Resica

Isn't Biden a Kick

UPDATE: From the Washington Post, May 1, 2009
Dems should be open-eyed on Specter return

By David S. Broder
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- It's been more than four decades since Arlen Specter, the senator from Pennsylvania, earned the nickname "Specter the Defector." This week, he confirmed that it is indeed an accurate description of his political character.

I was a kid reporter for The New York Times back in 1965, when Specter's flip-flopping first attracted attention, and the report I filed recounts the circumstances that led to his unflattering nickname.

Specter, then a Democrat, had been an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, and he harbored an ambition to run against his lackluster boss, a man named James Crumlish. The Democratic bosses of Philadelphia were not encouraging Specter because, as one of them told me, "We don't want another young Tom Dewey," the reform-minded New York prosecutor who launched himself into the governorship and two presidential nominations by sending a string of prominent officeholders of both parties off to jail.

So Specter, with the encouragement of such prominent Pennsylvania Republicans as Sen. Hugh Scott and Gov. William Scranton, said he would run against Crumlish on the GOP ticket. To hedge his bets, and to help himself gain Democratic votes, he waited until he won that race to change his own party registration.

Over the decades since, Specter has become one of the senior Republican senators and the best Republican vote-getter in Pennsylvania. But his frequent defections from GOP orthodoxy, not just on abortion but on labor issues, taxes and spending, have made him vulnerable to challenge in the state's Republican primary.

Former Rep. Pat Toomey, a right-wing ideologue, came close to upsetting Specter in the 2004 Senate primary, and next year, Toomey looked to be a better than even money bet to knock off the incumbent.

But much as Specter's decision reflects an increasingly serious weakness in the Republican Party, there is no escaping the fact that it is also an opportunistic move by one of the most opportunistic politicians of modern times.

The one consistency in the history of Arlen Specter has been his willingness to do whatever will best protect and advance the career of Arlen Specter.

Specter has been welcomed to the Democratic Party by President Obama and by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the most influential Democrat in Harrisburg. That makes it unlikely that Specter will face any serious challenge in next year's Senate primary. And, if his health holds up, he will be a strong favorite against Toomey in the November election.

So once again, Specter is likely to reap the political reward from his maneuvering. But the Democrats should be open-eyed about what they are gaining from his return to his original political home.


Write David Broder at Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.

Update, May 6, 2009: Poor Arlen, his old party is mad at him and now his new party makes him the most junior senator of their party. He loses all his seniority that he accumulated while in the Republican Party and worse his juicy committe positions. Either he made a lousy deal or Harry Reid and the Vice President lied to him about his future in the Democrat Party. Poor Arlen....hard to sore with the Eagles when your flying with the turkeys.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawrence Summers and I have this in common, his boss puts me to sleep. Summers dozed off during a cabinet meeting earlier this week.

How Far We Have Drifted!!


"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

--James Madison, Federalist No. 45

"Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), our third president and principal author of
the Declaration of Independence. He was a horticulturist, archaeologist,
paleontologist, author, inventor and founder of the University of
Virginia. When President John F. Kennedy welcomed forty-nine Nobel Prize
winners to the White House in 1962 he said, "I think this is the most
extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever
been gathered together at the White House with the possible exception of
when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Jefferson has been consistently ranked
by scholars as one of the greatest presidents.."



Thomas Jefferson could be called a prophet.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall
become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A
principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from
too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
>
> To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
> he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
> Thomas Jefferson
>
>
> In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what
> Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
>
> 'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
> than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to
> control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by
> deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks
> will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up
> homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
>
> **********************
>
> Don't have many minds like this anymore
>

BARAK OBAMA, who likes to compare himself to President LINCOLN, apparently cannot read.

Aint she a jewel...CNN had this video removed from Youtube.com

Video is from FoundingBloggers.Com

From the Patriot Post, the Conservative Journal of Record: April 18, 2009

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

--John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819

Canadian Free Press
By Editor Saturday, April 4, 2009

This “TAPS”, played from the horn and heart of a child, who carries a strong message that is heard around the world, could not have come at a better time”.

This beautiful rendition cries out for excellence in our lives to the glory of God.” Thanks to Rev. Lainie Dowell for sending this in.

Excerpt from Andre Rieu’s concert during the World Stadium Tour in Amsterdam Arena, the Netherlands, on 28 June 2008. Amazingly beautiful .. Melissa Venema, age 13, is the trumpet soloist.

The Original version of ‘Taps’ was called ‘Last Post’, and was written by Daniel Butterfield in 1801.

It was rather lengthy and formal, as you will hear in this clip, so in 1862 it was shortened to 24 notes and re-named ‘Taps’.

Melissa Venema is playing it on a trumpet whereby the original was played on a bugle.

Day is done, gone the sun,
From the hills, from the lake,
From the sky.
All is well, safely rest,
God is nigh.

Go to sleep, peaceful sleep,
May the soldier or sailor,
God keep.
On the land or the deep,
Safe in sleep.

Love, good night, Must thou go,
When the day, And the night
Need thee so?
All is well. Speedeth all
To their rest.

Fades the light; And afar
Goeth day, And the stars
Shineth bright,
Fare thee well; Day has gone,
Night is on.

Thanks and praise, For our days,
‘Neath the sun, Neath the stars,
‘Neath the sky,
As we go, This we know,
God is nigh.

Listen to "Taps" in its entirety.

Change of Pace

Video: www.TheInterviewWithGod.com

Hope You Enjoy

Wall Street Journal-Online Opinion Journal
APRIL 4, 2009
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
· By STUART VARNEY
I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?
My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.
Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.
After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.
Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Channel.

The question that flummoxed the great orator

·
John Crace
The Guardian, Friday 3 April 2009

Barack Obama, the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ...
Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?" Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking [THANKS FOR NOTHING, GORDY BABY. REMIND ME TO HANG YOU OUT TO DRY ONE DAY.] Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] ... if you look at ... pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] ... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] ... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that ... pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] ... here in Great Britain ... pause [SHIT, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] ... here in continental Europe ... pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] ... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] ... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in ... pause [YOU] ... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] ... drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... pause [FANTASTIC. I'VE LOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF] ... there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... pause [I'M OUTTA HERE. TIME FOR THE USUAL CLOSING BOLLOCKS] ... I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.

One of the defining features of the Obama administration so far is its almost pathological inability to make hard choices--or even to acknowledge that hard choices need to be made. A prime example is the administration's insistence that making energy more expensive will somehow benefit our economy. This proposition is so foolish as to be almost self-refuting: in my view, anyone who doesn't understand that you can't create wealth by subsidizing the inefficient production of energy shouldn't be voting.
In particular, Barack Obama has trumpeted the creation of "green jobs" as somehow offsetting the obvious damage that will be done by his cap-and-trade system and other measures that will make conventional energy sources more expensive. He has pointed specifically to Spain as a country whose experience with "green jobs" we should emulate. So an empirical study of Spain's experience is timely. And, as it happens, one has just been done by Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Juan Carlos University in Madrid.
It is reported on here by the Institute for Energy Research. Some highlights:
* The U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government.
* Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent.
* Since 2000, Spain has spent €571,138 ($753,778) to create each "green job," including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1,319,783) per wind industry job.Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
* Each "green" megawatt installed destroyed 5.39 jobs in non-energy sectors of the Spanish economy.
* The total over-cost--the amount paid over the cost that would result from buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at market prices--between 2000 and 2008 amounts to 7,918.54 million Euros ($10 billion).
* The total subsidy spent and committed to these three renewable sources amounts to €28,671 million ($36 billion).
* Consumer energy costs in Spain would have to be increased 31 percent to repay the debt generated by the green jobs subsidies.
The general rule is, whenever anyone says the word "green," grab your wallet and run for the hills.
So, what's going on here? Is the Obama administration really too dumb to figure out that subsidizing "green jobs" is a losing proposition? I don't think so. I think this is just one more aspect of the massive power grab that is coming out of Obama's Washington. I think the Democrats want to assert their control over all sectors of the economy: they want to decide what companies will succeed and what companies will fail; how much employees of publicly traded companies will be paid; what jobs will exist and what jobs will become obsolete.
When we are all dependent on the federal government, the only way anyone can count on staying in business or having his job preserved will be by donating money to the Democratic Party--the ultimate protection racket, one of which the Mafia can only dream, and one which is already well underway. When it is complete, the Democrats' majority status will be assured for the indefinite future. That is, I think, what the Dems have in mind, and it explains a great deal about Obamanomics.
Post Today 4/1/09 on Power Line, The Daily Digest Blog