Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Terrorist Bill Ayers to University Students: America‘s ’Game Is Over‘ and ’Another World’ Is Coming!

The Blaze ^ | May 2, 2012 | Erica Ritz

Bill Ayers spoke at the University of Oregon last week on the subject of teaching and organizing for “social justice.” His speech was not free of the radical sentiments he is well-known for espousing (especially in the company of America’s youth). Case in point: he spoke of the end of America, a new world, and what our role ought to be in all of it.

Almost as interesting as Ayers’ speech itself, perhaps, was how the leftist radical was introduced by the university students. One girl, who described herself as a doctoral student at the university, spoke of the privilege they would have with their honored guest, in an “evening [of] radical imagination.”

Two others, an associate professor at the university and a graduate student, remarked: “Most of us have in one way or another acknowledged the sovereign authority of the U.S. government– or the state of Oregon– in order to be here tonight, either admission to the university, applying for a job, or just paying the parking meter. We have not, however, asked permission of the [Native Americans] whose ancestral home this is, and to fail to acknowledge that this remains disputed territory would in effect be taking sides, [and] reinforce the erasure of indigenous history and indigenous peoples.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Dems Platform

An Indictment of the President's Touchdown Dance: The idiot has miscalculated, again! ^ | May 2, 2012 | Hugh Hewitt

On Tuesday morning the Wall Street Journal carried a very unusual op-ed.

The author was a former Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasy, who had served on the federal bench for 18 years before taking on the top job in federal law enforcement. As a federal district court judge, Mukasey had presided over the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind Sheik,” one of the original confederates of bin Laden, a vantage point from which the highly esteemed jurist became deeply acquainted with the intricacies of the jihadist network.

As AG, Mukasey took on a key leadership role in the war on terror, and he is widely respected across both sides of the political divide for his stewardship of that office.

Which is why his piece, titled “Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights,” was such a stunning and strong rebuke to the president and his political team. Mukasey is not a political figure, not a partisan figure, but a senor statesman, one of the “wise men.”

I interviewed the former AG on my radio show the afternoon after his piece was published, a little more than two hours before the president spoke to the American people from Afghanistan. The transcript of this interview is here, but there are some extraordinary parts to this conversation which should be highlighted, beginning with my question about the Journal essay:

HH: Why were you motivated to write this piece?

MM: Well, frankly, when I saw in the newspaper on Saturday that there was going to be this conscious attempt to exploit the bragging rights, and took a look at the statement that he had made at the time of the original announcement, and thought about the fact that he had compromised the intelligence value of that achievement by talking about seizing a trove of intelligence, and even disclosing that we had found out about the places where al Qaeda safe houses were located, there comes a point where really, it’s hard to restrain yourself. And I just sat down and I wrote it in something like a couple of hours. I was just, I was fairly upset.

That upset led the former AG to focus on one oft-overlooked aspect of the decision to authorize the mission to kill bin Laden –that the president had arranged to be able to distance himself from failure:

HH: Now you also mentioned something that not many people have noted, that is that then-CIA director, now Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was given a memorandum that says the timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden, and if he is not there, to get out. What do you make of the Panetta memo? What was its purpose?

MM: Well, that’s a responsibility avoidance mechanism. That says that unless you encounter only the precise matters described to the President, and notice they’re not set forth in the memo, all that’s set forth is essentially unless you encounter the precise conditions described to the President. And the fact is you can never, in any operation, anticipate what’s going to happen. Once you’re in there, things start to happen that you don’t anticipate. But it says that unless you go ahead only on that basis, you’ve got to come back and get permission. That’s a way of saying that well, I didn’t approve whatever danger was encountered later on that caused us to fail. It’s a way of shirking responsibility.

HH: Is it a CYA memo?

MM: You want a one word answer?

HH: Yes.

MM: Yes.

I asked Mukasey about his description of the president’s trip earlier in the interview as an “overreach”:

HH: [I]s it so transparent, and actually “overreaching,” first word you used in our conversation, that it may actually backfire on him, politically?

MM: Look, I can’t speak to who it’s going to work with. I know that people who are converts already will take it as his right. And people who are his opponents will automatically conclude that it’s something reprehensible. The question is about the people in the middle, and I think people in the middle have a sense of decency, and a sense of history, and can look back on leaders that we had, and understand that real leaders take less credit than they deserve, and more blame than they deserve. And this is not an example of that at all.

Ponder those words for a second. They are very, very tough, and they come from a man who is very serious about the war on terror. He is also uniquely positioned to speak to one other aspect of the mission to get bin Laden:

HH: Now in that room, the Situation Room, the famous photo appears alongside your Journal piece. Eric Holder isn’t there, the current Attorney General isn’t there. Did that surprise you when that photo first appeared?

MM: Yes, it did, and I commented to a number of people that his absence seemed to me to be remarkable.

HH: Why?

MM: Because when an operation like that is carried out, one of the key elements has to do with the legality of it. Crossing a border…I mean, understand, I think it was justified, and I think that there should have been, and perhaps was, consultation with people of the Justice Department, and that the Attorney General would be taken into the President’s confidence sufficiently to have been in that room.

The conversation with Mukasey underscores the disquiet the president has engendered among many people with key past roles in the war on terror.

It summarizes the distaste for the credit-grabbing, self-absorbed posturing of the president.

And it calls attention to the two strangest aspects of the entire episode –the CYA memo and Eric Holder’s absence from the Situation Room.

The Campaign Ads That Will Defeat Obama

American Thinker ^ | May 2, 2012 | Edward Olshaker

Despite the life-and-death issues at stake, the Obama campaign has begun a re-election effort based largely on Rule 5 of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule..."

The reason is simple: personal attacks and mockery worked so well in reducing Sarah Palin to a negative caricature that any formidable opponent now automatically receives the Palin treatment from the Obama camp and its obedient media.

Ideally the two campaigns would agree to avoid such attacks, yet it's already too late. The Obama team is eagerly collecting Romney's alleged gaffes, and has begun running a "greatest hits" video that includes Romney's out-of-context half-sentence, "I'm not concerned about the very poor..." They also plan to highlight the most damaging moments of the GOP debates.

The ridicule began before Romney clinched the nomination, and included derision of Romney's narrow Michigan victory (even though, 4 years ago this week, Obama was not mocked for losing the Pennsylvania primary by 10 points), and taunting him with a juvenile stunt. The president even made fun of Romney using the word "marvelous."
Romney faces the added challenge of a media whose devotion to Obama cannot be overstated. As we learned from the 2010 revelation of the JournoList email forum, members of the activist left media (Media Matters, Mother Jones,, the UK's Guardian, Alternet, Salon, Center for American Progress, and others) colluded with journalists from media outlets trusted by many as mainstream (Washington Post, Politico, Chicago Tribune, Slate, Newsweek, Time, New York Times, Boston Globe, etc.) on ways to cover up unwanted news such as the Reverend Wright story. Obama's election was celebrated by the New York Times and by NBC, which sold "Yes We Did" t-shirts....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Opposite of "Forward" is "Freedom!"

The Red Side of Life Conservative Musings from New York ^ | 5/2/12 | RedInNewYork

In 2008, those who opposed Obama had no concise “slogan,” no rallying call to oppose “Hope and Change” (more about that in a moment). The Obama campaign even had a logo! As Mark Levin has already pointed out, it is difficult to actually find a campaign in modern (or even early) American history with an actual logo. And don’t forget the “Hope and Change” poster (oh, and tee-shirts, etc.)! But, I digress. I would posit that the reason these materials are unusual is because they are more typically badges and incidents of socialist propaganda, and not American Politics. Obama’s selection of his new 2012 slogan “Forward!” confirms this – by now the socialist/communist/fascist connotations and of this term have been well reported. I am confident that Obama thought this linguistic selection – confirmed by the propaganda video that announced it to the world – was quite clever… logically, if you oppose moving “forward,” then you support moving “backward” – rhetoric Obama is certain to use. However, in this case, I believe the opposite of “Forward” is “Freedom.”

“Forward” implies motion; in the political context, it implies motion toward some political goal. As articles on the topic have already reported, per Wikipedia, “The name ‘Forward’ carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications.” Per Breitbart, “It’s related to MSNBC’s ‘Lean Forward,’ and, of course, to Mao Zedong’s ‘Great Leap Forward.’” Per the Daily Mail, “[Obama’s] new campaign slogan … has unfortunate similarities to ones used by Chairman Mao and other Communists.” Ergo, it must follow that Forward, in the Obama context, must mean motion towards socialist ends. Certainly, the shoe fits – if you are reading this, then you are already aware of the socialist/collectivist thrust of the Obama modus operandi and policies. In the socialist state, all property belongs to the government, and the individual who works without compensation (his private property) is a slave. The mere notion that the State can take from the individual at will is slavery. The opposite of slavery is freedom. The opposite of Obama’s policies is freedom. Therefore, the opposite of “Forward” is “Freedom.”

This is not 2008, Mr. President – now WE have a response; WE have a “slogan”; WE have the answer to “Forward!” and that answer is “Freedom!” And our “slogan” belongs to no one – it does not belong to the Romney campaign, it does not belong to the Republican Party, it does not belong to Conservatives, Objectivists, or Libertarians – it belongs to EVERYONE who opposes your policies of socialism and slavery!

Every call of “Forward!,” Mr. President, will be met and defeated by the call for FREEDOM!

Forward to Socialism ^ | May 2, 2012 | Ken Blackwell

Someone in the Obama campaign should find a new line of work. They’ve adopted as a slogan the single word: Forward! You’ve heard those complaints from conservatives that Obama is a socialist? Well, Forward! is one sure way to validate those concerns. Forward! has been the slogan of Marxists for more than a century. Vorwärts is not a soccer rival to Harry Potter’s Hogwarts school, that home of witchcraft and wizardry. . Vorwärts was the German language name of the Socialist newspaper for generations of European leftists.

In Russia, Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks used the word Vperyod! Now, if you had been accused day in and day out of being a Marxist, would you run for re-election with such a freighted word? It’s a comment on American education that a candidate for president can use a Communist word and expect no one will notice or object.

Maybe the Obama team is just taking cues from MSNBC. They try to deny their far-left orientation with the disarming slogan: Lean Forward. Try to imagine that we’re on the rim of the Grand Canyon, staring down at the chasm of debt that this administration has dug for. This president has dug a hole of debt in three years deeper than all previous forty-three presidents. And while we’re hanging out over that canyon rim, MSNBC tells us to lean forward.

It’s surprising that President Obama didn’t pick up on the unsavory associations with the word Forward! It’s like David Duke not getting the problem with white sheets.

In his book, Radical-in-Chief Stanley Kurtz takes great care to document Mr. Obama’s ties to American socialists. Obama admits in his memoir that he attended the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1983. The way Obama tells it, going to that conference was part of the delightful intellectual smorgasbord of activity that a Columbia student samples in Manhattan. You know, Lincoln Center, the Bronx Zoo, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Grant’s Tomb—all that cultural stuff in the Big Apple.

The only problem with this scenario is that the agenda of the Socialist Scholars Conference in 1983 was pretty clear: How to bring Socialism to America without importing all that nasty, brutish KGB and GuLAG apparatus from what President Reagan was calling the evil empire.

Those democratic Socialists may well have hit on the formula: work against the family, abolish marriage, crush small businesses, take over big ones. Nationalize student loans and home mortgages, the two biggest items in the American family budget. You don’t have to nationalize everything. As former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsby said, just the “commanding heights” of the economy. Nice Marxian phrase there, Austan.

Stanley Kurtz is quite careful to distinguish President Obama’s radicalism from that of the Continental Marxists. Kurtz will not go where the evidence does not lead. He finally concludes that Barack Obama is a Socialist, but he’s a Socialist like the left wing of the Swedish Social Democratic Party.

Now, it was hard enough to get Americans to muster on the village green when Paul Revere rode through “every Middlesex village and farm” crying out “The British are coming! The British are coming!” But stand they did and fired the shot heard `round the world.

During the Cold War, Hollywood’s Alan Arkin made fun of anti-Communists here with a spoof called “The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!”

So it’s not hard to figure out why Stanley Kurtz’s book did not raise greater alarms. How do you get folks stirred up yelling “The Swedes are coming! The Swedes are coming”?

The serious question we need to ask ourselves: Does the Swedish Socialist model work, even for Sweden? Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia will find it increasingly impossible to meet the demands of their social welfare systems with an ever-shrinking native-born population. That’s why Sweden has taken to importing folks from the Third World. And that, tragically is why the ancient city of Malmo has become dangerous for Jews. The children and grandchildren of people who fled there with the rise of Hitler are being forced out by the rise of jihadist anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is the inevitable result of the politics of re-distribution. We should not forget that in Germany, it was National Socialism that blamed the Jews as that nation’s one percent. Socialism didn’t work in the USSR, but anti-Semitism was rife. That’s why millions of Soviet Jews fled when they had the chance.

The reason Socialists always proclaim Forward! as their slogan is that they never want you to look at their record. Don’t look back at the wreckage of the economy and the dangers to liberty. Just keep marching together, Forward! indeed.

A better case for Keystone XL (Case for approving it is strong and getting stronger)

Washington Post ^ | 05/01/2012 | Editorial Board,

THE CASE FOR ultimately approving the Keystone XL pipeline — always strong — has grown stronger.

A key environmentalist argument against Keystone XL has been that the project would encourage the extraction of bitumen, a particularly dirty oil-like substance, from the “oil sands” in Alberta. If activists could “shut in” Canadian bitumen, limiting the ability of oil companies to sell the product, they argued, perhaps petroleum firms wouldn’t be able to fully develop the oil sands.
That hope always was unrealistic, and a recent announcement from Kinder Morgan, another pipeline company, illustrates why. The firm wants to nearly triple the capacity of its existing Trans Mountain pipeline between Alberta and Vancouver — a route from the oil sands to the world market — enabling it to carry even more product than the Keystone XL would. From there, much of it would probably head to Asia. Because the pipeline exists, expanding it may not face the same regulatory hurdles — particularly opposition from native groups — that other proposals to run new pipelines to Canada’s west coast have encountered.
There is already enough spare pipeline capacity running out of the oil sands to accommodate increasing production for much of this decade, a government report concluded in 2010. While Kinder Morgan’s expansion certainly wouldn’t sate all the future demand for pipeline capacity, it would add more time before the environmentalists’ strategy could seriously impact production. And it demonstrates a critical point: Even if environmentalists manage to stop one pipeline or another, given high world oil prices, the enthusiastic support of the Canadian government, the many transport options and the years available to develop infrastructure, it’s beyond quixotic to believe that enough of the affordable paths out will be blocked. Environmentalists might succeed, however, in relocating some construction jobs outside the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The 'Buffett Rule' Should Be Known As The 'Buffett Ruse'


President Obama insists his so-called "Buffett Rule" — which cannot even pass the Democrat-controlled Senate — is a serious proposal, not just an election-year gimmick.

Let's consider the facts.

If enacted, the IRS would take 30% of every dollar earned by a targeted subset of the population — in this case, people earning more than $1 million per year. We're told this is necessary because highly successful Americans just aren't pulling their weight or paying their fair share.

This line of reasoning begs the question: Is it fair for the IRS to take 30% of anyone's paycheck? Keep in mind that we're discussing only the federal income tax. Add up all the other federal, state and local levies, and some people could lose 50% of their income to tax collectors! That isn't fair, it's punitive.
According to data from the Treasury Department and the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), Americans with an adjusted gross income exceeding $1 million in 2009 paid an average effective income-tax rate of 24%. That same year, families in the ballpark of $40,000-$50,000 paid an average of 5.3%. It was 11.6% for those making $100,000- $200,000, and the incomes in between predictably fell within that same range.

We've all heard the anecdote about Warren Buffett and his secretary, but it is incredibly misleading to claim an epidemic of high earners paying lower tax rates than the middle class. As the president likes to say, this is not my opinion. This is basic math.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

New Obama Executive Order Pushes Us Closer To A North American Union And A One World Economic System!

The American Dream ^ | 5.2.12 | Michael Snyder

When it comes to Barack Obama, one of the most important things to understand is that he is a committed globalist. He firmly believes that more "global governance" (the elite don't like to use the term "global government") will make the world a much better place. Throughout his time in the White House, Obama has consistently sought to strengthen international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. At every turn, Obama has endeavored to more fully integrate America into the "global community". Since he was elected, Obama has signed a whole host of new international economic agreements. He regularly speaks of the need for "cooperation" among global religions and he has hosted a wide variety of different religious celebrations at the White House.

Obama once stated that "all nations must come together to build a stronger global regime". If you do not want to live in a "global regime" that is just too bad. To globalists such as Obama, it is inevitable that the United States of America will be merged into the emerging global system. Just this week, Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to "harmonize" U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system. Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening.

The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to "harmonize" their work with the international community. The following is how this new executive order was assessed in a recent Businessweek article....
Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.
“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.
Members of the Obama administration are touting this as a way to "reduce regulation", but the truth is that this is much more about aligning ourselves with the rest of the world than anything else.
Obama's "Information Czar", Cass Sunstein, authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal on Monday in which he stressed the need to eliminate "unnecessary regulatory differences across nations" so that the United States can compete more effectively in our "interdependent global economy". The end result of this process will be that we will now do things much more like how the rest of the world does things....
In an interdependent global economy, diverse regulations can cause trouble for companies doing business across national boundaries. Unnecessary differences in countries' regulatory requirements can cost money, compromising economic growth and job creation. Think of divergent requirements for car headlights, or the labeling of food, or standards for container sizes.
Recognizing this, President Obama's Jobs Council has called for U.S. agencies to better align U.S. regulations with those of our major trading partners. And today the president is issuing an executive order, "Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation," with a simple goal: to promote exports, growth, and job creation by eliminating unnecessary regulatory differences across nations.
But a one world economic system is not going to arrive overnight. Initially, it is much more likely that there will be a very strong push toward North American integration first. The goal will be to shape North America into an integrated regional economic unit similar to the EU. Cass Sunstein discussed how this new executive order will affect North American integration on the White House website on Tuesday....
The new Executive Order will build on work that is already underway. We have started close to home, with President Obama launching Regulatory Cooperation Councils with Prime Minister Harper of Canada and President Calderon of Mexico. The Councils are implementing work plans to eliminate or prevent the creation of unnecessary regulatory differences that adversely affect cross-border trade; to streamline regulatory requirements; and to promote greater certainty for the general public and businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, in the regulation of food, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and other areas. The United States and Canada released the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Action Plan last December. In February, we announced the United States-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) Work Plan.
Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far plans to integrate the United States, Canada and Mexico have advanced.
Last year, Barack Obama signed an agreement to create a "North American security perimeter" and most Americans never even heard about it because the mainstream news networks almost entirely ignored it.
But this is exactly what the globalists want. They don't want people to become alarmed by these moves toward North American integration. In fact, a document uncovered by Wikileaks shows that those involved in the effort to integrate North America believe that an "incremental" approach is best. Apparently they believe that small moves toward integration are less likely to alarm the general population. The following is from an article that appeared in The National Post last year....
The integration of North America’s economies would best be achieved through an “incremental” approach, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable.
The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.
“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the document said. “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.”
If the people of Canada, the United States and Mexico were told that there was a plan to merge all three economies, there might be massive protests to stop it, and the globalists do not want that.
A few years ago, the "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America" (SPP) that was being promoted by President George W. Bush started to generate quite a bit of negative publicity. That caused those seeking to integrate the economies of North America to back off for a little while.
But as an article by Jerome Corsi last year detailed, the eventual goal is to turn North America into another version of the eurozone. That includes a common currency for North America called the "amero"....
The SPP in the administration of President George W. Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as “the eurozone.”
The concern under the SPP has been that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could be evolved into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.
So will we ever see the "amero" replace the U.S. dollar?
Hopefully not.
If the globalists try to introduce the "amero", it would probably be after a horrible financial crisis in which the U.S. dollar falls apart. The "amero" would be heralded as the "solution" to the problems that were plaguing the dollar.
If there ever is a move to get rid of the U.S. dollar for an international currency of some kind, the American people will need to resist it with all of their might.
The more integrated the world becomes, the more likely it becomes that we will see nightmarish global tyranny someday. It is very frightening to think of what someone very evil might do if they had the chance to run the entire planet.
Once our national sovereignty is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get back. If the American people don't take a stand while they still can, their children may wake up someday as citizens of a very oppressive "global regime".

Barack Obama: A Legend In His Own Mind!

Red State ^ | 5/2/2012 | Staff

Any doubt that Barack Obama is a small, petty, and inconsequential human was dispelled last week when his campaign released an ad claiming credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, portraying the decision to order a raid to do something to bin Laden (we aren’t quite sure what his intent was based on the directive issued by the White House) as some kind of watershed moment in American history. As was noted then, the video is notable for being narrated by the guy who allowed bin Laden to rise to prominence and insinuating that Mitt Romney would not have ordered the raid.
Undeterred by the criticism received, even by the likes of Arianna Huffington, Obama decided to double down in a press conference yesterday:
Continued the president, “I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”
The article then helpfully points out some context for Romney’s statement.
Romney, incidentally, was hardly the only politician taking issue with then-Senator Obama’s comments about Pakistan. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, called the remarks “irresponsible and frankly naive” in an interview with Iowa’s Quad City Times, and then-Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., said “the last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.”
So, presumably, the Secretary of State and Vice President have been called to account for their opinions as well.
Unfortunately, Obama using the accomplishments of the U.S. military for personal political gain seems to be part of his make up. When Navy SEAL snipers whacked three hapless part-time Somali pirates, Obama was, according to his fluffers, there on the quarterdeck picking out the targets. The new ad could lead you to believe that he personally fast-roped into the Abbottabad compound and killed bin Laden for all the mention that is made of the men who actually did the job. (Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, describes how other presidents have handled similar situations.)
The fact is that Mitt Romney was right, even Jimmy Carter would have made this call. In fact, Jimmy Carter made a much tougher call during Operation EAGLE CLAW. Or as one former Navy SEAL told the Daily Mail:
“The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call. I think every president would have done the same.”
And despite bin Laden enabler Bill Clinton’s statements, there was no political downside risk for Obama whatsoever. Jimmy Carter actually got a 4 point bump in his approval rating, though admittedly a short-lived bump, in the aftermath of the disastrous raid into Iran. Had the compound been empty, Obama would still have gained some credit for continuing the pursuit.
So now we have the sorry spectacle of the President of the United States, as our economy and international prestige circle the crapper, reduced to basing his reelection hopes on the death of a strategically irrelevant fugitive in Pakistan. A man so small that he can’t be bothered to mention the skill of our troops or intelligence agencies in his orgy of self-congratulation.

EDUCATE, AGITATE, ORGANIZE (socialist Saul Alinsky)

PGA Weblog ^

In 2009 the NEA was promoting the works of Saul Alinsky, where they made it a point to highlight Alinsky's formula:
"Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize."
From The History of the Fabian society: (Page 29)
However, as I have said, in 1885 our differences [from other Socialists] were latent or instinctive; and we denounced the capitalists as thieves at the Industrial Remuneration Conference, and, among ourselves, talked revolution, anarchism, labour notes versus pass-books, and all the rest of it, on the tacit assumption that the object of our campaign, with its watchwords, 'EDUCATE, AGITATE, ORGANIZE,' was to bring about a tremendous smash-up of existing society, to be succeeded by complete Socialism.
And again, on page 13:
"Socialism Made Plain," the social and political Manifesto of the Democratic Federation (undated, but apparently issued in 1883), is a much stronger document. It deals with the distribution of the National Income, giving the workers' share as 300 out of 1300 millions sterling, and demands that the workers should "educate, agitate, organise" in order to get their own.
The wording is most interesting. 'In order to get their own'? Isn't that what the Occupiers are saying? Some rich fat cat stole from them and they need economic justice to get it back.
Aren't coincidences nice? The world seems to be full of them.

Not quite in love with commercial flying, but not yet a private plane owner?

(Photo: Courtesy of Surf Air)

Not quite in love with commercial flying, but not yet a private plane owner?

Surf Air has the all-you-can-fly plan for you. Starting this summer, the new airline will offer members as many flights as they want, on a fleet of eight private planes, for just $790/month.

“It works largely the way Netflix does,” said Wade Eyerley, co-founder and a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. A $790 membership allows you to hold two reservations at a time – as soon as you fly, you can place another reservation. The $990 and $1,490 memberships allow you four and six reservations respectively.

(Photo: Courtesy of Surf Air)

Wade and his brother, David, a former Frontier Airlines manager, are hoping to target the frequent fliers who aspire to rid themselves of long security lines and the hassle of commercial air travel. Instead of spending four or five hours getting from San Francisco to Los Angeles, Wade promises it will take you just 75 minutes on Surf Air. And, you don’t even have to take off your shoes.

Sleepy Air Canada pilot thought Venus was a plane

“We’re introducing the private plane experience to those that don’t have it now,” said Wade.

The flights are starting with the heavily traveled San Francisco-Los Angeles route, which 20 million fliers traveled last year according to the FAA. Initial stops will include Palo Alto, Monterey, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles.

“Too many people are driving. They should be flying,” said Wade. And he intends to get them on planes.

Surf Air is the only non-tech company launching this year out of the MuckerLab start-up accelerator based in Los Angeles. MuckerLab provides funding, guidance, and office space to promising start-ups.

Eventually, the brothers intend to expand the service, but they’re beginning with the pilot test route and just 500 memberships. After getting 12,000 email addresses from people who expressed interest, they realized they had to cap the service in its initial phase or they’d be oversubscribed and unable to deliver enough quality flights to members.

Applications for those first 500 memberships are being accepted right now. But, if you’re ready to say good-bye to frequent commercial travel, you’ll have to get your membership in soon. Just one week after announcing the plan, 300 all-you-can-fly memberships have already been filled.

Class Warfare Is Being Used To Divide America - And It Is Working!

The Economic Collapse ^ | 05/01/2012 | Michael Snyder

At a time when America desperately needs to come together, we are becoming more divided than ever. The mainstream media and most of our politicians love to pit us against one another in dozens of different ways, and right now class warfare has become one of their favorite tools for getting us to hate one another. If you are struggling in this economy, you are being told that "the wealthy" are the cause of your problems. If you have money, you are being told that the poor hate you and want to tax you into oblivion. Class warfare has already become a dominant theme in the 2012 race for the White House, and there will certainly be endless speeches given along these lines by politicians from both major political parties all the way up to election day. Class warfare will be used by both sides as a way to divide America and get votes. And the frightening thing is that it is clearly working. There is more hatred between the poor and the wealthy in America today than at any other time that I can remember. But hating people because of how much money they have or don't have is not going to solve anything. Instead, it is just going to cause more problems.
The other day, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told CNBC that the globe is already in a state of "late Great Depression". The United States is heading into unprecedented economic and financial problems and we desperately need to pull together as a country and solve these problems.
But instead, our leaders are tapping into the politics of division in a desperate attempt to get elected in the fall.
Rather than focus on real issues and real solutions, our politicians attempt to make "the wealthy" or "welfare recipients" the focus of our debates.
Well, you know what?
Most people that are rich and most people that are poor are not purposely trying to abuse the system. Most of them are hard working people that are trying to do the best that they can in a world that is increasingly going crazy.
These days, the Occupy Wall Street crowd loves to talk about how evil the "1 percent" is. But most of the "1 percent" are people that have worked really hard and that have been fortunate enough to get some really good breaks in life.
Yes, there are some among the "1 percent" that do some really bad things. The too big to fail banks and the big money managers on Wall Street should be held accountable for the crimes that they have committed.
But most wealthy Americans are not trying to oppress the poor. Most of them are just trying to do the best that they can for themselves and their families.
Neither are most poor people trying to abuse the system either.
Yes, without a doubt there are some that do not want to work and that want to live on government benefits indefinitely.
But that is a minority.
Most Americans that are receiving government benefits today would rather be working good jobs that would enable them to provide for their families.
Most Americans understand that government handouts can never provide dignity and hope for a better future.
But if you don't demonize the poor and you point out the decline of the middle class, many Republicans will call you a "liberal" or a "socialist".
And if you don't demonize the rich and you don't blame them for all of our economic problems, many Democrats will call you a "pig" or a "fascist".
Unfortunately, playing the blame game is not going to get us anywhere.
The number of Americans living in poverty increased dramatically under George W. Bush and it also increased dramatically under Barack Obama.
Our country is drowning in debt, millions of our jobs are being shipped overseas, the middle class is shrinking at an astounding pace, and the Federal Reserve continues to destroy our financial system.
Getting angry at the wealthy or the poor is not going to fix those problems.
But it will distract us from the reality that both major political parties have been doing a horrible job.
Sadly, Americans seem to really enjoy blaming one another these days. Just check out some of the slogans that have been seen on various signs at Occupy Wall Street protests....
"They Only Call It Class Warfare When We Fight Back"
"Eat The Rich - Feed The Poor"
"The Rich Are Wrecking The Planet"
So will destroying the lives of the rich solve our problems?
Of course not.
The truth is that we should want millions more Americans to be prosperous. We should be cheering for one another instead of tearing one another down.
But that is heresy to many on the left.
On the right, it is heresy even to mention that our tax system is fundamentally flawed and that it has thousands of loopholes that are being abused by the very wealthy.
In a previous article, I detailed how many of the largest and most profitable corporations in America get away with paying absolutely nothing in taxes.
There is something very wrong with that.
Our income tax system should be abolished altogether, but if we do have to pay income taxes, then it is fundamentally unfair for some people and businesses to be able to pay little or nothing while the rest of us get absolutely obliterated by taxes.
But if you try to say that to many on the right, they will look at you in horror.
The other day, there was a New York Times article that detailed the extreme measures that Apple takes to avoid paying taxes. It turns out that Apple sets up shell offices all over the globe in order to evade taxation....
As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands — some little more than a letterbox or an anonymous office — that help cut the taxes it pays around the world.
That same article talked about how Apple has become a model which hundreds of other companies have followed. To giant corporations such as Apple, tax evasion has become an art form....
Apple, for instance, was among the first tech companies to designate overseas salespeople in high-tax countries in a manner that allowed them to sell on behalf of low-tax subsidiaries on other continents, sidestepping income taxes, according to former executives. Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods, say accountants at those companies.
So what is the solution to all of this?
Raising income taxes won't work too well because the tax lawyers are always several steps ahead of our politicians.
The truth is that when taxes get raised it is always the middle class that gets absolutely clobbered and the wealthy always find more ways to reduce their exposure.
Just take a look at Mitt Romney. He made more than 42 million dollars in 2010 and yet Romney had an effective tax rate of only 14 percent.
If I could find a way to have an effective tax rate of only 14 percent I would be jumping up and down for joy, and so would millions of other Americans.
Our tax system is deeply, deeply broken and needs to be thrown into the trash can.
Abandoning the current tax system would not solve all of our problems, but it would be a start.
Unfortunately, neither political party is willing to even consider this.
Instead, the Democrats want to raise taxes a little bit and the Republicans want to lower taxes a little bit.
But neither alternative will do much of anything to solve any of the real problems we are facing.
Our economy is dying and it is not producing nearly enough jobs for all of us. When Barack Obama took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in America was 2.6 million. Today, it is 5.3 million.
At this point, an astounding 53 percent of all college graduates under the age of 25 are either unemployed or underemployed.
So where is all of the "change" that Obama promised?
Things just keep getting worse.
Since Obama has been in the White House, 14 million more Americans have gone on food stamps, and more than 25 percent of all American children are enrolled in the program today.
How will class warfare help those people?
Will blaming the wealthy make things better for them?
They are already receiving government handouts.
Will increasing those handouts a little bit more fundamentally change their lives for the better?
Of course not.
What those people need are good jobs.
But instead, both the Democrats and the Republicans continue to pursue the same job killing policies that have been destroying American jobs for decades.
Without good jobs, the number of Americans dependent on the government is going to continue to grow.
In a previous article, I detailed the explosive growth of social welfare benefits that we have seen under both Republicans and Democrats....
Back in 1960, social welfare benefits made up approximately 10 percent of all salaries and wages. In the year 2000, social welfare benefits made up approximately 21 percent of all salaries and wages. Today, social welfare benefits make up approximately 35 percent of all salaries and wages.
The goal should not be to rape the rich and give out even more social welfare benefits.
Instead, the goal should be to develop an economy that creates good jobs.
We need have an economy that empowers individuals and small businesses.
Instead, we have an economy dominated by big government and big corporations.
We have an economy that funnels the vast majority of the economic rewards to a tiny elite while most of the rest of us struggle.
Just consider the following statistics....
*Back in the 1970s, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States brought in about 8 percent of all income. Today, they bring in about 21 percent of all income.
*The following is how income gains in the U.S. were distributed during 2010....
-37 percent of all income gains went to the top 0.01 percent of all income earners
-56 percent of all income gains went to the rest of the top 1 percent
-7 percent of all income gains went to the bottom 99 percent
*In America today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.
*According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined.
So what is the solution to that problem?
Is it to attack the rich and take away all their money and give more government handouts to the poor?
Of course not.
Rather, we need to change the rules of the game so that individuals and small businesses are empowered to succeed.
We need to decentralize economic power and dramatically reduce the undue influence that big government and giant corporations have over our economic system.
We need to create an environment where almost anyone that has a good idea and that is willing to work hard can succeed.
But instead of focusing on real solutions like shutting down the Federal Reserve, converting to debt-free currency, eliminating the income tax, shutting down the IRS, massively reducing the size of government and getting rid of thousands upon thousands of unneeded regulations, the mainstream media and our politicians are going to continue to try to get Americans to blame one another for our problems.
The efforts to divide America are working, and hatred is growing to unprecedented levels in this country.
Eventually this will lead to mass rioting in our major cities and that will make our problems far worse.
Hatred and division are not going to bring us a better future.
They are only going to destroy us from within.
We don't need hate.
What we need is more love and more solutions.
Unfortunately, our leaders are leading us down a very dark path, and we are heading for a future that is going to be a complete mess.

Will The Navy SEALs Swift Boat Obama?

BuzzFeed ^ | 5/1/2012 | Michael Hastings

Almost eight years ago, presidential candidate John Kerry accepted the Democratic nomination with the infamous line: “I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty.” His military service, in a war three decades old, became the centerpiece of his campaign.

Within weeks, the Republicans had turned what was seen as one of Kerry’s strongest assets against him. Swift Boats Veterans for Truth—which included over 200 Vietnam veterans, most who hadn’t even served with Kerry—succeeded in raising doubts about the heroic narrative Kerry was selling. What seemingly started as a scratch turned into a sucking chest wound for his campaign.
Yesterday, the Obama campaign got clawed.

Drudge blasted the headline from London's Daily Mail: SEALS SLAM OBAMA FOR MAKING IT POLITICAL.

What was supposed to be an easy win—a victory lap on the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, trumping up the president’s most militant moment—appeared to be slipping away.
The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six.
Was it a coincidence, SEALs asked themselves, catastrophe hit Team Six so soon after being named as the team responsible for the killing?
The White House narrative on the Geronimo mission would soon come under scrutiny as well, after Chuck Pfarrer, a former member of Seal Team Six, published a book length account questioning the official version of the story. The controversial book was viciously attacked—a JSOC spokesperson called it a “fabrication”—and it was widely dismissed by the press.
What the pushback revealed, however, was an extreme sensitivity in the White House as to who would have the privilege to tell the Bin Laden story, best expressed in a compelling, if well stage-managed, story in the New Yorker. The piece recounted the Abbottabad raid based on interviews with senior administration and military officials, while imbuing the story with the drama of a SEAL’s eye view. Yet the author conceded he had not actually interviewed the men who did the shooting.
Over the past few days, I’ve reached out to a number of SEALs, both active duty and former. Most active duty SEALs were reluctant to go on the record venting or praising their boss, but one of the most interesting responses I received from an operator was to direct me to Leif Babin, a SEAL who left active duty last year.
Babin, who runs the consulting firm Echelon Front, wrote a little noticed op-ed in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal four months ago. The headline: OBAMA EXPLOITS THE NAVY SEALS. Babin took aim at “the president and his advisors, writing: “It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals.”
Obama campaign officials say the decision to put the Bin Laden hit at the centerpiece of the re-elect effort is a no brainer. (It has featurd in the new "Forward" ad; Vice President Biden’s speech last week; and a Davis Guggenheim documentary narrated by Tom Hanks.) The raid dispels the archetype of the supposedly weak Democrat; it’s reveals a moment of presidential decisiveness; and the successful killing of the aging terrorist in his Pakistani hideout, ten years after 9-11, a clear cut national triumph. It's a topic the Obama camp is all too happy to discuss, at any length.
But as the stagey outrage over the politicization of foreign policy from Mitt Romney and his Republican allies gained momentum over this past weekend, White House officials started to have their doubts. Was spiking the football, again, and again, and again, in a public such a good idea? Was it necessary? Was the campaign in Chicago, White House officials wondered, going too far?
Like Kerry’s war record, the vulnerability to the president’s Bin Laden story isn’t so much from the other side, as it from those who can claim the mantle of veteran. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the website: sprout up soon. Sure, military servicemen are accustomed to being exploited by both the left and the right. But that strategy can have its weaknesses, too. If the assault on the Bin Laden narrative continues, and if the anger expressed in private by the SEALs remains very public, the campaign might be forced to retreat.

Illegal Immigrants Getting Bigger Tax Refunds Than YOU! ^ | April 27, 2012 |

(INDIANAPOLIS) - Millions of illegal immigrants are getting a bigger tax refund than you.

Bob Segall, of WTHI reports finding a massive tax loophole that provides billions of dollars in tax credits to undocumented workers and, in many cases, people who have never stepped foot in the United States. And you are paying for it. Inside his central Indiana office, a longtime tax consultant sits at his desk, shaking his head in disbelief.

"There is not a doubt in my mind there's huge fraud taking place here," he said, slowly flipping through the pages of a tax return.

The tax preparer does not want you to know his name for fear of reprisal, but he does want you to know about a nationwide problem with a huge price tag.

He came to 13 Investigates to blow the whistle.

"We're talking about a multi-billion dollar fraud scheme here that's taking place and no one is talking about it," he said.

The scheme involves illegal immigrants -- illegal immigrants who are filing tax returns.

How it works

The Internal Revenue Service says everyone who is employed in the United States - even those who are working here illegally - must report income and pay taxes. Of course, undocumented workers are not supposed to have a social security number. So for them to pay taxes, the IRS created what's called an ITIN, an individual taxpayer identification number. A 9-digit ITIN number issued by the IRS provides both resident and nonresident aliens with a unique identification number that allows them to file tax returns.

While that may have seemed like a good idea, it's now backfiring in a big way.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Many blacks beat white couple, media bury attack!

There’s outrage in Norfolk, Va., today after a white couple was attacked by dozens of black teenagers, and the local newspaper did not report on the incident for two weeks, despite the victims being reporters for the paper.

Even today, the Virginian-Pilot did not cover the crime as news, but rather as an opinion piece by columnist Michelle Washington.

“Wave after wave of young men surged forward to take turns punching and kicking their victim,” Washington wrote, describing the onslaught that began when Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami stopped at a traffic light while driving home from a show on a Saturday night. A crowd of at least 100 black young people was on the sidewalk at the time.
“Rostami locked her car door. Someone threw a rock at her window. Forster got out to confront the rock-thrower, and that’s when the beating began. …
“The victim’s friend, a young woman, tried to pull him back into his car. Attackers came after her, pulling her hair, punching her head and causing a bloody scratch to the surface of her eye. She called 911. A recording told her all lines were busy. She called again. Busy. On her third try, she got through and, hysterical, could scream only their location. Church and Brambleton. Church and Brambleton. Church and Brambleton. It happened four blocks from where they work, here at the Virginian-Pilot.”
Washington says neither suffered grave injuries, but both were out of work for a week. Forster’s torso ached from blows to his ribs, and he retained a thumb-sized bump on his head. Rostami reportedly fears to be alone in her home., while Forster wishes he’d stayed in the car.
The columnist admits the story has not, until today, appeared in the Virginian-Pilot.
“The responding officer coded the incident as a simple assault, despite their assertions that at least 30 people had participated in the attack,” Washington explains. “A reporter making routine checks of police reports would see ‘simple assault’ and, if the names were unfamiliar, would be unlikely to write about it. In this case, editors hesitated to assign a story about their own employees. Would it seem like the paper treated its employees differently from other crime victims?”
Washington says the day after the beatings, Forster searched Twitter for mention of the attack, and one post in particular chilled him.
“I feel for the white man who got beat up at the light,” wrote one person.
“I don’t,” wrote another, indicating laughter. “(do it for trayvon martin)”
Trayvon Martin is the unarmed black teen who died after being shot by a community-watch captain with white and Hispanic parents, George Zimmerman, in Sanford, Fla., sparking a wave of outrage long after the incident.
The newspaper is coming under heavy criticism today from residents in the greater Norfolk area, known as Hampton Roads.
“It is unbelievable that the Virginian-Pilot would BURY this story for two weeks for politically correct reasons. That is sad and disgusting,” said David Englert of Norfolk. “Someone should be fired or resign over the decision not to report this attack. It is a sad enough commentary on our society and community to read about how the responding police viewed this crime, but for our only newspaper to decide that they will hide from the truth rather than report the truth is PATHETIC! Any attack by a mob of people on any innocent victim should be put under a bright spotlight for all involved to be judged and exposed as appropriate, and to make sure that the criminal justice system does its job to protect those who obey the law.”
William Tabor of Chesapeake, Va., complained: “Surely the Pilot knew about it. A racially motivated attack is certainly news. Was it not politically correct enough to be reported? Is civilization suspended in Norfolk after dark? If we can’t rely on the police for protection, and our [news] media fails to warn us of such hazards, we can only rely on ourselves.”
Charles Chandler of Norfolk indicated: “I am not sure what I am angrier about. This story, or the crowd of black teens who needlessly and thoughtlessly beat two white victims. Or am I just angry that this still occurs in the year 2012. Nearly fifty years after the marches and the speeches and the declaration of civil liberties for all people. Clearly we are nowhere near the dream Dr. King envisioned. I am angry. I am angry at the calloused cop who stated ‘this is what they do.’ I am angry at the Pilot for hiding it under a bushel.”
And Douglas Gaynor of Virginia Beach brought up the need for self-defense, saying, “If the young lady was armed and trained, she could have whipped out P345 and taken out a few thugs.”

Is the U.S. Postal Service Worth Saving?

Town Hall Magazine ^ | April 29, 2012 | Kevin Glass

Technology’s rapid advance over the past few decades has brought an era of unprecedented communication among Americans. With video chat, people separated by thousands of miles can interact as if they’re in the same room. Small business owners can pay bills with the click of a mouse. The original online communications technology—e-mail—has become so much more. And there’s a government agency that is not happy about this.

The U.S Postal Service is in crisis. Mail volume peaked in 2006, and they have been losing business—and more importantly, money—ever since. As an arm of the federal government, taxpayers should be worried about the financial health of an agency that is supposed to be, in theory, self-financing. Several congressional Democrats and the U.S. Postal Service workers’ unions are waging a losing war against technology to try to survive in an e-economy without cutting jobs or service.
A trio of government unions have formed together to push back against the tide of technological progress. The American Postal Workers Union, National Association of Letter Carriers and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union are all involved in the fight to drain more taxpayer money from the government and funnel it toward federal workers. Unless substantial action is taken, they’re going to succeed, and the once-great post office will become nothing more than a union-supported government agency that bleeds red ink year after year.
Post office reform is possible. There are people fighting in Congress to turn the tide and streamline the delivery agency into a more efficient service for the benefit of the whole country, but it will take effort and the political will to overcome Democrats and government unions committed to bleeding taxpayers dry for the sake of federal workers.
What Went Wrong?
Conservatives often argue that an inefficient federal program isn’t a legitimate function of the government. Not so with the Postal Service. Founded in 1775 by the Continental Congress, mail delivery was written into Article I of the Constitution. Through two centuries of legislation and regulation, the Postal Service has a government-forced monopoly on many different types of mail delivery and is designed to subsidize rural and long-distance delivery—sending a first-class letter is the same price no matter if it’s going across the street or across the country.
In 1970, Congress passed a package of reforms that turned the post office from the United States Post Office Department, a cabinet-level bureaucracy, into the United States Postal Service, a government-owned corporate-like agency. Before, the Post Office Department wasn’t charged with balancing its budget and self-funding. However, with the transition into an independent agency that had a legal monopoly on mail delivery, the new Postal Service was supposed to be able to fund itself through prices charged for mail delivery.
The turn of the century is where the Postal Service’s real trouble started, as its business-like organization proved resistant to change in the face of an evolving marketplace.
As electronic communications have advanced, the post office has been challenged in different ways. Telegrams provided for near-instantaneous transmission of messages, and the telephone allowed people to actually talk to each other over great distances. However, no technology gave postal mail such an existential crisis as the Internet. For all the previous technology had done for communications, much business still needed to be conducted with paper communications—until the Internet. The online age brought the ability to transit massive amounts of data across the world and the seeds of the destruction of mail delivery.
Mail delivery peaked in 2006 after having been relatively stagnant for the previous decade. It’s now been on a downward decline, spelling massive financial loss for the Postal Service and looking unlikely to recover. The Postal Service announced losses of $8.5 billion in 2010, $5.5 billion in 2011 and $3 billion in the first quarter of 2012. What’s more, due to a 2006 law that charged the agency to be more responsible with its accounting practices, its budget is going to look worse and worse.

On The Other Hand

Posted Image

Looking Cool

Posted Image

Next Meeting

Posted Image

To Cancun

Posted Image

Secret Agent Man

Posted Image

One Good Thing

Posted Image

To Get Your Votes

Posted Image

Liberal Election Year History

Posted Image

Emergency Toilet Paper

Posted Image

Big Money

Posted Image

Hope is Dope

Posted Image

Pot vs. Kettle

Posted Image

There's Your Problem

Posted Image


Posted Image

Ten Rejected Obama Campaign Slogans

New York Magazine ^ | 4/30/12

It wasn't long after the Obama campaign revealed "Forward" as its new reelection slogan this morning that it was accused of stealing from, or perhaps synergizing with, liberal cable-news network MSNBC, whose motto has been "Lean Forward" since October 2010. However, top sources within the Obama campaign* tell Daily Intel that before settling on "Forward," they debated borrowing even more directly from other famous slogans. Among the early options the campaign considered:

You’re in good hands with Obama
Like a good neighbor, Obama is there
Got health insurance?
He's g-r-r-r-e-a-t!
It's not TV, it's BHO
You've come a long way, America
O-B-A-M-A spells relief.
Just do it
Between love and madness lies ... Obama
Only Obama can prevent forest fires
Mama mia, thatsa spicy Obama!
Admittedly, some of them didn't make a lot of sense.

*These sources were likely peyote-induced hallucinations.

"Sacaja-Whiner": Elizabeth Warren and the Oppression Olympics ^ | May 2, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Elizabeth Warren is the Harvard law professor running for Senate in Massachusetts as a Democratic populist-progressive champion. But don't call her "Elizabeth Warren." Call her "Pinocchio-hontas," "Chief Full-of-Lies," "Running Joke" or "Sacaja-whiner."

Warren has claimed questionable Native American minority status for years to reap career "diversity" benefits. Now, Cherokee leaders, campaign rival GOP Sen. Scott Brown and an army of Twitter detractors have called her out for gaming the racial-preference system. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.

The Boston Herald reported last Friday that Harvard administrators "prominently touted Warren's Native American background ... in an effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the '90s as the school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly white and male." When asked for proof of her tribal heritage, Warren's campaign first denied that she had ever bragged about it. But from 1986 to 1995, Warren listed herself as a minority professor in a professional law school directory.
While the Democrat's team scrounged for evidence over the weekend, Warren stalled for time by asserting that she didn't need to provide documentation because family "lore" backed her up. Someone told her a story, you see, and magically conferred native status upon her. Through narrative, all things are possible! (Notorious "fake Indian" Ward Churchill is wondering why he didn't think of this alibi first before the University of Colorado at Boulder fired him for academic fraud.)
On Tuesday, Warren finally discovered a great-great-great-grandmother supposedly "certified as Cherokee" and a random cousin somehow involved with a museum that preserves Native American art. There's also a great-great-grandfather somewhere in Warren's dusty genealogical records who spent time on a Cherokee reservation. Because walking a mile in someone else's moccasins is now just as good as being born in them.
Native American officials aren't buying Warren's 1/10,000th Cherokee claim. Suzan Shown Harjo, a former executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, told the Herald: "If you believe you are these things then that's fine and dandy, but that doesn't give you the right to claim yourself as Native American."
When Brown raised the issue, Warren and her progressive strategists traded in the candidate's Native American blanket for a War on Women victim's mask -- because asking a privileged Harvard prof to verify her minority claims is sexist, of course.
"If Scott Brown has questions about Elizabeth Warren's well-known qualifications," her campaign manager railed, "he ought to ask them directly instead of hiding behind the nasty insinuations of his campaign and trying to score political points. Once again, the qualifications and ability of a woman are being called into question by Scott Brown, who did the same thing with the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. It's outrageous."
Once again, the left's incurable love affair with oppression chic is on naked display. It's an Olympic competition of the haves to show their have-not cred. Just a few weeks ago, it was the White House tokenizing Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- the "wise Latina" -- as "disabled" in an official graph promoting the administration's minority hiring practices. What's her disability? She has diabetes. No, it's not debilitating, nor does it fall anywhere near the definition of disability under federal law.
But like their friend Elizabeth Warren, the Ivy League social engineers at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. just couldn't help embellishing their "diversity" record to score political correctness points. Birds of a manufactured feather flock together.

Voters Might Appreciate the Serious Romney

wall street journal ^ | 5/2/2012 | DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

From all corners of the commentariat, advisers friendly and unfriendly have declared it time for Mitt Romney to reveal himself—to let go at last and show the real Mitt he's allegedly been keeping secret. A fetching notion, but not the kind that wins elections. Forget the real Romney.

Voters looking for a victory over Barack Obama would settle for the Romney on hand—the only real one, and unlikely to get any more so—as long as he's equipped for the requirements of the battle ahead.

It would help if he showed, first of all, a capacity to run a campaign not obviously dependent on the latest polls, or the fears of consultants. He could begin by ignoring the chorus of hysterics agonizing over the gender gap, then proceed to comport himself like a presidential candidate who grasps that women see themselves as citizens like any other—not as a separate group assigned victim status, to be favored with special tenderness.

He could see to it that the women of America aren't favored by any more shout-outs from Ann Romney during his campaign appearances. The Romney campaign has had some famous streaks of tone deafness but nothing quite as strange as Mrs. Romney's congratulations to women on Super Tuesday night, with arm-waving and huzzahs, cheerleader-style. Women were concerned with things like the economy, with jobs, Mrs. Romney joyfully announced. A testimonial that suggested, unmistakably, that this interest in jobs and the state of the economy was—in the view of the Romney campaign—a new and wondrous achievement for the gender that had had, until now, hardly a thought about such matters.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...