withstand the fusillade of a hostile press and go on the offensive against the continual campaign of lies the Democrats and their "mainstream media" propaganda wing wage against them.

There is little hope for our nation if they do not. The nation our forefathers left us will be gone should Democrats get their way on all of these issues. The "Great Experiment" will be over and America will no longer be the "Shining City on the Hill," rather it will just be another European type socialist failure filled with citizens living quiet lives of desperation as they seek to fulfill their needs while coping with an onerous burden of taxes and fees.

Still hoping against all hope:

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Obama: "Okay, What Do I Do Now?"

At the conclusion of the Robert Redford movie, "The Candidate," Redford's character has won in his bid to become the next Senator from California. In a quiet moment, sitting by himself, he asks the question,

"What do I do now?"

Life often imitates art, but never more so than now. America has elected and now inaugurated the least qualified, most unprepared President in our nation's 225 year history; an empty mind in an empty suit. You can almost hear an echo of Robert Redford's words in Obama's actions and behavior...

Uhh, uhh, hey guys? Now that I'm here, what am I supposed to do?

Barack Hussein Obama has been touted as a brilliant man - I've seen no evidence of that intellect.

He has been touted as a visionary - an adult needs to be able to discern the difference between citing platitudes and having vision.

He has been called an agent of change and it has been claimed that change is what we need - change can be for good or bad, change for the worse is not a good thing.

His inaugural speech stands as one of the least inspiring least visionary, most trite in living memory. It was the most negative speech since Jimmy Carter's "Malaise Speech." It held none of the optimism that our nation's greatest leaders inspired through their words. It didn't hold a candle to the words of Ronald Reagan or George Bush (either 41 or 43). There was not Shining City on the Hill, no "Nothing to fear, but fear itself." It was another Malaise Speech.

Today, in furtherance of President Obama's portrayal of a man clearly out his depths, he made a great spectacle of signing a number of presidential executive orders, among them were those closing the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In the signing ceremony, he was forced to ask White House Council, Greg Craig, what he was signing. Here's a video of the signing: Obama signs Order to Close Guantanamo in a Year

"...Is there a separate executive order Greg with respect to how we are going to dispose the detainees? Is that uh..."

[White House Council Greg Craig in the background] We're setting up a process.

[Obama] We will be setting up a process whereby this is going to be taking place."

What he is clearly saying is

"I don't know exactly what it is I am signing. Greg will you help me out here?"

This is frightening stuff here folks. With this order and the even worse executive order specifying the Army Field Manual as the defining instruction on how prisoners are to be treated (meaning no more water-boarding or extreme interrogation techniques), he is basically restating what is engraved on the Statue of Liberty to say,

"Give us your tired, your poor, your yearning to blow the crap out of our citizens."

Barack Obama is going to be worse than Jimmy Carter...and that's very, very bad indeed.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

May God Save Us!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Statement on the Legislative Budget Board’s 2010-11 Budget Estimates

Statement by The Honorable Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy

"The first draft of the 2010-11 Texas state budget reinforces the message from Comptroller Susan Combs' revenue estimate last week. The Texas Legislature needs to get to work on pruning the next state budget back within the available revenue.

"The legislature needs to be mindful of the hard lesson it learned in 2001, when it spent the entire accumulated surplus of the 1990s at once and dug itself a $10 billion hole in 2003. The way for the legislature to avoid setting the same trap for itself is to continue to show fiscal restraint.”

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Heflin served 11 terms in the Texas House of Representatives and chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 2003, leading the Texas Legislature’s successful efforts to close a $10 billion budget deficit without a tax increase.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

George Bush's 2001 Inaugural Speech

Well...for those of you, like me, who yearned for something more than the peaen to mediocrity that our new president delivered today, here is a blast from the past.

President Bush has never been considered a great orator, but he always delivered good solid speeches. After today's truly sub-average performance today by President Barry, I thought you might like to read President George's effort for comparison:

"Thank you all. Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens. The peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet common in our country. With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings. As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation. And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace.

I am honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story, a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old. The story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom. The story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. It is the American story, a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise: that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must follow no other course.

Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise - even the justice - of our own country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools, and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.

We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach, because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal in his image. And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Today we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.

America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness.

Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because in a time of peace the stakes of our debates appear small. But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do not turn the hearts of children toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their idealism. If we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most.

We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment.

America at its best is also courageous. Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when defeating common dangers defined our common good. Now we must chose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn us. We must show courage in a time of blessing, by confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations.

Together, we will reclaim America's schools before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent. And we will reduce taxes to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans. We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.

The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake, America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

America at its best is compassionate.

In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts of God, they are failures of love. And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls.

Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens; not problems, but priorities; and all of us are diminished when any are hopeless.

Government has great responsibilities, for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government. And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty. But we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.

America at its best is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected. Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life, not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which give direction to our freedom.

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well. In all these days - ways - I will bring the values of our history to the care of our times.

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort, to defend needed reforms against easy attacks, to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens. Citizens, not spectators. Citizens, not subjects. Responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves. When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can stand against it.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "We know the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?"

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage, and its simple dream of dignity. We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today: to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

Thank-you Mr. President for being a class act. You, I believe, truly have represented what is best about America. Though I have not always agreed with your actions, I respect you for adhering to that in which you believed rather than what seemed to be expedient at the time.

You have kept us safe from further attack by terrorists, freed the Iraqi people from a terrible despot, freed Liberia from a terrible despot, invested more in HIV/AIDS relief than any president in history, renewed our military power and proven that America is no longer the paper tiger the terrorist were led to believe after the debacle that was the Clinton administration.

God Bless you Mr. President Bush, you have been a man of honor, integrity and charm. You restored character and integrity into a White House ravaged by corruption and immorality.

Barack Obama has a long way to go to fill your shoes.

May you and Laura Bush live long, healthy, happy lives.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Barack Obama! Saints and Ministers of Mercy Protect Us

Delivering what can only be described as mediocre speech filled with banalities and tired platitudes, Americas 44th President now takes office.

This was the great speech? Barack Obama worked two days on this speech? This is the "new Lincoln?" President Bush's speeches...pretty much all of them...eclipsed this pitiful effort without trying.

If Obama's goal was to be a new President Lincoln, he has already fallen well short; so short as to make the comparison insulting and laughable. One must wonder which of these banal words will "be etched in stone" as the mainstream media has asserted.

Hey Barry, I give you a C, maybe a C-. This is really laughable.

If this is any indication of what we are in for, look for another four years of constant campaigning. This was not a great speech, it was not even a good speech; it was a moderately good campaign speech.

I take this as further proof that America has elected another walking joke; as feared by some of us, an empty suit without the intellect or ideals appropriate for leading this greatest of nations.

If it wasn't for the tears I feel for the future of our nation, I would be laughing hysterically. This is the best that the Democrats could come up with?

Earlier, I predicted that Barack Obama would prove to be another Jimmy Carter...I fear I grossly overestimated Obama's capabilities.

Just as it has always proven to be, the Democrat Party and the Left in general is all about symbolism, not substance. Image and perception are the essence of the Democrat Party and their candidates.

The image I am holding is one of incompetence, inability, and a man completely out of his depths. Most of this could be foretold by his choices of Clintonistas to populate his cabinet. Of particular note is the abysmal choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Equally pathetic is his choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State; her primary qualification is "she travelled a lot," and being the wife of the Impeached and disgraced President of the United States.

While I griping, what's with this guy Geithner? If a Republican had done exactly the same things as Timothy Geithner (failed to pay his social security taxes and Medicare taxes) he would not have a chance of being approved, but what is a high crime for a Republican, is a "mistake" for a Democrat. Republican Senators, where are your spines?

Well, the one good thing I can say about this inauguration and transition is that it is the single most American event that can occur. The wonderful and unique fact about our nation is this peaceful transition to power.

Barack Obama, whatever his flaws is now the new President of the United States, for good or ill. He will receive an extended "honeymoon" from the citizens because of the divine aura placed around him by the press and his party's overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.

Like Bill Clinton, he comes into office with high expectations and the good will of a large majority of our citizens, it is up to him now to succeed or fail.

My prediction, Liberals will be very disappointed with Barack's first term because he will be focused on getting re-elected. He will not do anything to jeopardize that, so he will not do anything much different from what President Bush has done.

He will sign the order to begin the withdrawal of our the troops from Iraq today or tomorrow to be completed in sixteen months, contingent on conditions on the ground, which means that they will still be in Iraq at the end of his first term. He will sign the order closing the terrorist prison in Guantanamo Bay and then it will remain open for the next decade as it proves impossible to find nations to take these terrorists.

Nothing of note will change with the exception of an attempt (hopefully unsuccessful) to socialize medical care in America and increased deficit spending as Barack Obama attempts to spend his way out of this economic mess.

Boy are the Liberals going to be dismayed when their messiah ends up being the same old Democrat lie wrapped in a new color.

The next four years should be fun...painful, but fun.

Oh-Oh! I won't even mention the "Inaugural Poet." Too funny!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas PolicyCast: Part 1 - Legislative session preview with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst

The regular session of the 81st Texas Legislature is now underway in Austin. This week and next, we will bring you a two-part conversation with Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst on the session's key issues. In this episode, we focus on the state's budget and finances.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Massachusetts Mess

By The Honorable Arlene Wohlgemuth

News coming out of the Massachusetts experiment with “socialized medicine lite” – the combination of insurance coverage that is free, subsidized, or mandatory to make it near universal – continues to be distressing for reasons other than the predictable, ever-escalating cost to the state.

First were the reports from across the state of primary care physician shortages. According to a physician workforce study conducted by the Massachusetts Medical Society, half of the internists in Massachusetts stopped accepting new patients, as did 95 percent of general practice physicians in Boston’s top three teaching hospitals.

Waiting times for appointments, for those fortunate enough to get one at all, increased by more than one-third. Need to schedule a physical? How about this time next year?

The latest development is an astounding change in the way patients and doctors have interacted for generations. “Shared medical appointments” are the new wave in Massachusetts physician practices due to the shortages.

Eight or nine patients with the same general complaint are scheduled at the same time and ushered into a room to have their examinations – together. The doctor examines each one and then discusses with them as a group how to manage their health issue. Other, more personal issues can be discussed with the group, or perhaps with the doctor alone afterwards.

This underscores that having insurance means nothing without access to a provider.

Despite significant increases in the number of health professionals since the passage of medical liability reform in 2003, Texas remains in a shortage. The guideline for an appropriate ratio of health professional to general population is considered to be 1-to-1,500. The guideline for being declared a health profession shortage area is when it reaches 1-to-3,500. Texas’ current ratio is 1-to-4,016.

Even worse, demographic trends reveal an undeniable confluence of important factors – a huge increase in the elderly population, a growing general population, and a dramatic decrease in medical students selecting family practice and internal medicine.

In a normal marketplace, supply and demand would dictate a higher price for the item or service in short supply; that would draw more resources to meet the increased demand. Instead of paying more for what is needed, primary care physicians’ average annual earnings have been artificially driven down to about half that of specialty doctors.

The average student loan debt coming out of medical school is about $150,000. Two more years in a specialty residency would increase the doctor’s annual income by roughly that amount. Little wonder that medical students are choosing the specialty route.

Government programs and managed care insurers are much to blame for the market distortions. Reimbursement levels have declined while administrative demands have increased. The result is that family practice physicians spend less time seeing patients and more time filling out the paperwork plus paying a third party to file it all – a recipe for a dissatisfied doctor. Perhaps that is why nearly half of the physicians nationwide plan to reduce the number of patients they see or quit the practice of medicine altogether in the next three years, which will amplify the physician shortage.

Many are looking again to the government for solutions. The late physicist Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Heavy government involvement in the field of medicine always results in fewer providers and lower quality of care. Government health care programs are responsible for the high cost and malfunctioning marketplace we have today.

Every proposal should be judged by one question: Will this measure result in more government control or more personal control? If the answer is the former, as with the proposed expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program soon to come before the new Congress, then the measure is a problem, not a solution. Regardless of where the income limit is set, the people just above the limit will find insurance unaffordable while those within the program find health care inaccessible.

Looking to government to solve our health care problems is, well, insanity. And Massachusetts’ “socialized medicine lite” proves it.

The Honorable Arlene Wohlgemuth is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. She served six terms as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, specializing in health and human services issues.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

National Portrait Gallery Director Caves to Complaint of Senator Sanders

It is bad enough that we have to put up with a Socialist, America hating, Senator like Bernard Sanders (I-VT), but when he begins calling the shots at the National Portrait Gallery because he personally disagrees with the plaque placed under President George W. Bush's portrait, I am forced to speak out.

It is unseemly for the director of the National Portrait Gallery to kowtow to one senator's complaint about an historically correct statement concerning the our 43rd President's term in office.

The offending plaque read:

"Expecting that the success of his presidency would hinge, as it had when he was governor, on his negotiating skills and ability to solve problems, Bush found his two terms in office were instead marked by a series of catastrophic events: the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina; and a financial crisis during his last months in office."

The words that so offended Socialist Senator Sanders were "...led to..." His objection is that the words imply some sort of causal relationship between the attacks on 9/11/2001 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Director Sullivan's reply reads as follows:

"Dear Senator Sanders,

Thank you for your letter of January 7, 2009, regarding the label which accompanies the National Portrait Gallery’s recently acquired portrait of George W. Bush.

Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq. Our intention was to remind viewers of the portrait that the listed events were defining episodes in the Bush presidency, within the limited space of an object label. I appreciate your concern, however, about the words “led to.” We will revise the label to delete the words “led to.” I would welcome the opportunity to escort you on a personal tour of the National Portrait Gallery, and will call your office in hopes that we can arrange that.

Thank you for your interest in the Smithsonian Institution.

Sincerely,

Martin E. Sullivan, director"

Well gentlemen the fact is that there was a direct and undeniable "causal relationship" between the attacks on 9/11 and our invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. What part of the word "causal" do you two "learned" gentlemen not comprehend?

We didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq because it was a particularly nice day and we had nothing else to do. We did it in response to an unprovoked act of terrorism directed at civilians in America by Islamist terrorists who were being sheltered in Afghanistan and, at least to some extent, aided by Iraq.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam was a continuing problem in the Middle East, a threat to his neighboring nations and his people, and had violated 17 U.N. resolutions including continuing to launch missiles at American aircraft enforcing the "no-fly zone," persisting in interfering with U.N. sponsored investigators attempting to ascertain the status of Iraqs WMD programs, and still possessed (according to all intelligence sources) a stockpile of NCB weapons.

That these intelligence sources proved later to be in error in no way negates the legitimacy of our actions.

Enough is enough. Enough hatred of President Bush. Enough of Liberal lies. Enough of the insanity known as Bush derangement syndrome.

I am tired of the constant clamor from those on the Left who seem incapable of getting beyond their own disagreements with our President's policies...policies which have long since proven correct. Because of President Bush's decision to go to Iraq and depose the bloody tyrant Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people now have the opportunity to enjoy the liberties associated with an Iraqi Democracy.

I know with their limited intellects, it is difficult for Liberals to comprehend this, but those decisions, for good or ill, are history. They cannot be "taken back" or rescinded just because they disagreed with them. It is time to "move on."

Individuals like the egregious Senator Sanders appear to live in a constant state of hatred for everything that made and continues to make America the greatest nation in the history of our world.

Senator Sanders is a dinosaur who wishes America to descend into the morass of a demonstrably failed economic and social paradigm. So I say to Senator Sanders...with all due respect,

Senator, sit down and shut up!

It is people like you, Senator Sanders, who undermine our troops, endanger their lives, and give propaganda talking points to our enemies. You are not an echo of our founding fathers; you are a betrayer of their trust. You and your ilk would undo all that they fought so hard to build.

Our forefathers believed that the possession of private property was the right from which all other rights derived. They believed that it was the inherent and seminal right of every human being and they believed that it was the individual, not the state in which power resided.

Your preferred system enslaves the people to the state. We don't want what you offer us. It is the antithesis of everything for which America has stood for the past two hundred and thirty years.

Mr. Director Sullivan I find much with which to be offended in the tone and material included in the plaque intended for President George W. Bush's portrait, particularly when compared to the genial white-washing which serves as President Clinton's plaque, but these two words are not among those objections.

By the way, the plaque for President Clinton's official portrait reads as follows:

"The first of the post-World War II baby boomers to sit in the White House, Bill Clinton came to national political attention when, at age thirty-two, he claimed the Arkansas governorship. He later served an additional ten years as governor. Clinton's political resilience earned him the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination and the presidential victory in November.

During his presidency, Clinton's resilience continued to be his mainstay. In the face of several controversies, he maintained his credibility with the electorate. The most ambitious initiative of his presidency was an attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. That effort failed, but Clinton could claim accomplishments on other fronts, including a role in reshaping the nation's public welfare system. His administration also played a crucial part in curbing the massive federal spending deficits that had soared out of control in the 1980s; during his second term the government had a surplus in revenues for the first time since the late 1960s.

I see no mention of President Clinton's promise being "marked by a series of catastrophic events" such as the Hurricane Floyd disaster, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the minor fact that the man was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath. Oh and the many records set by his administration for indictments and criminal activity.

I see no mention of Clinton's presiding over the most corrupt administration in American history...none.

A few small omissions I admit, but after all, as you Liberals are want to say, what about a little fairness?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Enter the Administration of The Whiners

Will Malven 1/13/09

First it was the "gays" (well now they call themselves the "gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-sexual alliance," or "GLBT"-as though it was some sick, perverted sandwich on a diner's menu) and their whining about Pastor Rick Warren's having been invited by President Elect Barack Obama to give the Invocation for his Inauguration ceremony.

What was Pastor Rick Warren's great "crime?" Giving voice to his support for the California voters' initiative (Proposition 8) restricting the definition of "marriage" solely to hetero-sexual couples. By standing up for his personal beliefs (precisely the same thing these whiners claim to be doing) and the teachings of the Bible, Rick Warren became public enemy No. 1 to, not just the "gay" community, but to the entire Leftist, elitist cabal.

It was not just Pastor Warren who was targeted by the whining, limp-wristed Left, but their messiah as well. President Elect Obama was viciously attacked by his own supporters in the media and on the internet for the heinous act of naming Pastor Warren. So an act of inclusiveness, something in which all of these individuals claim to believe, became a high crime in the court of Liberal elitism...so much for tolerance.

In the end and disappointingly if not unexpectedly so, the President Elect caved into the whiners and only yesterday announced that Bishop Gene Robinson of the (recently apostate) Episcopal Church, the only openly "gay" bishop in the Episcopal Church of Apostacy, has been named to give the invocation at the Inauguration's opening ceremonies on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

I bet old Abe is thrilled about that.

Okay, if this wasn't bad enough. Now it appears that the NAACP wants to get in on the whining...

"Waaaahhhh!!! It's not fair!"

Edward Vaughan, the head of the Alabama chapter of the NAACP is complaining because the state of Alabama chose to send the Mobile Azalea Trail Maids to represent Alabamans in the inaugural parade. His objection? They remind him of slavery. That's funny; if you are that atuned to the memory of slavery in America then I would think that for someone like you, simply looking in the mirror would be sufficient. After all, you are a black man and the slaves (or most of them) were black so have at it. Get mad...again and again and again...until it kills you, or get over it and yourself.

Well here's a link to the story from the WSFA 12 website:

Alabama NAACP criticizes use of Trail Maids in Inaugural Parade

Posted: Jan 11, 2009 10:52 PM CST
Updated: Jan 12, 2009 01:02 AM CST

Montgomery, Ala. (WSFA) -- They're part of a long standing tradition that will soon become a part of Presidential history.

The head of the Alabama NAACP, however, wants Mobile's Azalea Trail Maids to stay home on Inauguration Day, claiming the group reminds him of slavery.

"These are not just regular costumes. These are the costumes that remind someone of the plantation in Gone with the Wind," Edward Vaughn said in a phone interview.

Vaughn went on to say the group would be the laughing stock of the Inauguration. County leaders say nothing could be further from the truth.

I suspect this has far less to do with Mr. Vaughan's being offended than it does with him attempting to grab some of the spotlight now being focused on our President Elect. Mr. Vaughan, like most leaders of the NAACP is nothing more than a "race pimp."

Judging from the initial reaction on the extremely Left-wing dailyKos website, I doubt this whine will have the legs of the GLBT complaint. After all, as far as the Left is concerned, they have their "Black President" now so they are absolved from any further concern about the needs or feelings of those in the African American community...right guys?

Remember, these are the people who endlessly preach "tolerance" and "understanding" to any foolish enough to listen to their drivel. These are the same people who will endlessly harangue us about "freedom of speech" and "civil liberties."

The problem with their espousal of these noble principles, as it is with almost any topic for which they advocate, is that they understand little about the underlying principles of those causes they so devoutly espouse. Their ire and open, sometimes violent, hatred of those who oppose their advocacy is a revelation of what is meant by "A little education is a dangerous thing."

They are only willing to apply those principles, to which they so resolutely declare their allegiance, to those with whom they agree, and "devil take the hindmost." They do so with the firm and unshakeable belief that they are just in their hatred. Anyone who opposes the views of a Liberal is summarily guilty of being evil and therefore a just target of their contempt.

Time to move onward and stop kowtowing to these whiners of the Left. "It's not fair," is not a legitimate reason for making law or policy. "It's not fair" is nothing but a whine from those who want to oppress and suppress those with whom they disagree.

America has moved well beyond the concerns of our forefathers over the "Tyranny of the majority over the minority," into the dubious realm of the tyranny of the minority over the majority.

President Elect Obama has already proven that he lacks sufficient spine by surrendering to the clamor of the limp-wristed and naming the apostate Bishop from Oregon to open the ceremonies.

This does not bode well for our nation's future.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Statement on Comptroller Susan Combs’ 2010-11 Revenue Estimate

Statement by The Honorable Talmadge Heflin, Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy

"The comptroller's revenue estimate makes clear what we have suspected for several months: while Texas has positioned itself better than just about any other state, we will not be immune to the effects from this national recession.

"The Texas Legislature needs to demonstrate leadership this year by pruning state spending now. Already, there are calls by some groups to expand entitlement programs and raise taxes, but Texas must not follow the examples of other states that have wrecked their economies by letting their budgets spiral out of control. Restraining our spending now will give us more options in the event that this national recession is prolonged.

"In 2001, the legislature convened with a $6 billion surplus and the knowledge that the state's economy was slowing. Instead of showing fiscal restraint, the legislature increased the state’s budget by 16 percent – an increase that absorbed the entire surplus. Even worse, much of the new spending went toward new programs that would become even more costly in the next budget cycle.

"Two years later, the legislature returned to a $10 billion budget deficit. The irresponsible budget adopted in 2001 forced the 2003 Texas Legislature to make deeper, across-the-board spending cuts than would have been the case had it started off with both a smaller budget hole and some cash reserves to help cover it."

The Honorable Talmadge Heflin is Director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Heflin served 11 terms in the Texas House of Representatives and chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 2003, leading the Texas Legislature's successful efforts to close a $10 billion budget deficit without a tax increase.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. More information can be found on the Foundation's website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

– 30 –

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Japanese experience with fiscal stimulus

The last couple of days I’ve been examining the muddled thinking that is driving the debate over how to get us out of our current economic funk. The solution de jure seems to be more government intervention in the economy, such as the economic stimulus package being worked on by President-elect Barack Obama.

Dr. Arthur Laffer, the author of our Thinking Economically series, recently sent me an email commending a December 16th Wall Street Journal editorial (subscription required) on the efforts to create a stimulus package as “the single best editorial I’ve ever read.” The editorial outlines stimulus package after stimulus package passed by the Japanese Kokkai, or Diet, as their parliament is called in English. Here is a brief excerpt:

“In 1992, Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa faced falling property prices and a stock market that had sunk 60% in three years. Mr. Miyazawa’s Liberal Democratic Party won re-election promising that Japan would spend its way to becoming a "lifestyle superpower." The country embarked on a great Keynesian experiment.”

Here is a listing of what Japan did over the decade: August 1992: 10.7 trillion yen ($85 billion); April 1993: 13.2 trillion yen ($117 billion); September 1993: 6.2 trillion yen ($59 billion); February 1994: 15.3 trillion yen; September 1995: 14.2 trillion yen ($137 billion); April 1998: 16.7 trillion yen ($128 billion); November 1998: 23.9 trillion yen ($195 billion); November 1999: 18 trillion yen.

What did Japan get for all this? Well, mainly a lot of government debt. Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio started out this period at about 63%. By the time all this spending was through, it had reached 128.3%. It finally peaked in 2006 at 180%. Compare this to the U.S. level that has hovered between 35% and 40% for most of this decade.

What Japan didn’t get was an improved economy. Its economy grew anemically during the 1990s; all of the “stimulus” and negative interest rates didn’t help a bit. As the WSJ said, “Only in this decade, with a monetary reflation and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s decision to privatize state assets and force banks to acknowledge their bad debts, did the economy recover.”

We face the same situation today in the U.S., and may also have to deal with this in Texas if our economy starts to falter because of the drop in oil prices. Our only hope for a turnaround is turning to the market – rather than the government – to lead us back to prosperity. Our paper, The Economy, part of our Influential Issues series, offers some thoughts and ideas about how to do this in Texas.

- Bill Peacock

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Texas PolicyCast: 2008 in review

This week, we are pleased to bring you a roundtable discussion featuring the policy team at the Texas Public Policy Foundation looking back at 2008 and previewing the 81st Texas Legislature.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Financial crisis: Failure of markets or of government?

It seems as if everyone is heading to Washington, D.C. these days looking for a bailout – investment banks, mortgage banks, automakers and autoworkers, insurance companies, universities, and even the state of California.

Yet at least some people are questioning the wisdom of providing bailouts to every Tom, Dick, and corporate CEO that shows up. As Congressman Jeb Hensarling put it, "People believe we are now engaged in whack-a-mole at the bailout carnival."

People are looking to the wrong place for the solutions to this problem because they are looking at the wrong place as the source of this problem. Yes, there are a lot of companies out there that have caused their own problems, but this isn't a market failure. Instead, this is a failure built on the foundation of government monetary and regulatory policy.

Robert Murphy and Mark Thornton show that a large part of the problem today can be traced to easy money flowing from the Federal Reserve. Other reasons are the federal housing policies that pushed lenders to make these risky loans, labor policies that have the Big Three in trouble, and market regulations that have hamstrung the ability of the markets to handle this mess.

Today's financial situation is a failure of government, not markets. More on this tomorrow.

- Bill Peacock

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

NASA-Pentagon: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Boy this ought to set the Liberals who voted for Obama off.

Apparently there is serious talk coming from the Obama camp of merging NASA's civilian space program with the pentagon's military space program.

No doubt the folks at NASA are in a tizzy over this proposal. Many of them are the ivory-towered elitist academic types who see patriotism and politics (except for Global Warming) as being beneath them.

Bringing the military into the picture will greatly offend the sensibilities. Of course I'm sure that the hard-headed military pragmatists are just as thrilled at the prospect of dealing with some of NASA's prima donnas. It's a match made in Washington D.C. Oh what fun!

Well, here's the story as reported by Bloomberg:

Obama Moves to Counter China in Space With Pentagon-NASA

By Demian McLean

Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.

Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team.

The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.

“The Obama administration will have all those issues on the table,” said Neal Lane, who served as President Bill Clinton’s science adviser and wrote recently that Obama must make early decisions critical to retaining U.S. space dominance. “The foreign affairs and national security implications have to be considered.”

Personally there's a lot of very good reasoning going on here. The move would offer, economies of scale, removal of redundant efforts, a number of other mutual interests. Of course one would have to overcome the natural suspicion that these academic types have of the motives of our military, and their contempt for what many in the academic world consider a neanderthal attitude towards international cooperation.

Then again, I am sure that members of the military have reservations of their own in dealing with these academics and their blindness to the realities of the adversarial world in which we live.

This sounds like a good match, with both groups riding herd over each other; it might just be the perfect answer to our floundering space program.

I'm up for it. With China becoming as aggressive as they are, and the Indian space program ramping up, it might make sense to place the imprimatur of our military on our national space program.

Like I said, I bet the Liberals who voted for Obama are really squirming over this possibility. Look for some strong kick-back from those on the Left and from within NASA.

Woo-hoo! Maybe 2009 is going to be more fun than I expected. I love to see the discomfiture of Liberals.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrat Bailout of Dying Liberal Print Media?

File this one under the "I should've seen this coming" category; Connecticut State Representative Frank Nicastro (D-Bristol/Forestville) is petitioning the Connecticut state government to bailout his local newspapers, the Bristol Press and the New Britain Herald.

This is the first such effort and it is strictly a local effort by Representative Nicastro and some of his fellow state legislators, but I predict that it won't be the last. With all of the large Liberal newspapers now struggling to survive due to dire reductions in revenue and readership, watch for a push from Democrats in Congress to follow suit.

Here's the Reuters story:

Government aid could save U.S. newspapers, spark debate

Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:50pm EST
By Robert MacMillan - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Connecticut lawmaker Frank Nicastro sees saving the local newspaper as his duty. But others think he and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press.

Nicastro represents Connecticut's 79th assembly district, which includes Bristol, a city of about 61,000 people outside Hartford, the state capital. Its paper, The Bristol Press, may fold within days, along with The Herald in nearby New Britain.

That is because publisher Journal Register, in danger of being crushed under hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, says it cannot afford to keep them open anymore.

Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations.

This would set a dangerous precedent for the independence of our press, which is already highly questionable when it comes to its coverage of the Democrat Party. I call your attention to the fact that nowhere in the above article is Representative Nicastro identified as a Democrat. I was forced to go on line for that little nugget of information. When was the last time you saw a politician's name in the press without party identification...when it was a Democrat involved in something controversial; someone like Democrat Illinois Governor Blagojevich, perhaps?

The dying mainstream media (MSM) with its Leftist agenda, blatant advocacy for the presidential bid of Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Democrat Party members, is "dying" precisely because of their firmly entrenched extreme Left-wing biases. People don't want to read a newspaper which has a blatant political agenda.

Some have already declared 2008 as "The year in which American journalism died," due to the exceptional bias exhibited by the MSM, including the almost universal cheerleading in support of Obama's candidacy in the broadcast media as well as the print media.

Any direct financial connection between the MSM and members of our goverment in the form of grants, loans, bailouts, or any other means of attempting to save the failing commercial enterprises would be the death-nell of any remaining trust
Americans might place in the press.

Taking this move in combination with the promised effort by Democrat legislators in Congress to move the (anything but) "Fairness Doctrine" forward through Congress, I predict that Democrats in Congress will not be far behind in suggesting the bail-out of such Liberal luminaries as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and all of the other failing bastions of Liberal propaganda.

If I am right, this move should make all Americans shudder. There will be no independent voice remaining in the MSM and any individual seeking to know the truth rather than Leftist propaganda will be forced to rely on internet based new-sources such as blogs and small independant news outlets.

Throughout our nation's history, the press-for all of its flaws-has been called the "Fourth Estate" of our government because it has always served as a watch-dog on the excesses and corrupt practices of our government. If that Fourth Estate now becomes funded by that same government, how can its readers trust it to remain an independent voice?

Watch for it folks, I predict this will be the next movement coming out of the Democrat Party.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below