IUSB Vision proved correct once again – IAC: Previous IPCC Reports failed to meet basic academic standards; Participants “too political”

I have been waiting for this for a long time. When I was in college finishing my latest degree here at IUSB I was making many of these very same claims about global warming alarmist nonsense as the IAC report below. Leftist students and faculty pretty much told me that I was nuts, and I wasn’t a climate scientist so how would I know? Well it looks like I knew. It was easy. First of all it doesn’t take a genius to see when the scientific method is being ignored and second of all, what I am an expert on is politics and I know a political movement when I see one.

At the bottom of the article I posted a list of links that I wrote starting in 2007 saying many of the same things the IAC has pointed out below. I have reactivated IUSB Vision just for the purpose of posting this story. All of you PhD. laden academics who doubted me and called me all of those names behind my back should ask yourselves; why was a mere undergrad like me spot on and all of you who are supposed to be teachers wrong? And this isn’t this first time that happened is it? – Chuck Norton

President of the Heartland Institute Joseph L. Bast:

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the Inter Academy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined. The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.

The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.

Alternative views not considered, claims not properly peer reviewed

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

No formal criteria for selecting IPCC authors

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

Too political…

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

Phony estimates of certainty

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.” Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.

IPCC participants had conflicts of interest

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

IPCC critics vindicated

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here…keep on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?

Related from this old college blog:

Inconvenient Questions Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You to Ask – February 18, 2007 – LINK

Top Scientists Say: You Are Not the Cause of Global Warming – October 22, 2007 – LINK

Global Cooling Continues; Global Warming Alarmists Still Issuing Death Threats – December 28, 2008 – LINK

UK Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – December 28, 2008 – LINK

National Climatic Data Center: Cooling in Last 10 Years – January 10, 2009 – LINK

The Debate is Over. Global Warming Alarmism is About Achieving Central Control of the Economy and Now They Admit It Openly – March 27, 2009 – LINK

Al Gore: Climate change issue can lead to world government – July 11, 2009 – LINK

EPA Tried to Suppress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct – October 23, 2009 – LINK

New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study – UPDATED: Look where they put THIS ground station… – October 27, 2009 – LINK

Professors Paid to Plagiarize – UPDATE: Global warming scientists hacked emails show manipulation of data, hiding of other data and conspiring to attack/smear global warming skeptics! – November 19, 2009 – LINK

National Association of Scholars on the “ClimateGate” Scandal – November 28, 2009 – LINK

Examples of the “Climategate” Documents – UPDATE: BBC Had the emails and files for 6 weeks, sat on story. UPDATE II – They carried out their conspiracy threat; much of the raw data from CRU destroyed! – November 28, 2009 – LINK

Scientific American thinks you are stupid: The dissection of a blatant propaganda piece for global warming alarmism. – December 6, 2009 – LINK

The Roundup: IPCC Authors Now Admitting Fault – No Warming Since 1995 – Sea Levels Not Rising. Senator Inhofe: Possible criminal misuse of taxpayer research funds. – February 23, 2010 – LINK

OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits… – April 23, 2010 – LINK

UN IPCC Co-chair: climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth – November 18, 2010 – LINK

More Hadley Center Global Warming Horror Claims Debunked by Real Science – December 6, 2010 – LINK

ClimateGate One Year Later. Elite Media Still Lying – December 6, 2010 – LINK

More ClimateGate One Year Later – December 7, 2010 – LINK

IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT: Most global warming models are exaggerated, many scientists in it for the grant money or treat it like a religion – December 7, 2010 – LINK

How Global Warming Propaganda Works – December 8, 2010 – LINK

NASA’s global warming evidence page filled with lies, half truths and suspect data – December 10, 2010 – LINK

Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Halt economic growth, start government rationing. Global Warming Alarmists Party Fat in Cancun – December 21, 2010 – LINK

Global Warming Conference Delegates Sign Petitions to Ban Water and “Destabilize U.S. Economy” – February 15, 2011 – LINK

Global Warming Alarmist Quote of the Day – Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart: No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

AAUP Seeks to Limit Transparency Over Climate Science – September 19, 2011 – LINK

Leftist campus administrators attempt to shut down 9-11 commemorations and end up with our lawyers breathing down their necks…

Via our friends at CampusReform.org

VIDEO: Northern Arizona University (NAU) campus administration attempts to shut down 9/11 event; students hold their ground and defend the First Amendment.

Comments by Stephanee Freer:

Northern Arizona University (NAU) doesn’t want students to remember 9/11. At least that’s the message that NAU is sending to members of the Conservatives club who were interrupted and threatened by university administrators for four hours on Friday.

These actions by the administration occurred when the conservatives passed out American flags, buttons, stickers, and posters to students as part of the YAF 9/11: Never Forget Project.

The group was confronted for setting up their own table inside the university union, instead of registering with Student Life to request a space. After several administrators hassled them about the project, the club members took down the table and put it away along with the posters. In order to still remember 9/11, and comply with the administrators, Conservatives Club stood against the wall and handed out American flags to passerby.

This was not enough for the administration. They continued to go out of their way to intimidate, threaten, and interrupt the project.

Two students are currently being charged with several misconduct violations, and the club as a whole is facing suspension even though the event did not display the club’s name in any way.

The event paid reverence to the innocent victims that were lost and the broken families that were left behind. This is an example of how an act of free speech can go terribly wrong when students’ rights are infringed upon by leftist university bureaucrats.

Did administrators give you a hard time for your 9/11 memorial? Write about it on Campus Reform or contact your Regional Field Coordinator today for advice and assistance.

Read another account of the story here.

IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton:

Let us clear a few things up for any university admins who are viewing this page and watched that video. “Time, Place, and Manner” does not, has never and will never mean that you can set up “First Amendment zones” or “designated areas” as one administrator tried to invent in that video. Attempts to do so have always failed in the courts and universities that have enacted them have had them successfully challenged in federal court and in some cases paying damages/attorney’s fees.

“Time, Place, and Manner” comes into effect if the purpose of the demonstration is not speech, but rather to disrupt and prevent others from leaving or getting around the speech event.

Here are some examples:

One cannot hold a protest in the middle of a highway during rush hour.

One cannot have a large protest in the middle of a classroom while class is in session thus preventing the class from doing its mission.

One can have a protest in a cafeteria, but could not have one that surrounds the checkout so that people could not pay for their food.

All “Time, Place, and Manner” restrictions if proved necessary must place the minimum possible restrictions on the speech event and cannot be arbitrary.

Standing on the wall in a wide hallway or foyer doesn’t even come close to meeting the allowed “Time, Place, and Manner” legal standard, and if the university has ever let anyone set up a booth or table there than the university has already lost. If the university has bulletin boards there for people to stop and read those people would be taking up the same space as two students handing out flags on 9-11.

Under these circumstances it means that the university knew that such a small demonstration was allowable and the result would be the university suffering a humiliating defeat in court, and could also subject the administrators to a section 1983 lawsuit because they would have or should have reasonably known that they were using the color of law to selectively violate these students First Amendment rights by abusing the public trust using color of law. If a section 1983 lawsuit were successful it would mean that those students whose rights were violated could go after the personal assets of the said offending administrator (A legal strategy that FIRE and other groups who defend the First Amendment are now considering due to the gross misconduct of so many college administrators).

More From Stephanee Freer:

The administrators at Northern Arizona University are still trying to figure out what hit them. As a Leadership Institute Field Rep I worked with the NAU Conservatives to fight back after administrators tried to shut down their YAF 9/11 display.

After releasing a YouTube video that gained more than 1,500 hits exposing the NAU administrators harassing the students, local and national media outlets picked up on the story.

The Arizona Daily Sun, Drudge Report, Townhall, The Blaze, and the Daily Caller all posted stories on the absurd actions of the NAU administrators.

The media pressure became too much for the NAU administration.  They have decided to drop the charges against all the students involved in the 9/11 memorial event.

On Monday morning, following Friday’s run-in with NAU Student Life administrators, the students being tried for misconduct violations requested their hearings be extended until the next week when their attorneys could be present.

The students wanted to make sure they were familiar with all of their rights. With the help of The Leadership Institute, they contacted both the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the Alliance Defense Fund for legal assistance.  Both organizations took an interest, and are providing legal support to the students.

The administration responded to the student’s request late Monday afternoon stating that they would, in fact, grant a hearing extension so that they could “review the situation more.”

Three hours later, the students were again contacted, and told that all charges were to be dropped.

More: Marietta College Attacks 9/11 Display for Being “Too American”…

Reminder of what is important…

On the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, we are finding our way of life, our culture, our system of law, and even our history under attack. This is the message of Todd Beamer’s father in an interview with Megyn Kelly.

The history, founding, and philosophy of this country is crystal clear, the enemy, both foreign and domestic, is just hoping that you will not discover it.

Kate Smith introducing God Bless America with Ronald Reagan at 4:20

A valuable reminder of our very special heritage

Hey Obama! What Jobs Bill??

[Editor’s Note: Obama has Jimmy Hoffa and Trumka out there trashing people, has the Congressional Black Caucus out there race bating, has MSNBC doctoring Rick Perry videos, all on HIS behalf and he comes out after yet another of his umpteen vacations saying that we need to rise above politics & we have to do this NOW NOW NOW; yet he has proposed no bill. He asks that the rich pay their “fair share” except for buddies Buffet, GE, and the others who earn income in ways that are exempted from the wage earner rate that he wants to raise.

He wants another half a trillion stimulus package, after he promised us that not one dime of the first one would be wasted and yet the billions of wasted dollars are still being tallied such as gay sex studies in South America, billions invested in solar panel companies that took the money and then vanished, billions into Chinese companies and make work projects for unions who give the Democrats kick backs. 

What happened to the $2.5 trillion that was just handed to him in the so called budget ceiling increase deal he just got? What happened to ‘The stimulus is working we just need more time for it to work’, ‘recovery summer’ and all that?

 

WHAT Jobs Bill?? Is this another case that we have to pass the bill before we are allowed to see it? The last one that was passed like that had three multi-billion dollar slush funds hidden in it. No more.

Remember this?

Republicans Find Multi-Billion Dollar Slush Funds Hidden in ObamaCare Bill – UPDATE: PolitiFact, FactCheck, WashPo Fact Checker, Heritage All Confirm

Democrats Drop 2000 Page 1.1 Trillion Spending Bill in Hopper at Last Minute – UPDATE – Democrats pull bill from floor after outrage

And this?

Boehner: Here we are with an 1,100 pages that not one member has read this not one! When happened to the promise that we were going to let the American people see what was in this bill?!

Boehner goes nuclear when he finds out that language was illegally inserted into the bill at the last minute giving the AIG execs big bonuses with our money. You see they were big contributors to Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)

Democrats break transparency promise again; Boehner chews out Henry Waxman for dropping a 300 page amendment to energy tax bill in the hopper at 3:09 am (so that no one could read it).

The best moments of the September 7, 2011 presidential debate at the Reagan Library

The Reagan Library

Newt treated the press as they should have been treated, as trying to generate drama, hype and ratings instead of being the 4th branch. His way of dealing with them is the same style I advocate for my political clients. The elite media will never be your friend, they are out to further their own careers by destroying yours no matter what damage it does to the country.

Obama says that “Rick Perry doesn’t believe in Social Security”. Rick Perry has made it clear several times as I have that we both believe in Social Security, we believe that big government types spent the money and wrecked the system and are now desperate for someone else to blame.

Rick Perry praises Obama on the few things he has done for the country such as keeping GITMO open and killing Osama . Then he adds, “Keynesian policy is now done. We will never have to have that experiment on America again.”

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amgVRv-VrCY&feature=feedu]

It is no secret that IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton is no fan of Ron Paul, but when he gets it right he deserves credit just as anyone else. Representative Paul knocked the TSA question out of the park. The TSA is abusive and recently an agent raped a prominent blogger by penetrating her vulva four times, and then threatened to sue her for speaking out about it.  The TSA is ineffective which has been proved time and time again by the GSA whose inspectors are able to sneak guns, bombs, and other weapons on planes in over 80% of attempts.  Ron Paul is correct that it is government who set up the stage for the 9-11 hijackings by telling people not to resist and by preventing pilots from having deadly force training and guns.

 

The entire debate video:

“You Lie!” Congressman Joe Wilson: I’ve Been Proven Correct

See the video at the following link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/17/you_lie_congressman_i_was_right.html

Remember in 2009 the Congressman who yelled “you lie” at President Obama during an address to both Houses of Congress?

Obama claimed that his health care reform plan (now called Obamacare) would not allocate money for illegal immigrants.

According to Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), the Congressman who yelled out at Obama, nearly $8.5 million has been set aside for “seasonal farm workers.” Wilson says this group is made up of at least 25% illegal immigrants according to the Pew Research Center.

Now the Congressman says he was right. “It is clearly providing money that should be going to American citizens to illegal immigrants,” Rep. Wilson told FOX News today.

Gov. Christie on Leadership: People Want A President Who Will Lead, Take Risks

Leadership is never a political strategy, it is a moral one.

IUSB Vision Mortgage Crisis Analysis Vindicated by New Book – Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon

In Reckless Endangerment, Gretchen Morgenson, the star business columnist of The New York Times, exposes how the watchdogs [Barney Frank & Chris Dodd] who were supposed to protect the country from financial harm were actually complicit in the actions that finally blew up the American economy.

Drawing on previously untapped sources and building on original research from coauthor Joshua Rosner—who himself raised early warnings with the public and investors, and kept detailed records—Morgenson connects the dots that led to this fiasco.

Morgenson and Rosner draw back the curtain on Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance giant that grew, with the support of the Clinton administration, through the 1990s, becoming a major opponent of government oversight even as it was benefiting from public subsidies. They expose the role played not only by Fannie Mae executives but also by enablers at Countrywide Financial, Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve, HUD, Congress, the FDIC, and the biggest players on Wall Street, to show how greed, aggression, and fear led countless officials to ignore warning signs of an imminent disaster.

Many IUSB Vision readers will remember substantive multi-part analysis which had gone viral on the internet with some of our posts on the subject still getting hundreds of hits per day; these posts being the most popular – HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

Last year famed economist Dr. Thomas Sowell published his best-selling tome of the mortgage collapse Housing Boom & Bust which told what happened in an analysis that very closely matched ours. Some of our critics might say that this is no surprise because the editors of this website and Dr. Sowell are very like-minded, but the critics did not expect Reckless Endangerment.

This new book from the New York Times business columnist also tells the story almost point per point as we told you right here at IUSB Vision, with the exception of how we saw the modification of Glass-Steagal with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill. Partisan leftist Robert B. Reich’s review of this book tells several important parts of the same story that we did (and I am sure he didn’t like it), and The American Interest says that Reckless Endangerment could bring about the end of the Democratic Party itself.

Campus leftists who said that our analysis of the mortgage collapse was just partisan rhetoric can stick this in your pipe and smoke it. Our analysis has been confirmed by sources from the left and right, as well as financial publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Forbes etc. While the New York Times took a different view during the campaign season to help the Democrats, outside of the campaign season the NYT has done some top rate analysis on this issue which they deserve credit for. We told you in our analysis that the New York Times predicted in 1999 that this collapse could happen and published the Republican attempts to fix the problem since 2001.

We have been vindicated. As IUSB Vision Editor I also feel vindicated as I spent countless hours of research and sleepless nights to bring you such an accurate analysis early on in the collapse. We are pleased that our analysis has stood the test of time and is still considered one of the best abridged online sources of this crisis available on the internet.

Here is a 30 minute interview with Dr. Sowell on Housing Boom & Bust which we believe is a must see to get insight on the issue –

Judicial Watch: Obama Administration Channeling Tax Dollars to La Raza

La Raza means “The Race”. La Raza calls for communist revolution in the United States, wants much of the Western United States given to Mexico (they call it Aztlan), and are so racist that they are often referred to as “The Klan with a tan”; what would one expect from a group that calls itself “the race”?

Judicial Watch:

A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.

The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.

Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special “ethics waiver” to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.

She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos. Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.

This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.

Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former Californiacongresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in theU.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations withGuatemala andNicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.

The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.

Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’ appointment.

A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn’t receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won’t be reported to authorities.

Related: The speech below was at a La Raza event in Los Angeles

High School Teacher Calls For Racist Communist Revolution Against U.S. Government. Praises Murderous Dictator Hugo Chavez.

May 08, 2010 — ”Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico”…La Raza rally at UCLA….More gems: ‘Communist Revolution’, ‘Frail, racist white people’, ‘La Raza’ (the Race), Fidel Castro, ‘Northern Front of Latin Revolution’…”40 million…revolutionaries…in the belly of the beast”. “Our enemy is Capitalism and Imperialism”. Sedition anyone?
Sanchee H.S. history teacher Ron Gochez, La Raza Rally at UCLA

Here is his H.S. Let them know what you think of his comments:
http://www.santeefalcons.org/
Phone: (213) 763-1000
Los Angeles Unified School District
Tel: 213-241-7000
superintendent@lausd.net
Los Angeles Board of Education:
Tel: 213-241-6389
Email: steve.zimmer@lausd.net

“We are revolutionary Mexican organization here. We understand that this is not just about Mexico. Its about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza. We will no longer fall for these lies called borders. We see America as a northern front of a revolutionary movement Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism.”

Dr. Walter Williams: Unions discriminate against black Americans, minimum wage impacts black teen unemployment. Regulations make licencing so expensive they keep minorities out.

When I was growing up, gas was 70 cents a gallon and when you went to get gas, a young person who was apprenticing at the service center attached to most every gas station would come out, pump your gas, check your tires and fluids, wipers etc. That young person was apprentricing under an experienced mechanic and learning valuable skills.

Those days are gone. Now gas is $4.00 and you pump it yourself. Service? Forget it, you will be lucky if the clerk speaks English. The minimum wage, labor regulations, and government regulations have brought such apprenticeships to a screeching halt.

Interesting Video: Inner City Black Man Trashes Obama as Man Who Hates Wealth

There are more and more of these kinds of videos appearing on the internet. Inner city black America is figuring out that something is wrong. It seems that the man in this video read Obama’s book and realized that Marxism is bad and is full of hypocrisy.

Warning, the man in this video uses “gangsta” like adult language. It probably has 100 cuss words in it.

Obama Policies Failing: Sinking Stats Tell Story

Central planning of an economy doesn’t work in large, diverse, environments, and works poorly in small homo-genius societies (Greece, Spain, Portugal all collapsing).

Government spending does not create wealth and in only limited circumstances does it have a long term positive impact with a high velocity of money. Politicians do not spend money on the greatest needs of individuals, businesses and communities; rather they spend those dollars with the hope that it will buy votes, increase influence, and come back in the form of campaign donations. People tend to act in their own self interest, so how can a politicians best interest be everyone elses?

Central planners are also very fond of “tax credits” which they call “tax cuts”. You get a tax credit if you engage in a behavior that the government approves of.  This causes people and businesses to act not in what is best for them, their family, their business, their economic needs or the needs of their customers, rather they are acting in the interests of a politician. How is that good for the economy when it comes down to you feeding and taking care of your family? This also results in mass corruption as the tax code becomes a behemoth filled with politicians picking winners and losers. This is called “crony capitalism” or “state run capitalism” (all of which is just a mutation of socialism/corporatism).

Tax credits are also used as the politicians rhetorical ruse. Very often government tax credits are such a regulatory burden they are an economic non starter or they are so “targeted” it means that almost no one will qualify for them [Example: Tax credit for a family of four who makes under $40,000 per year, who is buying house over 2,000 square feet, that is ran by solar power].

The more the planner’s plans fail the more the planner’s plan – Ronald Reagan.

Larry Kudlow:

With a flamboyant downgrade of the outlook for economic growth, jobs and profits, Wednesday’s 280-point Dow plunge to launch the so-called June stock swoon is a warning shot across the bow.

The Dow tanked alongside a batch of dismal economic data. The ISM manufacturing index, ADP employment, Case-Shiller home prices and consumer confidence are all pointing to 2 percent growth or less, rather than the kind of 5 percent growth we ought to be getting coming out of a deep recession.

The economy now looks like a Government Motors engine that’s stalling out. Or perhaps, with energy and food inflation, and housing deflation at the same time, the economy is acting like a pinball machine on permanent tilt.

There’s a key message here: Big-government stimulus never works.

First there was the massive Barack Obama stimulus spending. Then QE1. And now QE2 is winding down. And what did we get for all this? Slower growth overall, paltry job creation, more energy and commodities inflation, continued housing deflation, and virtually no new business start-up entrepreneurship.

We know the Obama spending package failed to create a 7 percent to 8 percent unemployment rate, as advertised. And now we’re learning that the Fed’s QE2 has actually done more harm than good.

All that money-printing stimulus worked to depreciate the dollar and jack-up commodity prices, especially oil and gasoline, but also food. So both companies and consumers have been punished.

Some demand-side boneheads on Wall Street want the Fed to move to QE3, allegedly to fight a stalling economy. But if the central bank prints another $600 billion or so, all that will do is sink the greenback another 10 percent and drive oil and gasoline prices higher and higher. And that, in turn, will slow business and consumers even more.

Dr. Walter Williams: Government Lies

Dr. Walter Williams

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, “Williams, you don’t show much trust in the White House and Congress.” Let’s check out their past dishonesty.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That’s nine times Congress’ prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.

Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans — or 41 percent of the U.S. population — are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?

Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here’s what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: “After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year … beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.” Here’s Congress’s lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Let’s repeat that last sentence: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Compare that to today’s reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you … The checks will come to you as a right.” First, there’s no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

We can thank public education for American gullibility.

 

More Lies

Gov. Christie: Government Union Spent $6 million in TV Ads Motivating People to Hate

Six million in less than three months…

Veronique de Rugy: The Alternative Minimum Tax Targets the Productive Middle Class, Not the Rich

Veronique de Rugy is one of the most respected economists alive today.

IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton comments:

This came as absolutely no surprise to me. As with most taxes that are “designed to target the rich” they do no such thing and the “alternative minimum tax” is no different

The Democratic Party leadership pretends to be interested in genuine class warfare. You hear President Obama talk about “taxing millionaires and billionaires” yet the very policies he and much of the Democratic leadership advocate do no such thing.

Democrats have not been interested in taxing the genuinely rich and aren’t today. John Kerry made $5,072,000 in 2003 and had a total federal tax burden of 12.34%. The very wealthy enjoy a 16,000 page tax code that is filled with exceptions. Much of the income those like John and Teresa Kerry receive is defined as “unearned income” or earnings that are not taxable at the wage earner rate so even if the regular income tax rate was increased to 50% the percentage the Kerry’s would pay would only go up by a couple of points, if that.

Yet small business “sub-s corporations” (most domestic small businesses that have between 1-200 employees) are taxed at the wage earner rate  and would be devastated by a 50% rate. Small businesses do most of the hiring in this country. Would someone care to explain how Democrats can claim to be for workers while being against their employers?

The truth is that very few people make over $250k in taxable wages. President Obama talks about taxing billionaires and millionaires (defined as those who make over $250k), but the way the tax code works the wealth of George Soros like billionaires is almost perfectly protected. If George Soros and the Kerry’s paid a percentage like small businesses must, who would fund the Tides Foundation and the Democrat’s 527 groups?

As you may be aware, Google made $3.1 BILLION last year and had a federal tax burden of 2.4%. Google throws fund-raising galas for Obama and the Democrats and have given the Democrats massive donations. Where are the “liberals” condemning the Google Corps of the world? How about GE, whose former CEO now works at the White House, earned 14.2 billion dollars and not only did they have a tax bill of zero, they received taxpayer subsidies.

Yet Obama has waged a rhetorical war against the Chamber of Commerce and who do they represent, you guessed it, most small and medium-sized domestic businesses. Obama blasted the Chamber of Commerce for daring to oppose his plan to tax such businesses at a rate of 39.6%.

Policies such as ObamaCare, tax increases, and other actions that cause regulatory uncertainty all but force the producers and investors to stop moving their money domestically. They have the option of just parking it or investing it inChina, all of which has the effect of transferring the tax burden away from the wealthy onto the working poor and middle class. Democrats are not interested in taxing the wealthy; they are interested in taxing the domestic producer class.

This brings us to Norton’s First Law: big Business loves big government because big government taxes and regulates the small and medium-sized competition out of the competition. This is a staple of modern “Alinsky” style Democrat strategy. This process is called “consolidation”. The goal of leftist philosophy is to control the wealth “rationally” from above so that less is “left to chance”. With all of these small businesses creating wealth that is chaos which is difficult to control. Through consolidation more of the wealth that is created flows through large corporations that are easier to control.

The Obama bipartisan deficit commission was tasked with the challenge of how to raise revenue, grow the economy and pay off the debt. After an exhaustive study the commission concluded that lowering tax rates, lowering the corporate tax rate and simplifying the tax code to encourage tax compliance, and to encourage more wealth to come back home (so it at least can be taxed), was the most prudent course of action. Reagan would have been pleased with those recommendations.

If you wonder why so many jobs have moved overseas and in some cases to places where governments are corrupt and workers are really exploited; now you are seeing the other side of the coin. The private sector and the jobs that go with it cannot be expected to pay for a government that costs $4 trillion a year and hope to remain competitive. If you want to see demand for American labor to rise, start by making it more economical for jobs to come home.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The complete and updated documentary.

When libs (or libertarians) strike, here is a concise economic argument for the GOP program.

The title as well as some of the commentary below is from Dr. Robert Schneider. 

Schneider has been an important figure in American foreign policy and global security during the Reagan and Bush 41 years. Dr. Schneider and myself enjoyed a great conversation about the following article with another CEO/economist from out West. [I have not yet obtained permission to name the Western CEO as of yet but he is described as having an “Obscene IQ” as I am confident his clients will attest to.] 

Normally I do not share such conversations, but this one is such a valuable exploration of current public policy I made an exception. Keep in mind that what you are about to read is a conversation that is completely spontaneous. What you are about to read is an intellectual feast. Enjoy!

*******

Dr. Schneider: I find most the folks on here trying to use “logic” to make arguments, without understanding the fundamental principles underpinning the Ryan plan.  The dems argue we have to have stimulation (not Anthony Weiner’s type) to get the economy going again.  Here is the argument which the other side can’t counter. Of course, the Ronulans wouldn’t know an economic argument from a sack of worms, but it might be fun to watch their heads explode as you lay this article on them.   It is the knockout punch.

For our arguments to win the day against liberals, and others who may think it’s ok to bash Ryan, these arguments are key to getting us back to a prosperous nation, and out of our economic gloom.

 

Ugly Modeling: Will spending cuts ruin or improve America’s economy?
By Veronique de Rugy

From Reason Magazine

In February, the Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips predicted on ABCNews.com that a Republican proposal in the House of Representatives to cut $61 billion from the federal budget in fiscal year 2011, would, if enacted, shave two full percentage points off America’s gross domestic product in the second and third quarters of this year. A few days later, The Washington Post described a new study by Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and an architect of the 2009 stimulus package, a.k.a. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Zandi’s amazing verdict: The spending cuts would destroy 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012.

After every newspaper had published the gloomy predictions, Goldman Sachs issued a “clarification” of Phillips’ analysis. Phillips now says he was misunderstood by journalists eager to spread a doom-and-gloom message and predicts the impact of spending cuts probably will be mild and temporary. Perhaps he was influenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who testified in March at the Senate Banking and Urban Affairs Committee that Goldman’s numbers were incorrect.

Yet even this correction implicitly assumes that government spending is the source of all recovery. The logic, as with Bernanke’s and Zandi’s analyses, is that government spending cuts reduce overall demand in the economy, which affects growth and then employment. This argument ignores the fact that the government has to take its money out of the economy by raising taxes, borrowing from investors, or printing dollars. Each of these options can shrink the economy.

All these analysts also systematically ignore the fact that GDP numbers include government spending. When the federal government pumps trillions of dollars into the economy, it looks as if GDP is growing. When government cuts spending—even cuts within the most inefficient programs—aggregate GDP shrinks.

But that’s misleading. If Washington spends $1 a year on a bureaucrat’s salary, for example, GDP numbers will register growth of exactly $1, whether or not the employee has produced any value for that money. By contrast, if a firm pays an engineer $1, that $1 only shows up in the GDP if the engineer produces $1 worth of stuff to sell. This distinction biases GDP numbers—and the policies based on them—toward ever-increasing government spending.

Furthermore, GDP does not capture changes in personal investment portfolios or changes in private research and development spending. In the last two years, corporate cuts in the latter area have been large but unaccounted for. Also not included in GDP: pension benefits and the U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts balance-sheet information from the Federal Reserve Board. That means that when it comes to GDP, states’ grossly underfunded pensions are off the books, along with the loans and purchases conducted under TARP.

Another problem with these analyses: Economists of all persuasions have proven to be really bad at predicting the future, especially when it comes to jobs. Take the stimulus. Forecasters at the White House and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the stimulus package would create more than 3 million jobs. And in August 2010, the CBO estimated that the stimulus had indeed created between 1.4 million and 3.6 million extra jobs, thrilling supporters of economic intervention. But unemployment stubbornly remained around 10 percent.

What was wrong with the CBO’s numbers? “When the upper limit of your estimate is almost three times the lower limit, you know it is not a very precise estimate,” the George Mason University economist Russ Roberts pointed out in testimony to the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending in February.

The truth is that there is no way to know the real number of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus. For that, the CBO would have had to collect data on output and employment while holding other factors constant. But the CBO didn’t do that because that’s different from its job of “scoring” the possible results of proposed legislation. As the CBO explained in a November 2009 report, “Isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about [the law’s] impact.” In other words, CBO number crunchers gave it their best guess before the stimulus and arrived at their subsequent numbers by applying their original prediction model. If the model is wrong, so are the numbers.

No one knows what economic output would have been without the stimulus, and no models can tell us the answer. As Roberts testified, “The economy is too complex. Too many other variables change at the same time.”

Also, the Zandi and Phillips models are based on the Keynesian view that government spending produces recovery. According to that theory, $1 in government spending produces substantially more than $1 in growth, a phenomenon known as the “multiplier effect.” The Goldman Sachs study assumes a multiplier greater than three—i.e., more than $3 in additional GDP for each dollar of government spending. But a review of the empirical literature reveals that in most cases a dollar in government spending produces less than a dollar in economic growth. And these findings often don’t even take into account the impact of paying for that government dollar via increased taxes.

The Harvard economists Robert Barro and Charles Redlick estimate that the multiplier for stimulus spending is between 0.4 and 0.7. In another study, the Stanford economists John Taylor and John Cogan concluded that the stimulus package couldn’t have had a multiplier much greater than zero. Even the multipliers used by Christina Romer, the former chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden, in their January 2009 paper “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” ranged from 1.05 to 1.55 for the output effect of government purchases. More recently, the Dartmouth economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, who supported the stimulus, acknowledged that it didn’t boost the economy nearly as much as the administration models claimed it would.

The use of these outdated models and unrealistic multipliers explains why Zandi was wrong about how many jobs the stimulus would create. He claimed “the country will have 4 million more jobs by the end of 2010” if the stimulus passed. In truth, by the end of 2010 total payroll jobs had fallen by 3.3 million, and the unemployment rate had risen from 7.8 percent to 9.4 percent. The administration’s post-facto claim is that unemployment would have risen even more without the stimulus. To argue this, they again must pretend that they know what would have happened in the absence of a stimulus.

Now what? Many economists and many members of the business community argue that recent policy changes have hampered investment, making a bad situation worse. The prospect of endless future deficits and accumulating debt raises the threats of increased taxes and of government borrowing crowding out capital markets, diverting resources that could be used more productively. As a result, U.S. companies are less likely to build new plants, conduct research, and hire people.

We have tried spending a lot of money to jump-start the economy, and it has failed. Now we need to cut spending and lift the uncertainty paralyzing economic activity. That approach will not just be more fiscally responsible. It will also empower individuals and entrepreneurs. And they are the only ones who can bring on a real recovery.

Ms. de Rugy (vderugy@gmu.edu), a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, writes a monthly economics column for reason.

 

 

IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton: This article above is a VERY good argument, but even so I would add just a couple of minor points (and thoughts).

The Keynesian GDP formula also assumes that government spending is better than consumer or even capital investment spending because people in the private economy will save some of their money and not spend it. Keynes calls this “leakage”.

This concept almost completely ignores the fact that savings have a positive impact on the economy in several ways. If you save the money in a CD the banks have more depositors’ money that can be used for loans and it helps to ease the credit market. Money saved in the form of bonds or stocks or other investing has obvious positive effects that are not measured PROPERLY in the Keynes GDP formula as it is only a dollar per GDP measurement and investment dollars for production have a much larger impact – this is literally where the creation of wealth comes from.

The other impact that savings have in an economy is psychological. Are you more likely to buy a car, or a durable good, or take a risk with an investment if you have more savings? The impact of “confidence” on the economy is difficult to overstate.

The economist Art Okun describes what he called “Okun’s Leaky Bucket” when it comes to government spending. When government spends or redistributes wealth, some of the money just goes poof. It is more than the decreasing incentive for the productive to work when they are punished or the money that is eaten up by the bureaucracy; government spending is just less efficient period for a number of reasons, so the Keynesian dollar per GDP formula critiqued in Bob’s posted article is even worse than the article explains.

When you (or a business) use a dollar it is spent on the greatest need or want. In the macro this results in great efficiency because dollars are going where they are needed/wanted the most. Government spends money for political reasons, corruption, and “make work” central planning. Those dollars are not spent to “produce with maximum efficiency and impact”, they are spent in the hopes that some of it returns in the form of campaign contributions.

When money is used for production to actually make things, especially capital goods, the velocity of those dollars expands greatly, and while it is doing the maximum good in creating wealth, those dollars are taxed more times as they move through various hands and government revenue increases. It is a win/win.

The Keynesian GDP formula assumes that government spending is equal to or better than capital investment spending and such a notion is laughable on its face.

Assume for a moment that we have an economy of 1000 men making widgets. Just to pick a round number lets say they have a GDP of 1000 units. The GDP is equal to the combined productive output within nation’s borders in a year. Enter “The Bernanke” who prints up 100 units and enter “The Pelosi” who spends those 100 units. Congratulations! Now on paper your production just went up to 1100 units of GDP. See how much MORE productive we are!

In reality you still just have 1000 widgets. The increase in GDP is a fantasy. A new GDP formula is needed.

 

 

Western CEO/Economist: 100% of the time government stimulus has failed to truly stimulate. Sure, buying a ton of office supplies helps out International Paper, Staples, etc. however it is a $1 gov spends does NOT turn into a $1 in taxation, usually less than 20%.

However, that same $1 in the private sector the velocity of money is accelerated. Also, it is not money spent by government that it has, it must borrow it and that is in essence $2 dollars. Dollar spent and dollar borrowed.

Art Laffer, Milton Friedman, etc have proved that reduced tax rates has a much better stimulative effect on real GDP than any other single measure and it is a LASTING measure. Bush tax cuts took us IMMEDIATELY out of the Clinton (fairly cyclical) recession.

Another thought: the way to have REAL GDP growth is in building: Homes, offices, cars, ships, etc. Without real construction growth (not possible with frozen credit markets) you cannot have sustained GDP growth. Money Supply is growing at 12% or higher with GDP at maybe 1.5%. That is financial suicide.

I am NOT afraid of the border, Al Qaeda, etc, I AM afraid of this massive debt.

Chuck Norton is dead on. Fellow economist? Keynes was uber bright for the TIMES. HE is dated, just like the Austrian boys Hayek and von Mises, both uber bright but not for a truly global world.

 

 

Dr. Schneider: V= nQ/M some things you just never forget.

 

 

CEO/economist: Most econ theory is just that, theory. Milton taught us to THINK. Free markets ALWAYS chose the right winner. It is when gov makes winners and losers that the tax payer pays and pays…….

Phil Donahue interview of Milton Friedman:

Donahue: When you see around the globe the mal distribution of wealth the desperate plight of millions of people around the world in under developed countries. When you so few haves and so many have not’s when you see the greed and the concentration of power. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Milton: Well first of all, tell me is there some society that you know of that doesn’t run on greed? Do you think Russia doesn’t run on greed? Do you think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; it is always the other fellow that is greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus! Einstein did not construct his under order from a government bureaucrat! Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history, is where they have had capitalism and largely free trade! If you want to know where the masses are worse off is in the exact society’s that depart from that [sic] free trade and capitalism. So that the record of history is absolutely clear that there is NO alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.

Milton: And what does reward virtue? Do you think that the communist commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards virtue. Pardon me, but do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? I think that you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?….

 

 

Dr. Schneider: Markets are smarter than people.

 

 

Chuck Norton: I have to tell you guys this funny story in light of Bob’s last comment “Markets are smarter than people”.

I got into an argument with a Marxist prof who was all about central planning and not leaving people’s livelihoods to chance (the market) and insisted that a more rational top down approach was safer and fairer.

So I said to the prof, OK, let’s make a society of 10 million people and you can pick the ten smartest people through all of recent history to plan this economy. Assume that you are in a place with adequate resources to serve the population reasonably. Please pick your 10.

She picked her ten. They were all men with names many would know. I answered, OK now tell me which one of these men will be the central planner in charge of tampons and maxi pads (Laughter). [Markets are smarter than central planners with good intentions, or bad ones – Editor]

 

 

Palin Bashers in the GOP Should Think Twice

By IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton

There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns about a candidate. We should ask tough questions and expect good answers.

It does not take long to notice that those in the GOP who “Palin bash” go out of the way to avoid discussing her record. They have been caught up in the elite media narrative and have not done their homework. To be frank, Republicans should not be so foolish to Palin bash for the sake of bashing as it can have serious consequences.

The first problems is obvious. If Republicans buy into baseless and mindless elite media spin they might as well just ask NBC to pick the nominee for them.

Related to that problem is that the elite media went all out to try and destroy a GOP nominee. They took every allegation from her political opponents and reported them as if they were facts and in most cases would not offer retractions when such stories were proved wrong. They accused her of faking a pregnancy, accused her of being a book banner, accused her of trying to deny sexual assault victims rape kits, accused her of ravaging programs to help teen mothers, and even accused her of being an accomplice to the murderous shooting by Jarred Loughner and continued that narrative even after it came out that he was a dedicated Bush hater who had gone schizophrenic. The aforementioned is just a sampling of the lies the elite media has willingly propagated. The idea of Republicans standing by and doing nothing about this doesn’t sit well with me.

You can be sure if a shooting incident happens closer to election time, the commercials and “rhetoric” from the nominee will be blamed for it by the Democrats and their friends in the elite media.

You can also be sure, it will not matter who the GOP nominee is, be it if Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann, the elite media will accuse him/her of some kind of sexual misconduct. The New York Times baselessly accused Senator McCain of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist the day after he secured the primary.

Recently I had a conversation with some Palin bashers and in every case not a one of them was familiar with her actual governing record.

Palin Bashing Republican #1:

No, we don’t like her because she doesn’t have the leadership qualities to be president.

You might enjoy how I handled this “objection”:

I Agree, everything Sarah has touched has been a disaster. Here are some examples:

She cut the state budget by 9.8% while maintaining state services. Heck, name me one GOP governor who didn’t accomplish the same and cut the budget by at least 13%.

She cut the governors personal expenses by 80% over the previous Republican governor, who cares if she had three young kids to cart around.

She implemented a plan to begin weaning the state off federal “earmarks” and cut the number of earmark requests three years in a row. No one cares about that, after all earmarks are only less than 1% of the federal budget.

Cut Alaska’s Medicaid backlog by 83%. There are no long wait lists or backlogs in Massachusetts… oh wait…

Sarah was terrible for the Alaska GOP machine. When she rooted out the corruption of bought off Republicans in state government and sent many bad actors packing lots of party people were even fined. That is no way to lead a machine /nods.

She was able to pass sweeping ethics reforms and reform a state contract bidding process that was rigged and controlled by cronies? Doesn’t Sarah understand that when WE own the machine those are OUR cronies? Sheesh!

Sarah is SO behind the times. She had the NERVE to develop a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline [which languished for decades and is the largest state financed infrastructure project in US History]. Doesn’t she understand that “green jobs” are in?

And everyone knows that nothing got done when she:

Chaired the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chaired the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee.
Chaired the Alaska Conservation Commission.
Presided over the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Of course her record as mayor is equally pale.

According to Wasilla City documents that are posted on their web server. The propagandists who are obviously her cronies rigged the paperwork to indicate that Sarah oversaw the economic growth of Wasilla by a factor of four as a leader in city government from 1992 to 2003. They have the nerve to claim that while Wasilla’s population increased by 80%, city services were grown at a level to meet the challenge while property and business taxes rates were dropped. They even claimed Wasilla’s tax revenue still increased by nearly 250%. How laughable. Everyone knows that when you lower the tax rate you get less revenue….

Rigged paperwork, crony government, constant under performance. That’s Sarah Palin!

As you would expect, this completely shut the GOP Palin basher #1 down. She had no response.

GOP Palin Basher #2:

Chuck- I think if Sarah Palin had stayed on as governor instead of becoming more of a “celebrity” she would have retained the support of conservative women. This is where I think she went wrong. And I don’t think that women hate her because of her looks (jealousy), most conservative women I know believe in being/staying attractive. You are right , she has an excellent record- just wish she stayed on that path.

Again I went back to the facts:

[Editor’s Note – A legal loophole in Alaska Law allows anyone to file a lawsuit or phony “ethics complaint”, each requires an investigation and a ruling – the Governor must pay their own legal bills to fight them. Democrats filed dozens of these bogus lawsuits. Sarah easily won each of them, but it was eating up the Governor’s staff’s time and had put her into half a million dollars in personal debt.]

Palin Basher 2, if Sarah has stayed in office would have been endless bad press as the left continued to file one frivolous lawsuit after another against her using that legal loophole . I find it interesting that those who blast her for “quitting” never have anything to say about why she did it, or have anything bad to say about how sleazy the Democrats were in their behavior. Forgive me for being skeptical when people are far more willing and eager to blast our nominee than Democrats who behaved horribly.

Also, if Sarah had not taken on ObamaCare on her nation wide tour, not taken the slings and arrows for other conservatives, and not gone after Obama constantly to drive up his negatives, the 2009 and 2010 elections win margins would not have been what they were for us, so again if Sarah had taken any other course, Democrats would have been the ones who benefited. Who needs Democrats when “Republicans” are writing their spin and talking points for them?

Said Palin basher had no response. What is there to say? These facts are irrefutable and I am confident they felt embarrassed after being shut down with such authority.

Still, in the same conversation, entered a rather clueless Palin Basher #3:

And now we are rewriting history! Paul Revere warned the BRITISH that the British were comming! For me Intelligence is one of the must have traits to be President.

Palin Basher #3 did not bother to look up the record or the news all over the internet that Palin was correct in her account.

My Response:

NPR’s historian said that Palin was absolutely right about that. So did Prof William Jacobson at Cornell Law School who posted the quote from Paul Revere himself about it. Palin is a voracious reader of the Founders and if you watch her interviews she quotes them at length from memory from time to time. It is all over the net how the Palin bashers are easting crow on that one. So why are we bashing a nominee when we are not doing the homework and getting it wrong? If our “best” are going to believe the elite media narrative and not do any homework we might as well just ask NBC to pick our next nominee.

Another GOP’er claiming to be wise who has not done a lick of homework and had no response. Republicans are not supposed to behave that way and will pay a price as long as they do.

Words of Wisdom

Here is a 25 minute interview with Sarah where Chris Wallace throws every policy question in the book at her, and she answers each one with the proper detail – www.therightscoop.com/full-interview-sarah-palin-on-fox-news-sunday/  so to say that she is unintelligent is not only wrong, but foolish for Republicans in the long run. On at least 70% of the issues all of the potential candidates agree so if Sarah is an idiot and our nominee agree on most issues, what does that say about our nominee? Do you think the left will not take advantage of that? Sarah may decide to run for Senate, what then? Make no mistake, since Sarah Palin is a GOP VP Nominee, smearing her is smearing the Republican Brand.

The simple truth is that Sarah Palin has posted detailed policy positions on almost very issue imaginable. Most of the others do not.

This early in the primary season, it is wide open. ANYTHING could happen and the political landscape can change radically in a single day. Never forget that.

Early in the primary season for Reagan he was in double digit negatives as well. We need to support all of our potential candidates. I will be supporting all of them (except Ron Paul as he goes places I simply cannot follow). Early in his campaign season Ross Perot had double digit positives.

Now is NOT the time to be violating the 11th Commandment. We should express concerns about our candidates, ask tough questions and expect good answers from all of them, but we should not trash them. Anyone who says that X can win and Y cant at this stage in the game is just off their rocker. At this stage before the last election people were like “What is an Obama?” or “Someone with a last name like Obama (Usama) could never get elected”. Well here we are.

Lastly, Sarah Palin keeps score and is very good at political payback as Mitt Romney, Ed Rollins, Chris Christie, and a pile of now former political players in Alaska have found out the hard way. As the Alaska Daily News points out, “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah”.

If Sarah Palin becomes our nominee she will control the RNC and perhaps the White House. All of those who smeared her will be on the outs for a long time.

So why has IUSB Vision always been so invested in Sarah Palin?

The simple truth is that we aren’t. The number one goal of this publication and blog, be it under Editor Chamberlain, Brigham, or Norton, has been to introduce people to points of view they will not commonly see on a college campus or in the elite media/Democrat media complex. We believe that the elite media is beyond incompetent and is in fact corrupt.

There is no better or more numerous example of this truth than the elite media coverage of Sarah Palin, which is more wrong than it is right, and in which journalistic ethics is completely abandoned more often. We take interest in correcting the record of the elite media, it is just that in the case of Sarah Palin, more correction is needed.

Palin bashers on “Paul Revere” eat crow. Paul Revere’s own words verify Palin correct.

Sarah is clearly exhausted in this video. She is on a tour talking to people non stop day after day and living on a bus with never enough sleep and reporters dogging her every move. If I follow you around 24/7 on such a tour and tape everything how many moments of non perfect articulation am I likely to get on tape? Even so, Sarah gets this piece of history correct.

Prof. William A. Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell gets the truth from Paul Revere’s own words.

Letter from Paul Revere to Jeremy Belknap, circa 1798:

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and ordered me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He immediately rode towards those who stopped us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then ordered me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms.

Says Prof. Jacobson:

“Palin’s short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming — that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting — appears to be true.”

 

UPDATE:

[Editor’s Note – I listened to a clip from NPR. The NPR reporter was all geared up to have their official goto historian on to blast Governor Palin. You could hear the excitement in the reporter’s voice, it was unmistakable. It was also unmistakable how deflated said NPR reporter became when their history professor said that Sarah’s remarks were correct. I must confess to taking a certain pleasure at said reporter’s expense.

I found the clip – http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere ]

There were actually signal shots involved in his exploits. See “Paul Revere’s Ride” by David Hackett Fischer. Hint: There were multiple rides. As far as sounding the bell, she obviously means “alarm bells” as a figure of speech. ]

This film recreation of Paul Revere’s Ride also had his run in, and warning to the British.

The Ride – Paul Revere short educational film piece

Patterico has a list of most of the leftist bloggers and elite “media reporters” who just could not bring themselves to do a few minutes worth of homework.

ABC News is at it again. They post no retraction or any mention of the historians who said that Sarah was correct. I noticed that several of the comments of people who tried correcting ABC were vanishing. So I posted a comment telling them about the letter mentioned above and asked them for a correction. Soon after my comment was deleted.

The hit piece from ABC was written by Sheila Marikar and when one examines her twitter page it seems obvious that she views the Governor with a degree of contempt. So naturally ABC made her their official Palin correspondent for the 2012 election http://abcn.ws/mrWLIa .

This is no different than Sarah Palin’s “Party like it’s 1773” comment. The elite media and the leftist bloggers went nuts calling her names “Doesn’t she know that the Boston Tea Party was in 1776” … oh really… Boston Tea Party.

[Editor’s Note – So lets take a walk through ABC’s Hit Piece Memory Lane. 

ABC News has had the most unethical Sarah Palin coverage I have seen. 

In the infamous interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, ABC cut out many of the substantive parts of her answers to foreign policy questions. Gibson misquoted Palin when he scolded her for saying that Iraq was a “mission from God”. Palin never said it in that context as the full quote was selectively edited. Palin’s answer about the “Bush Doctrine” was also correct; as there are six “Bush Doctrines” with Sarah naming one and Gibson naming one.

When ABC’s Barbara Walters asked Sarah Palin the infamous question again “what do you read” they edited out the books she mentioned about law, philosophy and history such as Liberty & Tyranny by famed attorney and legal scholar Mark Levin.

ABC Calling Sarah Palin “Barbie” – LINK

ABC saying that “Limbaugh has a history of making racially offensive comments” – but offered no proof  – LINK

ABC  – If you oppose Obama on policy, your racist – LINK

ABC does an infomercial for ObamaCare yet refuses health care ads from Republicans – LINK (2)

ABC questions asked to Republicans vs Democrats – LINK and I could go ON and ON.

Related:

See “Attitude Change Propaganda” at Work Courtesy ABC News. UPDATED!

ABC News Managing Editor: I didnt even know about the ACORN story.

In The Tank: NBC & ABC Refuse Health Law Ads from Conservative Groups. – UPDATE: ABC Medical Correspondent is Obama $$$ Donor!

VP Biden’s daughter on film with cocaine. ABC, CBS, and NBC offer no coverage. When “Biden” and “Cocaine” are searched on the NBC site it gives you a picture of Bristol Palin….

ABC’s Jake Tapper Not Giving the Full Story on Alaska Earmarks

Newsbusters Slams ABC and Gibson for Editing Out Key Portions of Palin’s Statements (that made her look good).

Hey Gibson! About that Bush Doctrine: There are SIX of them. Palin was right again.

ABC News Get’s It Wrong In Palin Interview

More Media B.S. – ABC News Broadcasts Bogus Palin Hit Piece Before McCain Speech

]

Do Not Make This Mistake Journalism Students: Washington Post Columnist Insults Intelligence of Readers

Different newspapers can get away with different things depending on where they are and who their audience is.

When you are in Washington D.C. some of the smartest people in the world are going to read your column. It is important to not say things that are so flamboyantly incorrect that many thousands of readers will wince.  It is no different when I was a radio host on AM 1580. I know that Notre Dame Law School is right here. Some of the finest law professors in the world, such as Charlie Rice, are likely in my audience. So I had to be sure that when I spoke on the law that I had it as correct as possible. Here in South Bend there is likely someone in the audience who is a better expert on any given subject than the host, but in Washington D.C. if you try to pull one over on the audience in the fields of basic political history or basic communications strategy the result is ridicule and laughter by a great many.

I know it seems like we have been picking on The Washington Post lately, but only because they have made themselves an easy target.

The Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen engages in spin for the president. In Washington almost everyone spins some and that is to be expected. The trick is to not get laughed at when you go too far.

Quote:

The insane policy would be to ignore the signal lesson of the Great Depression — when Franklin Roosevelt, listening to the John Boehners of his day, cut spending to reduce the deficit. The Depression deepened.

Amazing, this is exactly the opposite of historical reality. Cohen apparently never heard of the “New Deal” where government spending went off the charts. Government spending, over regulation, and redistribution don’t work well and even FDR’s own Treasury Secretary finally said so. Non farm unemployment never dropped below 20% during the “New Deal”. The United States did not enjoy full employment in a non-war economy until 1947 when government spending dropped by two third’s.

Henry Morganthau, Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary from 1934-1945 , wrote in a letter to Congressional Democrats  May 1939:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”*

* Burton Folsom, Jr., New Deal or Raw Deal? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), p. 2.

Quote:

As with the business community, Obama’s assurances to the pro-Israel community mean little. His precise words are discounted. As with the business community, rumor or anecdote trumps pronouncements …

Ah yes, the old “precise words” defense. This is the oldest political trick in the book. Always include a word or a phrase that acts as an escape hatch so that, if needed, said politician can flip to the other side of the political issue in case backtracking becomes a political necessity. [Editor’s Note: always look for the escape hatch phrase in any political speech]

In the case of Obama’s controversial recent Israeli policy speech the escape hatch phrase was “1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps”. That sounds so good doesn’t it? Tell me, how can Israel give up any land West of the large valley between Israel and Jordan, or the Golan Heights etc ? [Note: If you are not aware of the details of the critical geography mentioned see the video HERE]  To do so would leave Israel with borders that are structurally indefensible. It has only been by the bravery of the Israeli people and the overwhelming technical superiority of American military hardware that has prevented a second holocaust.

With the escape hatch phrase Obama can say “I wanted borders based on the 1967 lines” which had resulted in an invasion, while at the same time saying “I said that we cannot just go back to the 1967 borders”. There are few politicians who speak that do not include these escape hatch phrases.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made use of Obama’s escape hatch phrase and wiped his feet on it saying “President Obama says that we cannot go back to the 1967 borders”. Of course the Prime Minister knows full well this was not Obama’s intent, but graciously gave him an out.

Gov. Christie of New Jersey does not use escape hatch language and even made a speech against the use of it:

Top White House Economist Goolsbee Steps Down

CNBC:

Top White House economist Austan Goolsbee said on Monday he was stepping down, marking the exit of one of President Barack Obama’s closest aides at a time when new signs of weakness have emerged in the U.S. economy.

Less than a year after he was named chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Goolsbee plans to return to his teaching job at the University of Chicago, the Obama administration said in a statement.

Goolsbee’s departure leaves Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as the sole remaining senior member of the original economic team.

Goolsbee and Obama got to know each other at the University of Chicago, where the president had been a lecturer in constitutional law. Goolsbee advised Obama’s campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and his 2008 presidential campaign.

Goolsbee has been one of the administration’s more visible spokesmen on the economy and lately has emphasized his view that the recovery remains solidly on track, despite a report on Friday showing tepid jobs growth and a rise in the unemployment rate in May to 9.1 percent from 9 percent in April.

Former Reagan National Security Staffer Bob Schneider Comments:

Top White House Economist steps down from his post, and pledges to take a course in economics one day. “It’s on my bucket list”, Austen Goolesbee announced: “Along with a name change. People laugh and me and I don’t like it”

Schneider’s humorous comments really do set the proper tone for Goolsbee. This man has been a joke. I wish there was a more civil way to express this truth, but his manipulations in defense of this economic policy have been simply outrageous and fantastic (in a bad way).

Bob Schneider hit this one out of the park. As a student of economics myself, it makes me ill when SO MANY economists simply end up being political prostitutes, because bad economic policy can cause suffering to many millions of people. This is not a game and Goolsbee treated it like one. Good riddens (urban dictionary spelling).

Related:

Watch New White House Economic Chair Try to Spin Chris Wallace on “Recovery Summer”

Video: Obama Economic Advisor vs Bush’s

Economic News Roundup II – Breaking: Obama Reverses on Outsourcing!

Thanks to our D-Day Vets!

June 6th, 1944.

10,945 lost their lives taking the beach.

U.S. 101st Airborne Division veteran Ralph K. Manley pays respects at the Colleville-sur-Mer cemetery

 

Fighting isn’t evil if it is evil you are fighting.

Be sure to see our next post.

Google, Yahoo, and Facebook Hide Things From You When You Search

This is slightly disturbing but highly enlightening.

So how do you combat this?

Get a program called Spybot Search & Destroy. It is free and updated every week. Install it (do not install the “Tea Timer” option), update it manually once a week and run it from time to time. It will delete the tracking cookies on your computer. Another free program called CCleaner has an option to delete the specific Google and Yahoo tracking cookies as Spybot ignores those. This makes it more difficult for those companies to profile you. Only log in to Yahoo and Google when you have to, or only do it on a certain backup PC.

The search engines have “advanced search” options that will help you to get straighter results. I find myself using them from time to time.

 

Right here in Virginia – Islamic Saudi Academy: It is OK to kill polytheists (Christians) and those who convert

Polytheists is what Islamists call Christians. It gets better, the military contracts to have soldiers sent there to learn Arabic.

It gets better still, their 1999 valedictorian joined Al-Qeada

Attention Journalism Students Do Not Make a Mistake Like This

Always remember to double check the spellings of names and be SURE to double check all stats and numbers with a second source. Remember figures don’t lie but liars figure as they say. If you just take a single sources word for a key statistic in the story you may end up with egg on your face.

Washington Post:

Moonlighting blamed for air controller fatigue

By Ashley Halsey III, Published: May 24

Young air traffic controllers who make up almost a third of the workforce have had to work two or three jobs to compensate for a 30 percent wage cut imposed during the Bush administration, the head of their union told a Senate committee Tuesday.

Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told the subcommittee on aviation that wages have improved under a new contract signed 18 months ago, but many young controllers continue to hold more than one job.

“That’s asking for trouble,” Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) responded. “How do you make the case that that doesn’t cause fatigue and poor judgment?”

NATCA spokesman Doug Church said entry-level wages were cut to about $30,000 in some parts of the country in 2006. He said some local controllers began waiting tables at the Leesburg Applebee’s near Dulles International Airport. Under the new contract, he said new controllers start at about $45,000.

The number of recorded controller errors spiked by 53 percent in fiscal 2010, and after an overnight controller supervisor was caught sleeping in the tower at Reagan National Airport this year the Federal Aviation Administration was stung by an embarrassing series of sleeping controller incidents.

The subcommittee Tuesday sought explanations from Rinaldi, FAA administrator Randy Babbitt, U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III and Greg Belenky, a sleep expert from Washington State University.

They got sharply different perspectives from Babbitt and Scovel, who has been asked by the committee to investigate problems in the air traffic control system.

Babbitt expressed determination to reduce errors while underscoring the unparalleled air safety record in the past decade, which has not seen a single major commercial airline crash. He pointed out that the vast majority of controller errors posed little genuine risk to passengers, and said the increase in recorded errors was largely due to more accurate technology and a system that encourages controllers to report their mistakes in return for a promise they will not be punished.

Did you read that very carefully? Good work. What is the narrative of this story? The story is that the union believes that there are more air traffic controller errors because they are paid so poorly (30-45K) that they must take second jobs to make ends meet. The FAA Committee says that errors are just being reported more accurately because of the new error reporting system that is in place.

Now let us look at the story critically. We know that most readers will not get passed the 5th or 6th paragraph in a story unless it greatly interests them. With that said the narrative becomes more clear “Government employees are underpaid and the union is struggling to help them and as a result of the inferior pay lives may be lost.”

The prudent reporter in Washington DC would know that the government union is not so weak as to not be able to negotiate a decent wage. Washington in general does not work that way for government employees which tend to be paid rather well. You can see that we only have one source for the 30-45k pay figure. What would we learn by checking that number from official sources?

Here is a government job posting to hire a citizen to become an air traffic controller which was found in mere moments on the internet. This is an official government web site:

http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=99420536&JobTitle=Air+Traffic+Control+Specialist&jbf574=TD

As you can see the pay range starts at $113,000. Now that we have a rather glaring discrepancy we should look further. A trip to the Bureau of Labor Statistics will tell us what most any government employee makes:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos108.htm

Air traffic controllers earn relatively high pay and have good benefits. Median annual wages of air traffic controllers in May 2008 were $111,870. The middle 50 percent earned between $71,050 and $143,780. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $45,020, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $161,010. The average annual salary, excluding overtime earnings, for air traffic controllers in the Federal Government—which employs 90 percent of all controllers—was $109,218 in March 2009.

They also receive vacations, sick days, and insurance.

The average salary is 109K plus benefits and according to the BLS web site the bigger the airport the larger the pay. Only 10% make near the $45k number mentioned and as the pay scale explains, this would be the most out of the way airports that only occasionally see traffic. No where is 30K even mentioned.

It is safe to conclude that the union representative gave the Washington Post reporter a sizable dose of spin. It is certainly safe to say that a false picture was created. Anyone with access to the internet could see that the story has a major problem in mere moments. The “Line Editor” at the Washington Post should have checked this number as well, as that is a primary responsibility of a “Line Editor”. Now the paper as an institution is starting to look pretty flimsy.

This reporter, Ashley Halsey III, compounded his mistake with a rather large blunder. A long time respected Washington intellectual noticed this discrepency and was kind enough to drop the reporter a note about the error. In response to an official source showing the air traffic controller pay scale the reporter wrote back:

“Why do you assume the website is correct?”

The real question is, why did the reporter assume the union representative gave a number that was representative of most air traffic controllers in the face of a .gov official source? It seems clear that the reporter responded with a rather flippant and elitist attitude.

Unfortunately for the reporter the Washington intellectual is a committee  member of an important press organization. The Washington intellectual pointed out that this is not the first time Ashley Halsey III had a problem.

Heritage on Obama’s Expensive and Job Killing Energy Policy

Social Security now in permanent deficit, Medicare Trustees admit the system is in trouble, liberal ‘Think Tank’ fails at statistics in deficit denial…

The system is not sustainable. The bureaucracy is huge and government employees earn 30-300% higher than their private sector counterparts and have gold plated benefits. Every dollar that goes to a bureaucrat who is not accountable to you and has no incentive to be efficient is another dollar that is not used for someones good care.

Government programs should not be “unionized job programs to get union dues to the Democrats” first, and programs people use second.  We cannot afford to carry on the status quo any more if we want to deliver on promised benefits. Unless we have reform such as the Paul Ryan plan, the system will blow up and the government reports show it.

Social Security

Heritage:

The debate about whether Social Security faces a problem and needs to be fixed is over. The 2011 trustees report, which was released this afternoon, shows that the program already faces massive permanent annual deficits. In 2010, Social Security spent $49 billion more in benefits that it took in from its payroll tax. This year, that deficit will be approximately $46 billion.

Now is the time to focus on solutions. Instead of just blindly defending the current program, both Congress and the Obama Administration should propose comprehensive programs that permanently fix Social Security. It is one thing to oppose a solution; it is another to come up with a plan and fix the problem.

Social Security Problem $1.2 Trillion and One Year Worse

In net present value terms, Social Security owes $9.1 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. The 2011 number consists of $2.6 trillion to repay the special issue bonds in the trust fund and $6. 5 trillion to pay benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2036—a year earlier. This is an increase of $1.2 trillion from last year’s report, which also reflects several changes to assumptions and methodology.

A key change in this year’s report is that Social Security is predicted to run cash-flow deficits from now on. The immediate cash-flow deficits are largely due to the effects of the recession on its finances. The recession increased the amount of benefits paid out by Social Security as older workers who have lost their jobs choose to file for benefits earlier than they might have otherwise. Meanwhile, younger unemployed workers are unable to pay Social Security taxes, while workers who suffer a drop in their income pay lower amounts.

Net present value measures the amount of money that would have to be invested today in order to have enough money on hand to pay deficits in the future. In other words, Congress would have to invest $9.1 trillion today in order to have enough money to pay all of Social Security’s promised benefits through 2085. This money would be in addition to what Social Security receives during those years from its payroll taxes.

Medicare

Heritage:

The just released 2011 Medicare trustees report does not contain any big surprises. Much of what the trustees say in this report they have said before: Medicare poses enormous challenges for patients and taxpayers alike, and its financial condition continues a downward slide. Some key findings:

• Medicare’s unfunded obligations increased by $2 trillion. A key indicator of the true cost of the program is the cost of the promised benefits that are not financed by dedicated revenues. Using their standard 75-year projection (2011–2085), the trustees estimate this year that Medicare benefits promised that are not paid for amount to $24.6 trillion, compared to their projection of $22.5 trillion last year. These and other projections in the report are based on current law, including the official assumption that the estimated $575 billion in savings from Medicare provider cuts under Obamacare will be sustained, as well as the 29 percent reduction in Medicare physician payments in 2012. The Medicare trustees concede the point: “Although the long-term viability of some of these provisions is debatable, the annual report to Congress on the financial status of Medicare must be based on current law” (emphasis added). Different assessment and different accounting techniques, of course, can yield different estimates of these long-term costs. Based on an alternative scenario of projected costs and spending that many analysts considered more realistic, the Medicare actuary in 2010 estimated the long-term Medicare debt at $34.8 trillion. The Medicare actuary has yet to offer his alternative assessment for 2011.
• The financial condition of the Medicare Part A trust fund is worse. The Hospitalization Trust Fund—the part of the program that pays seniors’ hospital bills—is in worse shape than reported last year. The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is going to be exhausted in 2024 rather than 2029. While the fund has started running big annual deficits ($32 billion in 2010 and $34 billion in 2011), the five-year acceleration of the fund’s exhaustion has been aggravated by a combination of higher hospital spending and the consequent reduction in the payroll tax receipts resulting from the economic downturn. When the HI fund is exhausted, obviously it cannot pay benefits. Congress would have to replenish it with higher taxes. One more point: It should be noted that the most recent Congressional Budget Office assessment of the trust fund (March 2011) is more pessimistic and projects an exhaustion in 2020.
• The “Medicare Funding Warning” has been issued again. Under current law, the Medicare trustees are required to issue a Medicare Funding Warning. This means that general revenues will account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s total outlays. The 45 percent threshold for such funding, in contrast to dedicated revenues, is officially “excessive” under current law. In this year’s report, the statutory threshold has been reached again this year, as it was last year, and the President is required to develop a proposal to transmit to Congress to deal with the problem.

This year’s trustees report only confirms the seriousness of the financial challenge posed by an unreformed Medicare program. Over the full 75-year budget window for the entitlements, about 90 percent of the growth of Medicare and Social Security is going to occur by 2035. The baby boom generation, to be supported by a relatively smaller workforce, will drive costs to new levels. That is indeed why The Heritage Foundation’s comprehensive reform proposal, Saving the American Dream, takes on an even greater urgency.

Leftists in Deficit Denial

Heritage:

Liberal Think Tank Fails Statistics

A chart created by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has been circulating among liberal bloggers such as Ezra Klein, James Fallows, and Andrew Sullivan.

The chart, seen to the right, purports to show that the next decade’s deficits are entirely the result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, wars, bailouts, recession, and stimulus.

Their methodology fails statistics 101.

Imagine a basketball team that loses 100-98. It would make no sense to cherry pick one single basket by their opponent and blame it for 100 percent of the loss – letting all other baskets scored off the hook. Yet that is essentially what CBPP is doing.

See the rest of the story with charts and evidence HERE.

On Oil Obama Says One Thing & Does Another

Polling shows that like Jimmy Carter, Obama’s energy policy is going to send him packing in 2012. So what is the new strategy, tell people you are expanding domestic oil production and just not do it.

But expanding leases does nothing because often it is discovered that a lease cannot be trilled upon for technical reasons. Also, the government and environmental groups are not allowing companies to drill on leases they have paid for. The lease is just the first step of a process that takes years and the government can halt it any step of the way, and has as you will see below.

Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu said after he was confirmed by the Senate that we have to find a way to get the price of gas to European levels (around $8 dollars a gallon). Even the new Democrats National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman just went on the record with a repeat of the Democrats energy policy, less domestic production, and more deficit spending for Chinese made solar panels.

Obama’s illegal offshore drilling moratorium explained. This will infuriate you. UPDATE – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Confirms: Democrat Energy Policy is To Push For Less Energy and More Deficit Spending

This is a no miss short film explaining how the government can stop all drilling with the stroke of a pen….

On top of that Obama’s energy policy is now threatening to shut down the Alaska pipeline.

Heritage:

Obama Oil Policy Threatens Alaska Pipeline’s Existence

The invaluable Alaskan oil pipeline isn’t doing well these days. A remedy to help fix this precious resource is available but overzealous environmentalists and over-regulatory politicians are standing in the way.  The ever-decreasing amount of oil flowing through the pipeline is disrupting its effective operation — and threatening its very existence.

This problem could easily be solved by opening up more domestic drilling in Alaska. This would allow more oil to flow through the pipeline, maintain the correct temperature (which falls to dangerous levels with insufficient supply). But access to drilling permits has been severely reduced. With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, it is inconceivable that the Obama administration would continue to hinder production and add regulations that could eliminate yet another standard domestic source of oil. Yet that is what is occurring.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Russell Gold writes about the threat to kill the pipeline:

Shell earlier this year canceled plans to drill in the Beaufort Sea this summer because, after five years, it couldn’t get a federal air-emission permit for an offshore drilling rig. Its plans for drilling in the Chukchi Sea on Alaska’s northwest coast are also held up by a legal dispute. Exxon Mobil is also waiting for federal environmental approval, and in February, the federal government denied ConocoPhillips a permit the company had been working on for five years.

…Shutting the pipeline would force refineries to find new and more expensive supplies of crude oil. And President Barack Obama’s efforts to decrease oil imports would suffer a major setback.

While opening more drilling in Alaska would help significantly, there are even more places where permits and environmental regulations are causing problems. Heritage’s Nick Loris writes:

We can’t drill off the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast, or the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Environmental Appeals Board withheld air quality permits preventing Shell from moving forward to develop 27 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of Alaska. The Environmental Protection Agency already issued two air permits, but Earthjustice filed a petition to review the permits, causing the Appeals Board to act.

Environmental activists within the Obama administration are literally halting the much needed domestic oil exploration America needs to improve our economic well being and reduce gas prices for hurting consumers. Saving the pipeline should be top priority right now.

What If Oil Producers Actually Received Subsidies Like Wind Energy Producers? – LINK

Related:

Obama: If you’re complaining about the price of gas get a trade in….

GAO – Government Shut Down Yucca Facility for Political Reasons, Not Scientific Ones

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

The latest lie from the left: Two-thirds of oil and gas leases in Gulf inactive – UPDATED!

Sarah Palin: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

Obama pushed Brazil to drill more, promises aid to Brazil to help drill. While at home imposes drilling ban.

Obama Administration Held in Contempt for Violating Court Order

API: Recent Studies Show Obama Drilling Moratorium Will Cost 50,000 Jobs; 160,000 by 2032.

Heritage: Anti-Drilling Policies Costing Federal Government Billions in Lost Revenue

Now Russia, along with Mexico, Spain, Cuba, and China are building oil wells just miles off our shores while Obama keeps Americans out. UPDATE – Steve Forbes: Obama repeating Carter’s mistakes.

If You Ever Needed Proof that Democrats Want Higher Gas Prices…

Obama’s Assault on South Carolina Jobs

Of course this is aside from his assault in Gulf Coast jobs with the illegal offshore drilling ban, the assault on Alaska jobs with the revocation of Shell’s oil rights, the assault on West Virginia jobs with the completely arbitrary revocation of mining permits, the assault on Nevada jobs with the political closing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear facility.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley responds on this blatant show of corruption from the Obama Administration.

[Editor’s note – The Democrats used every sex smear in the book trying to defeat this governor in the last election.]

More details from Newt Gingrich in Human Events:

Suspicious Timing

In October 2009, Boeing decided to open a new production facility in North Charleston, SC to meet the growing demand for its 787 Dreamliner airplane.

The decision came after months of negotiations with the machinists union leadership at Boeing’s main production hub in Puget Sound, WA.  Since 1995, there have been five work stoppages in the Puget Sound plant. The most recent strike, in 2008, lasted 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion.

Still, Boeing negotiated in good faith with the union leadership for the Puget Sound facility to try and find a way to open the new factory there.  In exchange, Boeing wanted a ten year moratorium on strikes so the additional capacity upon which the company was about to spend billions of dollars would be a sound investment.

Boeing and the union were unable to reach an agreement so the company looked elsewhere.  They eventually settled on South Carolina, which is one of the twenty two “right-to-work” states in our country where workers cannot be forced to join a union.

The complaint filed last month by the NLRB on behalf of the machinists union alleges that Boeing located the new facility away from Puget Sound in retaliation for the 2008 strike, which is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.  It makes this accusation despite the months Boeing spent negotiating with the union to try and reach a deal to open the new facility in Puget Sound, and despite the fact that there is a clear legal precedent that allows companies to consider the impact of future strikes when deciding where to open new facilities.

It is the timing of NLRB’s complaint, in fact, which seems retaliatory in nature, not Boeing’s business decision.

The complaint comes a full seventeen months after Boeing announced the location of the new facility and thirteen months after the union leadership first asked NLRB to look into the issue.
Boeing has already begun construction of the new facility, hiring over 1000 people in South Carolina and investing $1 billion. This complaint puts all those jobs created and all that money invested at risk.

Unelected, Unconfirmed Bureaucrats Running Wild

This action by the NLRB is even more disturbing when you consider that it is being led by Lafe Solomon, the acting General Counsel for NLRB, who still needs to be approved by the Senate.  He only holds his position because of a recess appointment by President Obama.

The president also used a recess appointment to place Craig Becker on the NLRB after Becker was rejected by a Democratic Senate in 2010.

As a recent Daily Caller article discovered, Becker’s past writings reveal a disturbing socialist bent that bear directly on the Boeing complaint.

Becker has previously written that the federal government should control and constrain the freedom of companies to direct their capital and resources as they please in order to rig labor negotiations in favor of unions.   Becker has also written that the NLRB possesses the power to impose card-check policies on the nation without an act of Congress.

An Assault on the Right to Work

It is clear that President Obama is packing the NLRB board with left wing ideologues as a payoff to his union boss allies, so that the fix is in with regard to this case and others like it.

The move is consistent with an ongoing pattern in the Obama administration, in which they use the apparatus of big government to reward their allies and punish their opponents.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was exactly right when he characterized the complaint as “one of the worst examples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen.”

If the NLRB is successful in overturning Boeing’s perfectly rational business decision, it puts tens of millions of future jobs in all 22 right-to-work states in jeopardy.  It would make it effectively impossible for U.S. companies to open new facilities in right-to-work states if they are currently located in one that allows forced unionization.

Global Competition Is a Fact, Not a Theory

The Left simply cannot come to grips with the intensity of global economic competition and the demands it places on U.S. economic policies.

This blindness to reality was on display in the reaction to a recent USA Today article showing that Americans paid less taxes in 2009 than any time since the 1950s.  The article has been used by the Left in recent days as a counter to the conservative case that tax increases would be devastating to any economic recovery, possibly driving us back into recession.

Their argument shows the Left is completely missing the point.  In the new global economy, America is not competing against itself from 1990, 1970 or 1950.

We are competing against Germany, which today has only a 15% federal corporate income tax (and recently hit a 19-year low in its unemployment rate), compared to a 35% corporate tax rate in the U.S., the highest of any central government in the industrialized world.

We are competing against Singapore, which has a capital gains tax of zero, compared to a potential 35% capital gains tax in the United States.

We are competing against Switzerland, which caps the federal personal income tax rate at 11.5%.

We are competing against Canada, which just last week reelected an incumbent Conservative government that has pledged to cut the corporate tax to 15% and lower the personal income tax for families – all while planning to balance its entire budget by 2015.

Consider the case of the New York Stock Exchange.  This icon of American free markets is now owned by a Dutch holding company.

That $10.2 billion takeover was driven by simple economic reality. As Walter Gavin, Vice President of Emerson, explains, the Netherlands has a tax code which makes it more profitable for the NYSE to be owned by a Dutch company than by an American one.  In fact, according to Gavin, the United States lost almost forty companies to Amsterdam in 2010 alone thanks to their more business friendly environment.

This brings us back to President Obama and his union allies’ assault on South Carolina jobs and all twenty two right-to-work states in America.

If the NRLB’s complaint is successful, U.S. companies will simply increase their flight of capital and new facilities to places outside the United States.  In the midst of a struggling economy, it will make it harder for businesses to operate in America, not easier.

The union bosses and their political allies in the White House aren’t going to save union jobs by attacking right-to-work states.  They’ll simply prevent new jobs from being created here in America.

More HERE.

Gov. Rick Perry on the stream of lies from the Obama Administration. Withholding disaster funds for political reasons. – UPDATED!

Talk about a slow response to Katrina, how about no response because you are a Republican.

White House: Gov. Perry disrespected us because he would not greet us when the President flew in.

The Facts: Obama flew into El Paso, a two-hour flight for Gov. Perry and yet just a few hours later Obama was to be in Austin, where Gov. Perry was, for two fund-raisers. “We offered to meet the President here in Austin” says Gov. Perry. President Obama refused to meet with him.

White House: Border counties are safer than ever.

The Facts: The White House bases that number on the number of illegal immigration apprehensions. The apprehensions are down because the economy in the USA is bad and fewer people are coming across, but the drug cartels and border violence are up and some parts of the border have been ceded to the drug cartels and are not under our control.

White House: Gov. Perry is not telling the truth about the fires as the federal government is paying 75% of the bill.

The Facts: The Federal Government is helping with 25 fires out of 9000. [Editor’s Note – By the way, wild fires would not be so bad if the federal government did not have restrictions on forest management such as cutting fire breaks and cleaning underbrush.]

UPDATE – If you want to see the depth of President Obama’s border security lie, the Federal Government through the BLM is posting these signs in Arizona just south of Interstate 8. This is not just on the border as Interstate 8 is THREE COUNTIES inland.

If the border is safer than ever, why are these signs needed now and say not when Reagan was president or even Clinton?

The Arizona TEA Party recently posted this message on one of their web sites:

“Sheriff Dever’s Dept. (Cochise County) and also the Pinal County Sheriff’s Depts (Sheriff Paul Babeu) which are the two counties that are directly on the AZ/Mexican border, are now being sued by Obama and Eric Holder to prevent them from enforcing immigration laws? Mark, this situation has become extremely dangerous now. Not only are thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants crossing our border daily, we have thousands of OTM’s (Other Than Mexican….a-hem, middle-easterners).  Obama and Holder want to stop these Sheriff Depts from apprehending them, and handing them over to ICE for deportation.”

ABC’s Jake Tapper makes a few observations about the president’s border speech. He quotes the increase in border agents from the early Bush Administration, counting the increases authorized by the former president as his own. In short putting up a light fence on a few hundred miles of border when that border is thousands of miles long is hardly securing it, and neither is adding 3000 border agents which is an ounce in the bucket. Obama has hardly secured the border and in fact files harassment suits against local law enforcement to stop serious enforcement of it.

Former KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov: How the KGB Demoralized, Propagandized and Indoctrinated Youth Using Schools

The following is part one of a 1985 interview with Ex-KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov. In this interview, Bezmenov outlines the four step systematic demoralization and indoctrination techniques utilized for decades against America.

The interview is prophetic, describing effects we can see all around us today.

The goal of demoralization: To change the perception of reality of every American so that they are unable to come to sensible conclusions for their own good and defense in spite of abundant information.  To get them in a mindset so that no amount of evidence will ever convince them that leftism is wrong. Pump their heads with the ideology of their enemy which we have done to at least three generations of students with next to nothing opposing it.  This works with them until the real Marxists come to power.

Those journalists, professors, activists, union leaders, film directors and other idealistically minded Marxists who believe in the “beauty of collectivism”; these useful idiots think that they will be coming to power, when they don’t they will become the first to become disillusioned and become the revolution’s worst enemy. They will have to be executed because revolutionaries know how to wage a counter revolution. They have to go because they know too much. Others will become disillusioned when they or their communities have to feel the boot (Hence the old saying a conservative is a liberal who got mugged).

During the demoralization process those in influential circles  who will not accept “the beauty of collectivism” will be subject to character assassination.

The full 81 minute interview can be found HERE.

Girl Raped by School Athletes and School Demands She Pay $45,000 to the School Under Legal Loophole

I just wonder, is every school administrator a despicable human being? We publish lots of stories about school administrators who break the law (and there are literally thousands we do not publish because it would be all we would ever do – no that was not even an exaggeration), lie, abandon all ethics etc when scandal hits, but this one amazed even me, and just when I thought I had seen it all.

Warning this will infuriate you – LINK.

Prof. Niall Ferguson on Obama: A colossal failure of American foreign policy.

Niall Ferguson

WANTED: A Grand Strategy for America

By Niall Ferguson

“The statesman can only wait and listen until he hears the footsteps of God resounding through events; then he must jump up and grasp the hem of His coat, that is all.” Thus Otto von Bismarck, the great Prussian statesman who united Germany and thereby reshaped Europe’s balance of power nearly a century and a half ago.

Last week, for the second time in his presidency, Barack Obama heard those footsteps, jumped up to grasp a historic opportunity . . . and missed it completely.

In Bismarck’s case it was not so much God’s coattails he caught as the revolutionary wave of mid-19th-century German nationalism. And he did more than catch it; he managed to surf it in a direction of his own choosing. The wave Obama just missed—again—is the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy. It has surged through the region twice since he was elected: once in Iran in the summer of 2009, the second time right across North Africa, from Tunisia all the way down the Red Sea toYemen. But the swell has been biggest in Egypt, the Middle East’s most populous country.

In each case, the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave, Bismarck style, by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail. In the case of Iran, he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. This time around,

in Egypt, it was worse. He did both—some days exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, other days drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.”

The result has been a foreign-policy debacle. The president has alienated everybody: not only Mubarak’s cronies in the military, but also the youthful crowds in the streets of Cairo. Whoever ultimately wins, Obama loses. And the alienation doesn’t end there. America’s two closest friends in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are both disgusted.  The Saudis, who dread all manifestations of revolution, are appalled at Washington’s failure to resolutely prop up Mubarak. The Israelis, meanwhile, are dismayed by the administration’s apparent cluelessness.

Last week, while other commentators ran around Cairo’s Tahrir Square, hyperventilating about what they saw as an Arab 1989, I flew to Tel Aviv for the annual Herzliya security conference. The consensus among the assembled experts on the Middle East? A colossal failure of American foreign policy.

This failure was not the result of bad luck. It was the predictable consequence of the Obama administration’s lack of any kind of coherent grand strategy, a deficit about which more than a few veterans of U.S. foreign policy making have long worried. The president himself is not wholly to blame. Although cosmopolitan by both birth and upbringing, Obama was an unusually parochial politician prior to his election, judging by his scant public pronouncements on foreign-policy issues.

Yet no president can be expected to be omniscient. That is what advisers are for. The real responsibility for the current strategic vacuum lies not with Obama himself, but with the National Security Council, and in particular with the man who ran it until last October: retired Gen. James L. Jones. I suspected at the time of his appointment that General Jones was a poor choice. A big, bluff Marine, he once astonished me by recommending that Turkish troops might lend the United States support in Iraq. He seemed mildly surprised when I suggested the Iraqis might resent such a reminder of centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule.

The best national-security advisers have combined deep knowledge of international relations with an ability to play the Machiavellian Beltway game, which means competing for the president’s ear against the other would-be players in the policymaking process: not only the defense secretary but also the secretary of state and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. No one has ever done this better than Henry Kissinger. But the crucial thing about Kissinger as national-security adviser was not the speed with which he learned the dark arts of interdepartmental turf warfare. It was the skill with which he, in partnership with Richard Nixon, forged a grand strategy for the United States at a time of alarming geopolitical instability.

The essence of that strategy was, first, to prioritize (for example, détente with the Soviets before human-rights issues within the U.S.S.R.) and then to exert pressure by deliberately linking key issues. In their hardest task—salvaging peace with honor in Indochina by preserving the independence of South Vietnam—Nixon and Kissinger ultimately could not succeed. But in the Middle East they were able to eject the Soviets from a position of influence and turn Egypt from a threat into a malleable ally. And their overtures to China exploited the divisions within the Communist bloc, helping to set Beijing on an epoch-making new course of economic openness.

The contrast between the foreign policy of the Nixon-Ford years and that of President Jimmy Carter is a stark reminder of how easily foreign policy can founder when there is a failure of strategic thinking.  The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which took the Carter administration wholly by surprise, was a catastrophe far greater than the loss of South Vietnam.

Remind you of anything? “This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times last week.

“We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on

containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt

moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

I can think of no more damning indictment of the administration’s strategic thinking than this: it never once considered a scenario in which Mubarak faced a popular revolt. Yet the very essence of rigorous strategic thinking is to devise such a scenario and to think through the best responses to them, preferably two or three moves ahead of actual or potential adversaries. It is only by doing these things—ranking priorities and gaming scenarios—that a coherent foreign policy can be made. The Israelis have been hard at work doing this. All the president and his NSC team seem to have done is to draft touchy-feely speeches like the one he delivered in Cairo early in his presidency.

These were his words back in June 2009: America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Those lines will come back to haunt Obama if, as cannot be ruled out, the ultimate beneficiary of his bungling in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country—and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Sharia. Would such an outcome advance “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings” in Egypt? Somehow, I don’t think so.

Grand strategy is all about the necessity of choice.  Today, it means choosing between a daunting list of objectives: to resist the spread of radical Islam, to limit Iran’s ambition to become dominant in the Middle East, to contain the rise of China as an economic rival, to guard against a Russian “reconquista” of Eastern Europe—and so on. The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so.  A succession of speeches saying, in essence, “I am not George W. Bush” is no substitute for a strategy.

Bismarck knew how to choose. He understood that riding the nationalist wave would enable Prussia to become the dominant force in Germany, but that thereafter the No. 1 objective must be to keep France and Russia from uniting against his new Reich. When asked for his opinion about colonizing Africa, Bismarck famously replied: “My map of Africa lies in Europe. Here lies Russia and here lies France, and we are in the middle. That is my map of Africa.”

Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama’s map of the Middle East is. At best, it is in the heartland states of America, where the fate of his presidency will be decided next year, just as Jimmy Carter’s was back in 1980.

At worst, he has no map at all.

Dept of Education is a Failure: 82 Fed Govt Programs to Improve Teachers. Billions Spent With No Results. Bill Gates Foundation Concludes that Teaching Credentials Make No Difference

Can Christians celebrate bin Laden’s Death?

In short, YOU BETCHA!

By Jordan Sekulow

In the aftermath of the successful U.S. military raid that ended in the killing of the most wanted terrorist in the world, we saw thousands of Americans take to the streets and gather at Ground Zero to celebrate, waive flags, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and sing “God Bless America.” However, some Christians have struggled with how to deal with Osama bin Laden’s death. I have set aside time on my daily radio show to address this very issue because it is a very real debate happening within the evangelical community.

This outcome was the natural consequence of a war that bin Laden began waging against the United States long before the 9/11 attacks. Recall the just war theory that has been discussed here at “On Faith.” Killing bin Laden is like winning a major battle in a just war. His organization attacked the United States; we hunted him for nearly ten years and removed him from the battlefield. It is swift act of justice in an unquestionably just war against al Qaeda.

As Christians, we believe that God has specifically ordained government to rule over a fallen world – to bring security to the law-abiding and inflict swift justice against evildoers. As the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans, “If you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

As such, when the United States military exercised its right to defend the people of American and bring the most heinous terrorist this nation has ever known to justice, it should be celebrated. As the Psalmist David wrote, “The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then people will say, ‘Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.’”

This is exactly what President Obama meant when he declared late on Sunday night that, “Justice has been done.”

We celebrate the victory of the righteous over those who seek to do evil. Osama bin Laden, a man with the blood of thousands of innocents on his hand, was the definition of evil. Christians should rejoice in the fall of evil. We are doing the right thing when we praise the brave men and women who fight to protect American from evil every day.

Jordan Sekulow is a famed constitutional law attorney and Christian activist.

More from Dennis Prager HERE