Daily Dose – September 7, 2010

gorightgirl — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:32:19 +0000

When Do You 'Fight For Right' If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) Obama's Epic Failures Barack Obama returns from his August vacation with a growing pile of problems facing him on just about every front. The economy is in a nosedive, his party is on the brink of losing its majority and the country is losing faith in his ability to lead. To a large extent, it could be said that it wasn't just Obama who was on vacation, it was his presidency... The White House doesn't seem to have a clue about what to do about an economy that is veering into another dangerous downturn. Obama clings stubbornly to his failed $800 billion spending stimulus and plans to inflict the largest tax increase in American history on a struggling economy, despite pleas from government analysts that this is only going to inflict more harm on the private business sector. "Under current law, both the waning of (Obama's) fiscal stimulus and the scheduled increases in taxes will temporarily subtract from (economic) growth, especially in 2011," CBO warned Congress and the White House. What we have here, of course, is a failure of leadership that is the result of breathtaking inexperience and an ideology that believes in enlarging the federal government at the expense of the business community, job-creating investment by the private sector, and the economy. He has no one with any business experience in his team of top White House advisers. He returns to Washington at a time when Americans are deeply pessimistic about the country's future -- with his job approval polls at a low 43 percent (50 percent disapprove) -- and without any clear sign that he knows how to deal with the issues that he was elected to fix. Donald Lambro, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 27, 2010 Obama Has Presidential Approval Index Of Negative 23 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-seven percent (47%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -23. That’s the highest level of Strong Disapproval and the lowest Approval Index daily rating yet recorded for this president... Rasmussen Reports September 5, 2010 Anatomy Of A Battleground District In a campaign office on the first floor of a Sons of Italy lodge, Republican Mike Kelly spoke confidently to a crowd of locals about his race for the U.S. Congress... If you want a perfect picture of a potential wave election, Main Street here paints it for you... U.S. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, a freshman Democrat, beat seven-term Republican Phil English in 2008 – but her win was not pretty. Thanks to a herculean effort by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and English’s lack of political instinct, she squeaked by in a region that went for Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama. This district hugs the left corner of Northwestern Pennsylvania and the Rust Belt. It is equally rural and industrial, making it a classic battleground but not necessarily a bellwether of what is to come in the fall midterms. Dahlkemper has cash and voter-registration advantages. Yet Kelly is a larger-than-life car-dealership owner and former Notre Dame offensive tackle who can easily self-fund his campaign. That matters in a district which is a cheap-date for political campaigners: There’s no expensive media market to drive up costs. Kelly, 62, says he never considered running for office until last year, when he learned he might lose his Cadillac franchise in the government’s takeover of General Motors. “I had over 100 people whose livelihoods depended on me,” he said. “That one phone call hit a nerve … my family has had our business since the 1950s, and we had always made and exceeded our numbers, so I started thinking out loud about what I could do.” He kept his Cadillac franchise – and the fire in his belly to run... Patty House is the coffee barista with the warm smile behind an old-fashioned soda fountain in Cummings Candy & Coffee. She likes Kelly’s family and community values: “He and his family have run a successful business for over 50 years. I think Washington needs more people representing us who know how to run things.” House, 41, a Democrat, has never supported a Republican but is tired of Washington’s deafness to people in the country’s “flyover” regions. Camden Wood stands on Cummings’ century-old checkerboard floor, contemplating whether to order a decaf and catch some sleep after an all-night shift or just “espresso it up” and enjoy the sunny summer day... Wood, 37, stands out with his tattoos, pierced ears and faux-hawk locks. He’s a Democrat who’s always worked in union jobs. “I have to admit part of why I like Kelly is that he is not ‘that guy’ out of Washington,” he says. “I bebop down his street on my bike, all inked up, and … he is always the first to smile, wave and have something interesting to say, long before he was running for Congress.” In a wave election year, a race may pivot on something as simple yet meaningful to voters as that. “In a sense you could say that the fate of Kathy Dahlkemper can serve as a kind of bellwether,” says Jay Cost, a political scientist who specializes in analyzing House races. “All those House Dems who won election in 2008 because of crossover voting, who then turned around and supported Obama’s policies, are going to be in trouble, much the same way she is.” In the Democrats’ 2006 midterm sweep, Pennsylvania flipped four House seats held by Republicans. This year, the Democrats at risk are Reps. Dahlkemper, Patrick Murphy, Mark Critz and Paul Kanjorski, as well as the seat left open by Joe Sestak’s U.S. Senate run. The reasons why can be found on any Main Street in their districts – not among Republicans, but among independents and Democrats who supported them the last time. Salena Zito, TownHall September 5, 2010 It's A Fact: Republicans Are Right And Democrats Are Wrong --97 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats say Democrats "will raise my taxes". --94 percent of Republicans and 18 percent of Democrats say Democrats want to "bring the U.S. closer to socialism." --88 percent of Republicans and 14 percent of Democrats say Democrats will make the nation less safe from terrorism. --88 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans say Republicans want to "take us back to failed Bush policies." --86 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans say Republicans are too much under the influence of "extreme conservatives like the tea party." Source: A Zogby Interactive Poll of 1,980 likely voters conducted Aug. 24 to 26. Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway September 2, 2010 Nightmarish Administration ...(T)he Obama government is one that is upholding the needs and interests of illegal aliens over and above those of citizens, and the needs and interests of animals over and above those of human beings. This ideologically driven Administration may seem to be a dream come true for some liberals, but a majority of Americans are seeing it as more of a nightmare. Nightmarish Presidents are destined to become “Mr. Unpopular.” But it requires some moral reasoning capabilities to understand how horrifying our nightmarish President has become. Don’t expect Washington – or the liberal media – to understand. Austin HIll, TownHall September 5, 2010 The Audacity Of Failure In April, while campaigning in Pennsylvania, Vice President Joe Biden promised the American people: “I’m here to tell you, some time in the next couple of months, we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month. … We caught a lot of bad breaks on the way down. We’re going to catch a few good breaks because of good planning on the way up.” And for a while it looked like Biden was a genius. In May, the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000 the previous month and in June they reported that the U.S. economy added another 431,000 jobs. President Barack Obama’s “good planning” was working! But then the next report showed the U.S. economy lost 125,000 jobs in June and then the August report found another 131,000 jobs were lost in July. Today the Labor Department released the September jobs report, showing nonfarm payrolls decreased again by 54,000 and that the nation’s unemployment rate rose to 9.6%. By every objective measure, President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package has been a complete failure. When President Obama was selling his stimulus plan to the American people, he promised it would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. At the time, employment stood at about 134.3 million, according to the Labor Department’s most commonly used measure. That established an Obama jobs target for December 2010 at 137.8 million. According to the latest jobs report, total U.S. employment stood at 130.3 million in August, which means the cumulative Obama jobs deficit stands at 7.5 million. Continue reading... Conn Carroll, The Heritage Foundation September 3, 2010 The Looming Obama Depression The longer President Obama refuses to acknowledge the direction of our nation's economy the greater the impact will be when the looming depression that awaits is named in his honor. For a leader who has had the advantages of an Ivy League education, he seems to be an excessively poor student of history. But in 120 days no one will be able to dispute that the economic mess the United States finds herself in belongs to anyone except President Barack Hussein Obama. The basis of this reality is rooted in two truths that became quite pronounced this week. The first is that President Obama is ignoring the very real direction the nation is headed. The second is that he is purposefully ignoring the impact his looming historic tax increases will have. Both are contributing to the pessimism that overarches the morale and tone of the entrepreneurial framework of the future... The president's team pretends that these realities do not exist. The president himself is willing to perpetuate the false notion that the stimulus package set up a "recovery summer" that in truth ended up in greater pain than it began with... In 1929 Irving Fisher observed that a number of trends led to the worst depression of our nation's history. How many of these fit in today's scenario: --Debt liquidation and distress selling --Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off --A fall in the level of asset prices --A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies --A fall in profits --A reduction in output, in trade and in employment. --Pessimism and loss of confidence --Hoarding of money --A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates. President Obama is ignoring and misrepresenting the rate of growth (or lack thereof) in the job numbers, and his economic team has laid the groundwork for the harshest attack on small businesses and every family in America that pays taxes effective January 1, 2011. By every indicator this pundit can see, we are poised for tragedy... and I didn't get an Ivy League education! Kevin McCullough, TownHall September 5, 2010 The Obama Budget: Expanding Welfare, Undermining Marriage How can the government grow the nation’s welfare roles and undermine efforts to support marriage, in a single effort? It must simply follow the plan outlined in President Obama’s budget: pay states to grow their welfare roles and eliminate programs that encourage healthy marriage in low-income communities. Despite the fact that low work hours and single motherhood are two of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United States, the newly released budget undoes welfare provisions that encourage work and discourage out-of-wedlock childbearing. Prior to the reforms of 1996, the federal government’s welfare policy was to dish out more money to states as the states increased their welfare roles. Not surprisingly, this provided no incentive to transition welfare recipients into the workforce. Welfare reform did away with this negative incentive and created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, leading to dramatic caseload declines and a decrease in the child poverty rate. Continue reading... Rachel Sheffield, The Heritage Foundation September 3, 2010 'Big Oil' In The United States - Deep Fried It is hard to think of anything more reviled than the oil industry. While the President, his staff, and Congressional majority leaders are inadvertently giving Big Oil a run for its money, they won't have enough time to do enough damage to catch up. (It took the oil industry decades of attacks against its integrity to achieve it's despised state.) Why haven't Americans seen through this political ploy yet? This ruse is no more logical than is the Democrats' long standing sway over Jewish, African American, and Hispanic voters. It is important to note that oil and gas produced in the United States is not controlled by the monoliths associated with Big Oil. ( I don't know about you, but whenever I hear "Big Oil", I involuntarily picture five guys in suits with their hands up taking the oath before Congress.) In fact, more than two thirds of our daily oil and gas production comes from independent oil and gas companies. These companies are run by entrepreneurs; the kind of people who make this country what it is. We Americans consume one out of every four barrels of oil produced on the planet. Even with our economy in the doldrums, we have a voracious appetite for all things made or fueled by hydrocarbons. None of us are against renewable sources of energy. The problem is that most self proclaimed progressives refuse to acknowledge that we are decades away from developing economically viable ways and means of generating material amounts of those carbon friendly alternatives. We are already billions of dollars into the renewable game, and yet less than one per cent of our daily energy demand powered by them. The simple fact of the matter is that we need oil and gas. And we will continue to need oil and gas for decades. The Gulf of Mexico blowout in April was a tragedy. Eleven lives were lost and the region took an environmental and economic hit. That much you have heard countless times. But what you haven't heard is that the fishermen are out again, and life in that wonderfully unique ecosystem is rapidly returning to normal. Man, oil, and nature have lived together for decades on the Gulf Coast. Regardless of how the Democrat leadership is trying to upset that carefully woven tapestry, the Gulf Coast will once again find a way to restore the delicate balance. The oil plume (if it ever existed) can no longer be found. The vast majority of the oil (which is, incidentally, of, by, and arguably for the earth) is gone. The Gulf of Mexico has moved on. The real tragedy is that Capitol Hill has not followed suit. To the extent there is still an economic hangover, those in the know will argue that the administration's ongoing moratorium on drilling is the main culprit. Tens of thousands of hard working oil field hands are presently out of work. The administration's response is to delay and prevaricate. Congress just cannot let a tragedy go by without making sure they make it worse! On July 30, the House passed HB 3534; the so called "CLEAR" bill that is as much a knee jerk reaction to the blowout in the Gulf as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was to the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska. The Senate has yet to pass a bill (thankfully) and with mid-term elections looming, we can put our hands together and pray Harry Reid will focus on other matters. The fear is that Democrat leadership thinks punishing the oil industry is a winner for the midterm elections. And that gets me back to my question; how on earth did we get to this strange place? The oil business is about risk taking. The CEO of a large independent oil and gas company recently said "Every time we punch a hole in the ground, we are putting the entire company on the line. That's what we do; day in, and day out." What other businesses walk such an operational high wire? The deep water drilling and production in the Gulf of Mexico is the stuff of pioneers. Companies spend up to $200,000,000 to drill a dry hole. That's real money. And yet the American people never hear about the risk. All they hear about the oil business is greed. This past week there was a fire on board a production platform in the Gulf. There was no explosion. There were no injuries. There was no pollution. In fact, the source of the fire may have been the deep fryer in the galley. Yet CNN and other networks dedicated hours to a "breaking news" moment. "Explosion in the Gulf!" consumed the airwaves. It was reported that Congressman Waxman indicated that he wanted to launch an investigation into the cause of the reported explosion. As my kids would say "OMG"! There are many voices speaking in Washington; the draconian economic consequences of the forthcoming legislative process may well force companies to reconsider whether they can afford to continue drilling and producing in the Gulf of Mexico. The last thing the United States needs is less oil and gas production. The environmentalists and most of those on the left are working hard to cripple our existing industry and ensure that no new areas are ever opened to new exploration. These people are wrong. Their actions will damage our economy and threaten our national security by making us even more dependent on oil emanating from unstable sources. The oil business in the United States is in the deep fryer. We need to remove it from that grease, and give it a breath of fresh air. Perhaps after the November election we can put some of the newly jobless in the vacated fryer. Now that would be poetic justice. Jim Pierce, American Thinker September 5, 2010 Deja Vu All Over Again It's deja vu all over again in Washington as the midterm elections rapidly approach and all signs point to an electoral route of the party in power. Four years ago, the Beltway was abuzz with news of a GOP bloodletting – the result of an increasingly unpopular President, an unpopular war, a spate of corruption scandals, and the general feeling that it was time for a change in Washington. The same pundits who correctly forecast defeat in 2006 see the same weather on the horizon in 2010, only this time it's the Democrats who find themselves in the path of the storm, beset by an unpopular president, a dismal economic picture, a host of domestic and foreign policy landmines, and a growing Tea Party movement. Not surprisingly, this current state of affairs has Republicans feeling pretty optimistic about the future. Newt Gingrich has even suggested that the nation could witness a repeat of the Republican Revolution of 1994. And he just might be right... Ken Connor, TownHall September 5, 2010 Charity Begins At Home Hot on the heels of both Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters being charged with ethics violations by the House Ethics Committee, the Dallas Morning News reports that Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) has been routinely handing out scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to friends and family members: "Johnson awarded nine to eleven scholarships a year from 2005 to 2008, the most recent years for which information was available. Each of those years, three or four winners were related to her or her district director, Rod Givens..... Scholarships have gone to two of the Congresswoman's grandsons, Kirk and David Johnson; to two of her great-nephews, Gregory and Preston Moore: and to Givens' son and daughter. Givens did not respond to requests for comment, and none of the scholarship recipients could be reached....Of 43 scholarships awarded between 2005 and 2008, 15 went to relatives of Johnson or Givens..." To compound matters, the recipients of Johnson's nepotism weren't eligible for the funds, as they were not even living in her district. Updated information provided for the year 2009 indicates that 8 more scholarships were awarded to the family members of Representative Johnson and her aides, bringing the total to 23. The availability of the scholarships, which are funded by charitable donations to the CBC, are supposed to be advertised to promote their dissemination to the most needy and deserving students, but: "Johnson's website makes no mention of the scholarships." It appears that Johnson and Givens instead considered this money a slush fund available for their personal use. She seems rather nonplussed by the discovery of her apparent malfeasance, as though she feels she might be immune from scrutiny. When asked about the apparent nepotism, Johnson responded: "I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one. Had there been more worthy applicants in my district... then I probably wouldn't have given it (to the relatives.)" Charity and ethics experts consulted by the Dallas Morning News suggest that the apparent nepotism involved exposes the CBC Foundation, Representative Johnson and the scholarship recipients to a raftag of possible tax and fraud charges. In light of the reports exposing her apparent malfeasance, Johnson now reports that she will reimburse the foundation for the scholarships by week's end. Ralph Alter, American Thinker August 31, 2010 Obama, Immigration & Mosques: Rivers Of Blood? “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils” —Enoch Powell A chilling, recently released undercover video shows a scene that ought put fear of potential cataclysmic revolution upon all Westerners. Pictured was a typical street in Paris, France. Both ends of the avenue were blocked by private security. Meanwhile, what appeared literally thousands of Muslims knelt in the prayer position as theadhan call to prayer rang out. No residents of the street could enter or leave their abodes as all perambulations on the street ceased. The voice-over explained while the act was illegal, authorities decided not to intervene. This scene calls to mind one of the most noted political speeches of the 20th century, Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood.” The speech was delivered in Birmingham, England on April 20, 1968. The subject was England’s immigration policy and dire predicted results. Powell was both scorned for divisive comments and labeled a political prophet for his visionary predictions. But none need biblical mandate to understand what happens if non-integrating aliens continue to infiltrate Western democracies and assert their will against law, culture, and freedom, as observed in France today. Further, Obama has openly supported the Ground Zero mosque and nominates those who demand Shari’ah Muslim law in the US... The stakes could not be greater. The question is: What can be done about Islam in America to protect all citizens from the excesses of religious fanaticism? The answer must fit into our traditional respect for religion, and respect for civil rights. But if our city centers are slowly taken over by mosques and our streets blocked by devotees praying in broad daylight, as occurs in Paris today—won’t it already be too late to even act? And, because of our failure to defend ourselves due to Political Correctness, could an American jihad still cause rivers of blood to flow in our streets, decades after the Sept 11th holocaust?

Kelly O'Connell, Canada Free Press September 5, 2010 To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – September 6, 2010

gorightgirl — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:46:54 +0000

Do We Have Courage? Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality that guarantees all the others. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) Tax Hikes Present Dilemma For Dems After a slew of economic stimulus packages, bailouts and government takeovers, congressional Democrats should be ready to hang a "mission accomplished" banner regarding the economy. It is a wonder, then, why they appear willing to burden taxpayers with up to $3.1 trillion in additional tax increases. Barring congressional action by Jan. 1, temporary tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 will expire, raising taxes dramatically. Are Democrats really willing to roll the dice with the jobs they claim to have saved or created and the economic recovery they claim to have stimulated? That's what they'd be doing by allowing the biggest tax increase in American history to take effect. 'No' To Expiration...in poll after poll the electorate has steadfastly opposed letting these tax cuts expire. Few endangered Democrats will want to be seen as tax-hikers in a down economy, so it appears likely the income tax rate cuts for lower- and middle-income taxpayers will be extended, along with the child tax credit. A return of the death tax and high tax rates on higher income levels, dividends and capital gains are likely, however. These would further imperil the recovery of an already-frail U.S. economy by reducing the amount of money people have for investment and cutting the after-tax returns on those investments. Some Democrats — now posturing as brave deficit hawks — say hiking these taxes will lower the $1.34 trillion federal budget deficit and reduce the $13 trillion national debt. That is a rather astonishing argument from a Congress that has hiked spending by $3 trillion for a string of failed stimulus initiatives and government bailouts over the past couple of years... Without serious spending and entitlement reforms, the nation's long-term deficit will remain incurable regardless of how many taxes are raised or by how much. Raising taxes and stifling economic recovery will only exacerbate these problems. Reining in the federal deficit requires Congress to control spending and create a fiscal and regulatory environment that fosters economic growth. That's the only way to generate more revenue over the long term. Even with that, spending will have to be cut significantly. Extending the Bush-era tax cuts only for lower- and middle-income taxpayers might appear to offer Democrats some political cover to help them through the November elections, but ultimately the decision will come back to bite them. The upcoming tax hikes would do little to solve our debt problems and would put our economy in an even more precarious position. The claims of Obama and his fellow Democrats to have saved the economy ring hollow as unemployment remains high, GDP growth is stagnating and the economy is very possibly heading toward a double-dip recession. Leading the nation into another economic disaster by allowing this massive tax hike to take effect would ensure that no claims of jobs saved or created will be enough to cloak their blunder. John Nothdurft, Investor's Business Daily September 2, 2010 Obama's Immigration Get Out Of Court Free Card There is an important column on immigration today in The Washington Times Commentary section by Mark Metcalf, a former Justice Department colleague and good friend of mine. I previously reported for The Foundry on his testimony in June about our broken immigration court system before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. Metcalf is a former immigration judge who writes about the disdain the Obama administration has shown toward the rule of law with its wholesale dismissal of thousands of cases against illegal aliens. It is also ignoring the more than 600,000 outstanding deportation orders already issued by immigration courts (unless a particular alien has a criminal record). This will, Metcalf points out, “assure that more illegal immigration will follow — with illegal [alien]s confident that the administration, which refused to secure this nation’s borders, will not remove those who enter and remain illegally.” Continue reading... Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation September 3, 2010 Americans Most Likely To Favor GOP Newcomers For Congress It appears that the best type of candidate to be this fall is a Republican challenger. Given a choice of four hypothetical candidates of differing party affiliations and experience, Americans are most likely to prefer "a Republican who has not served in Congress." Those who would prefer a Democratic candidate opt for an incumbent over a newcomer. Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup September 3, 2010 Real Joblessness At 16.7% The Wall Street Journal offers a good explanation for the difference between the official unemployment rate and the true state of the joblessness problem: The U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.6% in August, but the government's broader measure of unemployment rose even more to 16.7%, the highest rate since April... Both rates increased despite a rise of 290,000 in the number of people who are employed. The number of unemployed people in the U.S. also rose, but by a smaller amount - 261,000. The unemployment rates moved up as more unemployed people moved back into the labor force to look for jobs. More than half a million people re-entered the job market last month, as the overall labor force rose 550,000... The 9.6% unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The "actively looking for work" definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. The rate is calculated by dividing that number by the total number of people in the labor force. The U-6 figure includes everyone in the official rate plus "marginally attached workers" - those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that's all they could find. In some areas of the Midwest, that U-6 figure easily tops 25%. When you walk into a McDonalds and see 40-something employees manning the counter, you know that jobs are tough to come by. Even part time work is being taken by adults who can't find a job, leaving kids out in the cold this past summer. There is little prospect that things will improve soon, no matter who is in power in Washington. Rick Moran, American Thinker September 4, 2010 After November, What? It seems that a Republican takeover of the House is already seen as a fait accompli with a similar result in the Senate a remote possibility. Most polls accept that given public anger over the nation’s struggling economy and President Obama’s manifest inability to do his job capably, the proposition is that the GOP will most probably take the House with a comfortable margin while a similar result in the Senate remains possible but probably unlikely. With the House firmly under their control for at least the next two years after January, Republicans will find themselves part of a divided federal government, with the legislative power – the ability to make laws and control the nation’s purse strings - largely in their hands even if they lack full control in the Senate. Given that probability it is essential the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill begin now to plan for a two year struggle with an executive branch they must understand remains in enemy hands and must be dealt with in those terms and those terms only... Immediately following the November elections House and Senate Republicans should meet and hammer out their legislative goals for the new Congress. They should be prepared for a running start when the new Congress convenes. If they are in tandem with the majority of the America people, job one will be the immediate repeal of Obama’s ill-conceived health care reform laws before they can devastate the nation’s free-enterprise medical system. And they must understand that they are at war with a determined enemy and that their policy vis-à-vis the opposition should be based on Douglas MacArthur’s dictum – that in war there is no substitute for victory. Philip V. Brennan, Canada Free Press September 3, 2010 New Study Says Cash For Clunkers Was ... A Clunker The White House hailed last year’s “cash for clunkers” program as a successful government initiative that stimulated the economy, particularly the ailing auto industry. It provided $3,500–$4,500 rebates to consumers who purchase more fuel efficient cars and trade in their old vehicles, which dealerships then destroyed. President Obama’s economic team said cash for clunkers lured consumers who would have bought a new car two to three years in the future into the immediate market. However, a new study from economists Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago and Atif Mian of University of California-Berkeley suggests otherwise. According to NPR: Continue reading... Nicolas Loris, The Heritage Foundation September 3, 2010 Less Taxes, More Revenue In recent American history three presidents, Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush—and Democrat icon John Fitzgerald Kennedy—all lowered taxes in response to economic recessions. In all three cases, more money flowed into federal coffers than expected, and all three recessions ended. In 2003, President Bush lowered income, capital gains and dividend tax rates. As a result of the Bush tax cuts, the amount of revenue flowing into the federal Treasury over the next four years surged by over 40%, or $743 billion. To illustrate how the tax cuts boosted the economy, Gross Domestic Product grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was a robust 4.1%. While some of that growth was naturally occurring, the sudden and dramatic turnaround in the economy began at the exact moment those pro-growth policies were enacted. Yet, despite compelling evidence, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats intend to raise taxes beginning in 2011 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The top marginal tax rate will increase from 35% to 39.6%, capital gains rates will increase from 15% to 20%, and dividend rates will increase from 15% to as high as 39.6%. As a result, money previously invested in the private sector will be confiscated by the government... Bottom line: taxation is an extension of ideology. Unlike JFK, today’s “progressive” Democrats favor higher rates of taxation because they believe government is the best entity for allocating resources. Underlying this assertion is the Democrats’ assumption that most Americans are incapable of running their own lives and should defer to the “superior” wisdom of the political ruling class. Republicans favor lower tax rates because they believe individual Americans have a far better idea of what to do with their hard-earned money than the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. They believe Americans with additional amounts of disposable income will spend and invest it, which grows the economy. Taxation is also an extension of power. Democrats want more of it centralized in Washington, D.C. Republicans want it spread among individuals across the country. Democrats want to be the nation’s arbiters of “fairness” and “social justice.” Republicans believe fairness and social justice can be distorted beyond all recognition by elitist political ideology, so it is far better if such concepts are determined by millions of Americans free to act in their own self-interest. Democrats want higher taxes to pursue their goals. Republicans want lower taxes so Americans can pursue their own goals. The contrast between the parties couldn’t be sharper—which is something freedom-loving Americans should remember when they head to the polls in 2010. Richard Bernstein, TownHall September 3, 2010 American Exceptionalism--And An 'Exceptional' President Obama may be the first U.S. president to lack faith in our special history, our special spirit and our special mission in the world. For nearly four centuries, we as a people have believed that America has a special and unique role to play in the world. Here is a land of new beginnings and new promise, not merely one nation among others. But we have to ask: Do our leaders still believe this? Americans have believed in American exceptionalism since John Winthrop wrote 380 years ago that America would be a "city on a hill," shining for all the world to see. When de Tocqueville visited the young United States in the 1830s, he concluded that we were a "unique" nation. He pointed to the truly democratic nature of our government and society and the opportunities America provided to its immigrants at that time... This idea of American exceptionalism is so fundamental to our identity as a nation that even President Obama had to address it. At the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, France, in 2009 President Obama said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." But despite his stated belief in our uniqueness, his implication here is that our national self-confidence will not protect us from decline--just as similar beliefs in national destiny did not protect Britain and Greece. Why didn't the president use China or India as a more positive example? And let's look at the president's deeds, not just his words. President Obama favors global summits in which we participate humbly among large groups of the world's nations... Is global regulation or even global taxation as some Europeans have proposed, on the president's agenda?... I still believe in American exceptionalism. But I am concerned that if we are not lead by leaders who believe in our unique American spirit and mission, then we will not be able to remain an exceptional nation for long. And we will not be able to retain what President George H.W. Bush described as our "special role in the world." And in this new era, does the idea of American exceptionalism need to be reinterpreted in order for the United States to remain a truly unique nation? We are now lead by an administration that has consistently denied our special gifts and our special responsibilities. And afterward we will need a leader who--like President Ronald Reagan--can help understand ourselves, our strengths, and our example for the world again and in a new light. Mallory Factor, Forbes August 31, 2010 The Placebo President Practices Placebo Economics House Republican Leader John Boehner's call this week for the resignation of Treasury Secretary Geithner and senior White House economics advisor Lawrence Summers was more than a brilliant stroke of political gamesmanship, though of course it did underscore the vast disaster that is Obamanomics just as the fall campaigning season gets underway. It was also the very first recognition that even as the election of 2006 forced the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, the looming electoral rebuke to the Democrats should result in the rapid exit of both Geithner and Summers. You cannot fire the president, but a clean break with failed policies can only be signaled by the dispatch of the senior-most officials responsible for a failure or in this case, a fiasco... Obamanomics are genuinely "placebo economics," never intended to actually cause a cure for the country's economic ills so much as to perhaps trick Americans into feeling like the country was past the fallout of the housing bubble and the panic, and thus to resume the pattern of investment, risk and return that fuels democratic capitalism. The equivalent of a "sugar high" fueled by $850 billion in "stimulus" as well as the massive hikes in baseline spending from 2007 forward was supposed to trigger real economic growth. So what if census jobs and spikes in federal and state employment aren't the sort of jobs that raise real national GDP and thus real growth --placebo economics was supposed to induce recovery through a sort of mass psychological pump-up. It didn't work. It couldn't work. Because capital isn't sentimental. And it isn't anchored to America. It can flee to China or India or anywhere where real economic growth is encouraged... We will get a dozen more speeches from now until November 2 on how the stalling economy is all Bush's fault, even after the president got everything he wanted. But voters already know the only way to change the outcome is to change the team. And the only way to do that is to send an unmistakable message, just as voters did about the war in 2006. A lot of Republicans defeated in the wave of 2006 were angry with President Bush for not replacing Secretary Rumsfeld before the vote. They can commiserate with unemployed Democratic members of Congress in 2011 if President Obama does dump the architects of placebo economics after the fall elections in favor of anyone who knows how real jobs are created and real economic growth sustained. But if those changes do occur and the massive tax hikes scheduled for January are repealed and the work of repealing and replacing Obamacare begun, the country will be cheering the wonderful message-delivery system of off-year elections. Hugh Hewitt, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 27, 2010 Carlyfornia, Here We Come California's Senate debate was between someone who knows how to pull a wagon and someone who wants everyone to ride. The choice is creating wealth and jobs or redistributing wealth while destroying jobs. California hasn't elected a Republican senator since Pete Wilson in 1988, but if Wednesday's debate and recent polls are any indication, the political sea change of 2010 may be about to wash up on Golden State beaches. The debate wasn't so much conservative vs. liberal as between freedom and dependency, with incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer attacking former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as serving the interests of "billionaires, millionaires and companies that outsource jobs," as if California's 12.3% unemployment rate is the fault of someone who created jobs in the private sector. Fiorina responded to Boxer, who at last report had not taken a vow of poverty, by noting that with 28 years in the Senate, she's part of the problem, not the solution: "If you look at Sen. Boxer's long track record of 28 years in Washington, D.C., you will see this: She is for more taxes, she is for more spending, she is for more regulation and she is also for big government and elite, extreme environmental groups." Boxer is the quintessential liberal Democrat who paints everything with a class-warfare brush. She fails to realize that no one has ever gotten a job from a poor person and that wealth can be created, not merely taken from those who work very hard and given to those who work not at all. If jobs have fled overseas, as they've fled California, it's because of Boxer-supported, oppressive government taxation that has given American business one of the highest tax burdens in the world. Boxer wants to add to that burden by letting the Bush tax cuts expire — in effect, a $3.8 trillion tax increase. Boxer supports cap-and-trade legislation that will further cripple business and the American economy with onerous regulations that will drive up the cost of everything we make and consume. She opposes domestic energy development, whether off the California coast, in ANWR or in the Gulf of Mexico. There were many contrasts, many choices and few echoes. Fiorina supports Arizona's immigration law, SB1070, and backs expanded offshore drilling for an energy-starved economy. She'd like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned as badly decided law. Boxer supports comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty... The way this election cycle is going, long-term incumbents like Boxer involved in a tossup are getting tossed out. Barbara Boxer is the status quo. Carly Fiorina represents hope and change. How ironic is that? Editorial, Investor's Business Daily September 2, 2010 Smartest President In History Botches Oval Office Rug Quote Woven into the new presidential seal rug adorning the Oval Office is a misattributed quotation, offering us a perfect metaphor for the Obama presidency. Jamie Stiehm reports in the Washington Post: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." According to media reports, this quote keeping Obama company on his wheat-colored carpet is from King. "Except it's not a King quote. The words belong to a long-gone Bostonian champion of social progress. His roots in the republic ran so deep that his grandfather commanded the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington. "For the record, Theodore Parker is your man, President Obama. Unless you're fascinated by antebellum American reformers, you may not know of the lyrically gifted Parker, an abolitionist, Unitarian minister and Transcendentalist thinker who foresaw the end of slavery, though he did not live to see emancipation. He died at age 49 in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War. "A century later, during the civil rights movement, King, an admirer of Parker, quoted the Bostonian's lofty prophecy during marches and speeches"... If the president keeps it, it instantly becomes the most interesting facet of that hallowed space, the first thing any visitor will want to (discreetly, with a quick downward glance) check out and silently chuckle about. Can you imagine the mirth that a visiting head of state would experience? But if the president decides to excise the embarrassing carpet, what does he do with it? If he burns it, then the flames become a symbol of his failed presidency. If he auctions it off, as he should, it would fetch an enormous price -- enough to help reduce the deficit, or pay for some more fancy clothes and shoes for Michelle -- but then become an everlasting symbol of his ignorance. As in so many other aspects of his presidency, Barack Obama has put himself into a no-win situation. Fortunately, the victims this time do not include the entire American people, but only Obama's image and the private donors who putatively paid for the rug.

Thomas Lifson, American Thinker September 4, 2010 To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – September 5, 2010

gorightgirl — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:24:17 +0000

What Good Tax? There is no such thing as a good tax. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) Tea Party Turning Into A Tidal Wave The defeat of Alaska's Lisa Murkowski by a little-known conservative lawyer is the latest evidence of a tidal wave building that may sweep aside an out-of-touch establishment. "We the people" won't be ignored. Shays' Rebellion, an uprising of 1,200 farmers led by one Daniel Shays, angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786, prompted Thomas Jefferson to write to James Madison that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. A more peaceful rebellion is now occurring across the country, and we believe it's a good thing for America. Considering the excesses of this administration and Congress and their abuse of power to the point of ignoring the Constitution itself, it's also a very necessary thing, an idea whose time has come. With her concession, Sen. Murkowski became the third incumbent to bite the political dust this season... The old argument about seniority and influence no longer flies among voters who increasingly believe, as Jefferson did, that government is best which governs least. Joe Miller, a 43-year-old Yale-educated lawyer, West Point graduate and Gulf War veteran, was a little-known Fairbanks attorney before he was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express. The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, who knows a little about shaking up the establishment, has become a political power, riding and leading a wave of political discontent with the country's current direction that manifested itself last Saturday at Glenn Beck's "Restore Honor" rally on the National Mall. Palin is woman, hear her roar... Voters have had enough with political dynasties and virtual lifetime tenure for incumbents, and Alaskans decided there was no more a "Murkowski seat" than there was a "Kennedy seat" in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown produced a similar upset. America was born through a popular uprising that didn't like taxation without representation. It may be reborn from an aroused people unhappy with both their taxation and their representation. Editorial, Investor's Business Daily September 1, 2010 Blacks, Young Voters Not Poised For High Turnout On Nov 2 Minority and young voters made a significant mark on the 2008 presidential election with their high turnout; today, however, these groups appear to have reverted to previous levels of interest in voting in the context of midterm elections. Most notably, in contrast to 2008, when whites and blacks were about equally likely to say they were giving "quite a lot of" or "some" thought to the presidential election, whites are much more likely than blacks to be thinking about the 2010 elections: 42% vs. 25%, a gap exceeding those from recent midterm elections... Lydia Saad, Gallup September 3, 2010 Buh-Bye The midterm elections are 61 days away. But there is another number to consider. James E. Campbell, a University at Buffalo political science professor, predicts Democrats will lose 51 seats in the House, yielding a Republican majority. And oh, the science. Mr. Campbells forecast is based on what he calls the "seats-in-trouble model," which includes a White House factor. "Past experience indicates that a politically neutral presidential approval rating in midterm elections is about 65 percent," Mr. Campbell says. "The only two presidents to avoid midterm seat losses for their party since approval ratings have been conducted were Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002. Both enjoyed approval ratings of over 60 percent at the time of those midterm elections." President Obama's approval rating hovers around 44 percent, 21 points below the neutral point, he says - not strong enough to check heavy Democratic losses. And voila. "Many of these are the Democratic seats now in trouble," Mr. Campbell says. Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway September 1, 2010 A Limp And Boring Speech President Obama's speech from the oval office, only the second of his presidency, was surprisingly limp. With three momentous subjects to cover - Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. economy - Obama struggled to say anything new or interesting. It isn't just that the soaring rhetoric of 2008 has disappeared; Obama is now affirmatively boring... If Obama signaled anything in this speech, it was his lack of interest in Iraq's past (Saddam who?), present, and future. Despite the fact that Afghanistan has become Obama's war in a way Iraq never did, the president displayed no great interest in, or true sense of commitment to, that action either. In ten short months, Obama once again pledged, we will begin pulling out of Afghanistan too. These words can only comfort our terrorist enemies and cause sleepness nights for anyone in Afghanistan who has ever supported us. When it came to the economy, Obama had nothing new to offer. So instead, he provided America with a pep talk, exhorting us to "honor" our troops by "coming together" with a great sense of urgency to "restore our economy." Presumably, this means rallying around Obama's unpopular domestic agenda. In any case, Americans are unlikely to be impressed by a president whose answer to our economic woes sounds something like "hug a soldier and hope that some of his grit rubs off." Paul, PowerLineBlog August 31, 2010 Drop In Illegal Immigration Proves Amnesty is The Wrong Approach According to a new Pew Hispanic Center report, illegal immigration has dropped by almost two-thirds in the past ten years. The numbers increased, but slowed from 2000 to 2007, while the numbers dropped by 300,000 from 2007-2009. This is not a surprising trend. The Department of Homeland Security announced in early 2010 that the illegal population in the United States had dropped from 11.6 to 10.8 million from 2008-2009. The fledgling economy coupled with the institution of increased enforcement efforts during the Bush years have pushed illegals inside the United States to go home, while encouraging those thinking of entering illegally to think again. The real message to these statistics, however, isn’t just that the population numbers are going down but that this data undermines a key argument of amnesty advocates. The amnesty crowd has built its case for “earned legalization” (aka amnesty) on the premise that the immigrant community inside the U.S. was largely immobile and highly rooted here, and that even with increased pressure through immigration enforcement, there was little likelihood that they would return to their home countries. They take it one step further and assert that the only solution is to let illegals have a path to citizenship. Continue reading... Jena McNeill, The Heritage Foundation September 2, 2010 United States Declares War on Arizona, Literally In the opinion of usurper president and U. S. Constitution destroyer, Barack H. Obama, there is no legitimacy in any state to seek its own protection from foreign invasion with its concurrent and resultant damage to life, limb and property. The Preamble to the Constitution lists the requirements of the federal government to our nation’s security. One of those requirements is to “provide for the common defense.” This is one of the responsibilities granted to the federals by the states. If the feds can not or will not ‘provide for the common defense’, it is only reasonable that the state or states will have to do it themselves due to the abdication of responsibility by the federal government. This is the situation in Arizona. Hordes of illegal aliens have been coming across the federally controlled and unprotected borders; Obama and his inefficient Attorney General and Chief of Homeland Security with their malfeasance and contrary to law refusal to act in accordance with our Constitution’s mandates, do unnecessarily place the legitimate citizens of Arizona and the United States, in serious jeopardy. The only recourse for the Arizonans is to reclaim the responsibility for the provision of the common defense for their own protection... (G)etting back to the usurper-in-chief and his henchmen who are going all out to protect foreign governments and causes like Palestine and Hamas and Imams who want to build Mosques in the shadows of where some sons of Allah killed 3000 Americans, while at the same time trying his damnedest to crucify a bona-fide, good old American state for crimes that they haven’t even come up with yet, probably hoping that they can expel them from our country. If I had my way, Obama and his corrupt, and taxpayer money thieving bandits would be the first ones to go. They have such unmitigated gall to have the rottenest Attorney General ever in our history file charges against Arizona for passing a law to give the state the protection that the federal government is responsible for maintaining but does absolutely nothing... The feds claim in their case against Arizona that the new law calls for racial profiling. That state is overrun with a very dangerous bunch of illegal aliens, of which 90 plus percent are all of one race, gender and nationality. Now how can they be accused of racial profiling when EVERYBODY that is trespassing is of the same ilk? Proving once again; Obama is out to get Arizona no matter how often the lie is told. What a pitiful bunch. And finally we get to probably the one person, other than Governor Brewer, who Obama and his rogues would dearly love to injure, the inimitable, courageous and valiant Sheriff Joe Arpaio. From even before Obama took office and named his lowlife miscreant Cabinet and Czars, he wanted Arpaio taken down. Even now Joe is still riding high fighting illegal immigration, but Holder and the DOJ are yet preparing to get him out. You ain’t done yet, Joe; don’t budge for those louts. Jerry McConnell, Canada Free Press September 3, 2010 The Repeal Windfall As November approaches, Obamacare’s defenders are quite plainly desperate. They see public opinion solidly against them, and a devastating election fast approaching. Their latest gambit to protect what was jammed through Congress in March is to claim that repeal would be so costly to the federal budget that it would be impossible to pass, even with overwhelming popular support. That’s the spin some on the left put on a recent letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID). But unfortunately for these advocates, that’s not what the CBO letter says. CBO’s message to Senator Crapo actually just states what is already obvious: If an effort were made to repeal just the Medicare cuts in the new law, it would, on paper, increase Medicare spending, and thus the federal budget deficit, by about $450 billion over ten years. Moreover, enacting a real “doc fix” to avoid deep and unrealistic cuts in Medicare physician fees will cost another $300 billion or so over the coming decade. Continue reading... James Capretta, The Heritage Foundation September 2, 2010 Where's The Magic Gone? The reviews on Barack Obama's Iraq speech on Tuesday night, August 31, 2010 are in and they are almost all unkind. You know it is bad when the lefties are wetting their pants; a case in point being the head cheerleader and Prom King, Chris Matthews. Matthews is upset that Obama can't wean himself off that danged teleprompter, and his guests are wondering where the old magic has gone. Where, they ask, is the electricity, the excitement, the gleaming smile? Hey fellas, it was all fake; the fake Greek columns, the promises to heal the world, to end all wars, to make everyone love us, to lower the sea levels, to remake America into Obama's image for the 21st century, ushering in a level of both unparalleled prosperity and wealth redistribution all at the same time. You believed because you desperately wanted to believe; you were captivated by the lights, the swaying and cheering crowds, the chin stuck into the air like Il Duce, and the voice reverb that made him sound like God in the Charlton Heston movie, "The Ten Commandments". Now, you are seeing the real deal; he doesn't ditch the teleprompter because he can't. He sounds boring and uninspired because he is. He doesn't offer magical solutions because he is now beyond the promising stage and into the doing stage, and he has no magic to give. The world is stubbornly resisting his so called charms. Barack Obama has the same DNA as all the other 6 billion human beings on earth, and he is not special. He is an inexperienced politician from Chicago, who was elected to the presidency by happenstance. You guys keep flogging that horse, though; maybe he will surprise us and turn into a fairy tale prince or something, and your world will suddenly be magical again. Tony Gallardom, American Thinker September 3, 2010 Another Reason Democrats Are Losing -- 55 percent of Americans say Republicans in Congress do a better job dealing with terrorism; 31 percent favor Democrats. -- 50 percent of Americans say Republicans do a better job dealing with immigration; 35 percent favor Democrats. -- 50 percent of Americans say Republicans do a better job dealing with federal spending; 35 percent favor Democrats. -- 46 percent of Americans say Republicans do a better job dealing with unemployment; 41 percent favor Democrats. -- 45 percent of Americans say Republicans do a better job dealing with Afghanistan; 38 percent favor Democrats. Source: A USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,021 adults conducted Aug. 27-30. Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway September 1, 2010 The Real Impact Of Sharia Law In America Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations. In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed. Continue reading... Cully Stimson, The Heritage Foundation September 2, 2010 How Barack Obama Became Mr. Unpopular The Barack Obama that most Hoosiers remember voting for can still be found on YouTube. He stands before a cheering Elkhart high school gymnasium in August 2008, tireless, aspirational, promising a new America of jobs and hope. "We can choose another future," says the newcomer with the funny name. "So I ask you to join me." Today that view of Obama is harder to find in Indiana. A couple of weeks back and a dozen miles west of Elkhart, hundreds gathered in another school gym — except this time it was for a job fair. With the local unemployment rate above 12% and rising again this summer, about a third of the employer display tables stood empty. Julie Griffin, who voted for Obama in '08, sat down at the room's edge, well dressed and discouraged. After 23 years as a payroll administrator at a local RV plant, she got laid off 18 months ago. "Really, what has he been doing?" she said when I asked about Obama's efforts to help people like her. "I guess I don't know what he is doing." Across the gym floor, Joe Donnelly, Elkhart's pro-life, pro-gun Democratic Congressman, worked the crowd. He was part of the moderate wave that won Congress for Nancy Pelosi in '06, and he was re-elected with 67% of the vote while campaigning for Obama in '08. The President has since returned to the region three times, but Donnelly is nonetheless fighting for his political life. In a recent television ad, an unflattering photo of Obama and Pelosi flashes while Donnelly condemns "the Washington crowd." This is basically a Democratic campaign slogan now: Don't blame me for Obama and Pelosi. "I'm not one of them," Donnelly told me when I caught up with him. "I'm one of us." This shift in perception — from Obama as political savior to Obama as creature of Washington — can be seen elsewhere. When Obama arrived in office in January '09, his Gallup approval rating stood at 68%, a high for a newly elected leader not seen since John Kennedy in 1961. Today Obama's job approval has been hovering in the mid-40s, which means that at least 1 in 4 Americans has changed his or her mind. The plunge has been particularly dramatic among independents, whites and those under age 30. With midterm elections just nine weeks off, instead of the generational transformation some Democrats predicted after 2008, the President's party teeters on the brink of a broad setback in November, including the possible loss of both houses of Congress... Michael Scherer, TIME September 2, 2010 Al-Shabaab Arrests Underscore Domestic Radicalization Threat On August 5, more than a dozen Somali-Americans, variously located across several states, were arrested on charges related to providing material support to the terrorist organization al-Shabaab. The arrests of these individuals represents the latest in a string of incidents in which U.S. citizens, or foreign nationals living within the United States, have been arrested for terror-related crimes ranging from fundraising to collusion and murder. Their collaboration with others seeking to wage jihad against the United States hastens the difficulties faced by domestic agencies tasked with protecting the American homeland. Since 9/11, dozens of American-born and naturalized U.S. citizens have been arrested or implicated in activities linked to Islamic fundamentalism. Some of these incidents have received broad coverage, such as the tragic Fort Hood shooting; however, most have remained elusive to the public. Despite the paucity of attention paid to domestic radicalization, this phenomenon represents a significant threat to both national security and American interests abroad. Continue reading... Scott Erickson, The Heritage Foundation September 2, 2010 Cristifying Florida Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's ditching of the Republican Party was supposed to liberate him in his run for U.S. Senate. Now he's frantically trying to escape identification with the Democrats' dismal record. Earlier this month, Crist the political shape shifter told a hall filled with elderly liberal Democrats that he thanked God he was no longer a Republican. But he's obviously also praying that no one will think he's a Democrat. Last Friday, Crist was asked about his position on ObamaCare by CFLN-TV in Orlando. "I would have voted for it, but I think it can be done better, I really do," he said. But like Sen. John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign, who said of Iraq War funding, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," Crist speaks from both sides of his mouth. Crist's campaign issued a statement later in the day contradicting his own remarks. "If I misspoke, I want to be abundantly clear: The health care bill was too big, too expensive and expanded the role of government far too much. Had I been in the United States Senate at the time, I would have voted against the bill because of unacceptable provisions like the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program." In the span of just hours, Crist actually said "I would have voted for it" and "I would have voted against the bill."... The governor seems to think he can get the votes of people who love ObamaCare and those who hate it too. But once upon a time there was a Republican who stayed one, and he pointed out that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. ObamaCare is just one of the issues Crist has been slippery on. On same-sex marriage, he told CNN Sunday, "I feel that marriage is a sacred institution, if you will." The CNN Web site noted that Crist "supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage." Then, as with ObamaCare, Crist's campaign backpedaled, issuing a supposed clarification that further muddled the minds of Floridians: "I was not discussing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage, which I do not support, but rather reaffirming my position regarding Florida's constitutional ban that I articulated while running for governor." That's intentionally misleading. Florida's constitutional ban is as irrelevant to the duties of a senator as Key West's leash laws; members of Congress don't vote on state constitutions. And the only way to keep marriage "a sacred institution" between one adult male and one adult female, which Crist claims is his position, is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — because only that will stop federal judges from nullifying state and local laws defending marriage, like California's Prop 8. Finally, in what is perhaps the most absurd aspect of Crist's never-ending tango as an "independent," the governor refuses to let Florida voters know which party he would caucus with if he's elected. "I don't have to say I'm going to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans," Crist told CNN, after saying he'll do what's "best for them, and I sincerely mean that — and that's very important." Well, which way is it? Why don't you "have to say I'm going to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans"? Don't Floridians have a right to know which before they walk into that voting booth? Crist's conservative Republican opponent, Marco Rubio, has been merciless on his waffling. "Charlie Crist has six different positions on ObamaCare because he doesn't actually care about health care," Rubio charged. "He only cares about getting himself elected." The trouble with seeming to believe too many differing things is that people start thinking you don't believe in anything — except the exercise of power over them. Editorial, Investor's Business Daily September 1, 2010 Why Americans Have Guns "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense."

John Adams, (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – September 3, 2010

gorightgirl — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:43:00 +0000

Well, It's Pretty Good When Compared To Others It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion. Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law. Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws. Islam has the Qur’an that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings. If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also. We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam‘s Qur’an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values. Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else. How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Qur‘an? What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world? If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law. How can we call that a religion? What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws? No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed. Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of). As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation - financed by Saudi Arabia - they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government - take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved... If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem. But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line. It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans. Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims - and our own government - can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America. JR Dieckmann, Canada Free Press September 1, 2010 Pulling The Press The big rally is done, and Glenn Beck is manning the Fox News microphones and testing the reach of theblaze.com, his new website. There is still much hubbub among journalists who faulted the "overwhelming whiteness" of Mr. Beck's event -- then were in turn cited by Nathan Burchfiel, a Culture and Media Institute analyst who revealed the "overwhelming whiteness" of the press corps. The media itself is no showcase for diversity, he says, a fact supported by newsroom demographic surveys. "The media shouldn't be so quick to point the finger on 'overwhelming whiteness' unless they're willing to call their own credibility into question for the same reason. It's textbook hypocrisy," Mr. Burchfiel tells Inside the Beltway. "If a startling lack of diversity doesn't hurt the media's credibility, how is it fair for journalists to use a similar attack on the 'tea parties' or Beck rally?" He continues, "The charge is a cheap way to avoid addressing the legitimate concerns being raised at these rallies. It's the latest in a long list of attempts by the left to invalidate the conservative grass roots with personal attacks and character assassination instead of actually debating the issues." Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway August 31, 2010 New Amsterdam To New Cordoba: Thwarting N.Y.'s New Colonizers The names of the city that we now call New York bear witness to successive waves of conquerors/colonizers. First came the Dutch, who named the city "New Amsterdam," then gave way to the British who renamed it "New York." Now come Muslims invoking the name of the Spanish city that was the seat of the Caliphate of Iberia and North Africa. In A.D. 711, Muslim hordes conquered Spain for Islam's first inroad into Western Europe. The first mosque was built in the Spanish city of Cordoba, the site of a historic Islamic victory in conquest and subjugation of Spain and later of much of Europe. Cordoba became the seat of the Caliphate of Iberia and North Africa, as well as the namesake of the Cordoba Initiative — the stated goal of which is to erect a mosque at the site of the first Islamic victory in conquering and subjugating America, on the 1,300th (not the 1,299th or 1,301st) anniversary of the conquest of Spain and the 10th anniversary of the great Islamic triumph of 9/11. The developers of the New Cordoba Mosque contend that their purpose is outreach and bridging divides. The developers, however, have flatly refused even to discuss a win/win proposal for changing the venue of the New Cordoba Mosque to a more acceptable location for Americans — away from the site of the first great Islamic triumph in North America. The organizers admit that they will seek funding (planned to exceed $100 million) from whatever sources they can tap. These include Saudi Arabia and Iran, bastions of some of the most militant forms of Islam... Proponents cite the economic benefit to New York from the construction and operation of the mosque; opponents cite Lenin's dictum that capitalists would sell materiel to the Soviet world to be used to destroy capitalism. One remedy for the Park Place Ground Zero New Cordoba Mosque is predicated upon the value of the property upon which the mosque is to be built. Should the mosque be built as presently projected, that parcel would be removed from the property tax base as being used for religious purposes. This would further narrow the already shrunken New York City tax base. The situation is tailor-made for the application of the Kelo Principle, derived from the case of Kelo vs. the City of New London, in which that city under a private redevelopment plan condemned under eminent domain property that did not provide — in the city's opinion — enough tax revenue. The Supreme Court validated the seizure of the property under eminent domain for transfer to a private redeveloper to improve the tax base. In its continuing struggle for solvency, New York should condemn under eminent domain the Park Place property proposed to be used for the New Cordoba Mosque and transfer the property to a redeveloper for controlled tax-paying development. The project would include monuments and memorials to the fallen not only in connection with 9/11 but also for the troops that have been engaging in the defense of America. A further approach to the deflection of the New Cordoba Mosque is to apply tax law. The religious purpose alleged by the developer is at variance with the refusal of the developer even to entertain or discuss a proposal by New York's governor to exchange presently state-owned property farther away from Ground Zero for the near Ground Zero property on which the New Cordoba Mosque is to be built. If the criterion were pure religiosity, there would be no tenable reason to refuse even to entertain the governor's offer... Another avenue for such investigation would be to seat a grand jury to investigate the case. These remedies for deflecting the Ground Zero development of the mosque can be readily implemented on the state level: There is at least one candidate for New York governor — Rick Lazio — who with 63% of New York voters, vigorously opposes the Ground Zero placement of the New Cordoba Mosque. The above-stated remedies could be validly promised and implemented by New York's next governor. The relocation of the New Cordoba Mosque from Park Place Ground Zero would, of course, have little or no effect on its religious or outreach significance. But it could dampen its appeal to Park Place Jihadis the cachet of, say, a Flatbush Avenue address being nonexistent or even negative for such potential recruits. In this manner, the current wave of New York's would-be conquerors/colonizers can be deflected or thwarted. Joseph R. Evanns & Egon Mittelmann, Investor's Business Daily August 31, 2010 The Obama Doctrine Aside from the wooden performance, there was nothing particularly noteworthy about President Barack Obama’s Oval Office address on Iraq last night. The President again evinced the impression that he viewed Iraq as a distraction, and he twice said he wanted to “turn the page” to other issues. As forgettable as the address was however, once placed into the broader context of foreign policy speeches and actions, a clear Obama Doctrine can now be defined, as James Carafano and Kim Holmes do in a new paper released today Downplaying American Sovereignty: The Administration is pursuing an ambitious agenda on international treaties... The ideals behind many of these treaties are admirable. But in every case the onus is on the Administration to ensure that the treaty does not compromise America’s security or the rights and freedoms established in the U.S. Constitution. International institutions work best when they manage affairs between nations; they falter and become harmful when they reach into the domestic affairs of nations. But that is exactly what the Obama administration has been doing... When the Obama administration engages international institutions, it appears that E Pluribus Unum gets thrown under the bus. Continue reading... Conn Carroll, The Heritage Foundation September 1, 2010 It's All Local Politics is still excruciatingly local as midterm elections loom. "We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results Wednesday, but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: By a 50-42 margin, voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama," says Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. "Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin, and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11 percent) than there are Republicans who think Obama's preferable (3 percent)," Mr. Jensen explains. "A couple months ago, I thought the Pennsylvanias and Missouris and Ohios of the world were the biggest battlegrounds for 2010, but when you see numbers like this, it makes you think it's probably actually the Californias and the Wisconsins and the Washingtons." Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway August 31, 2010 How Democratic Congress Threw Away Advantage Over GOP Many political observers were stunned by the new Gallup poll showing the Republican party with a 10-point advantage in the so-called "generic ballot" question. Now we have a better idea how that happened. According to new, more detailed Gallup numbers, Democratic advantages on issues like health care, the economy, and handling corruption in government have simply disappeared. Democratic leads that were enormous when the party took control of Congress in 2006 have dwindled to nothing or have now become Republican advantages... Back in 2006, things had gotten so bad for Republicans that Democrats took the lead even in a traditionally Republican area: protecting the country against terrorism. Just before the '06 elections, Democrats held a 47 to 42 lead on protecting against terrorism. Now, after Ft. Hood, Detroit, and the Times Square bombing attempt, Republicans hold a 55 to 31 lead. The only issue on which Democrats hold the lead today is the environment. So look at the swings away from the Democratic party: a 38-point swing on health care, a 27-point swing on the economy, a 26-point swing on handling corruption in government, a 29-point swing on combating terrorism. All the progress Democrats had made on those issues during the Bush years has gone away. Is it any wonder Democratic strategists are approaching this November's elections in a state of panic? Byron York, Washington Examiner September 1, 2010 What Are America's Interests? It is not clear what the President meant when he said, “Ending the war was in our interest.” First, wars just don’t end. They are a win, a loss, or a draw. By implying that he simply “ended” the war by just following a plan – as if he were imposing a managerial solution over a public policy problem – Obama gave the American people a very a simplistic and wrongheaded notion of war. No plan survives contact with the enemy. Obama ought to understand this better than anyone. After all, he bitterly opposed the surge which helped break the cycle of violence and made the withdrawal of U.S. troops – without Iraq collapsing into civil war – possible. Continue reading... James Carafano, The Heritage Foundation August 31, 2010 This Is how Arabs Respond To Israeli 'Confidence Building Measures' With forced encouragement from the US, Israel removed some security barriers and security checkpoints as a "confidence building measure" prior to yet another round of "peace talks" with the Arabs under the auspices of the US. These barriers and checkpoints, condemned by the usual spectrum of Israel haters as racist and militaristic, provided Israel with a high degree of safety as they made it more difficult--but not impossible--for the surrounding Arabs to carry out acts of terror. And now, a few days before the beginning of still yet another round of "peace" talks between Israel's democratically elected Binyamin Netanyahu and the Arabs' Mahmoud Abbas, who has a precarious hold on the presidency of some of the Arabs who want a separate Palestinian state, another horrific slaughter of Israeli Jews by Arabs who want to eliminate Israel took place. "Four killed as terrorists open fire near Kiryat Arba; victims, from Beit Hagai, shot while driving, include 2 men, 2 women, one reportedly pregnant; US calls attack 'tragedy'." Tragedy is diplomatese for not very nice. But nevertheless Israel will certainly be lectured by outside mediators and self righteous pundits to ignore this incident as a price for peace as this proves the Arabs are desperate and losing hope. Perhaps the mediators will also encourage Israel to be forthcoming with more confidence building measures. Of course, Arabs are never required to do any confidence building measures of their own. However this latest terrorist attack does serve as a confidence building measure by the Arabs--most Israelis now have perfect confidence that most of the Arabs cannot make peace, do not want peace, no matter what the mediators and self righteous lecturers, who do not have to live with the horrific aftermath, say. Ethel C. Fenig, American Thinker September 1, 2010 It's Not About Guns vs. Butter, Mr. President It is understandable that the President wanted to mention the sorry state of the domestic economy in his address to the nation. More Americans are out of work now than when Obama took office. Recent economic news has not been good. Just as the President said, fixing the economy is indeed an “urgent” task.” But that does not mean he now has the luxury to neglect his most urgent task, the one assigned to him by the U.S. Constitution: to “Provide for the Common Defense.” Continue reading...

James Carafano, The Heritage Foundation August 31, 2010

Obama's Cronkite Moment?

President Obama may have experienced his Walter Cronkite moment over the economy. Responding to Cronkite's reporting from Vietnam four decades ago that the only way to end the war was by negotiating with the North Vietnamese, President Lyndon Johnson was reported (though never confirmed) to have said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

Now President Obama appears to have "lost" New York Times liberal economic columnist Paul Krugman. Krugman, who enthusiastically supported the president's redistributionist and stimulus plans, has bowed to the reality that they are not working. In a recent column titled "This is Not a Recovery," Krugman took issue with the president and Vice President Joe Biden that we have experienced a summer of economic recovery. "Unfortunately, that's not true," he wrote. "This isn't a recovery, in any sense that matters. And policymakers should be doing everything they can to change that fact." Krugman asked an essential question: "Why are people who know better sugarcoating economic reality? The answer, I'm sorry to say, is that it's all about evading responsibility." It is that, and more. The administration is so locked into its left-wing, "tax, borrow and spend" ideology that it has become like someone trapped in a cult: unable to escape and endlessly repeating the same mantra...As Walter Cronkite used to say, "That's the way it is." Cal Thomas, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 31, 2010 The Voters Want To Have A Say In Pay Raises And Tax Increases -- 78 percent of U.S. voters say pay raises for Congress "should be submitted to voters first." -- 75 percent want members of Congress to take a pay cut until the federal budget is balanced. -- 61 percent say proposed tax increases should be submitted to voters before they become law... Source: A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Aug. 29-30. Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway August 31, 2010 You're A Bigot, Now Vote For Me! The Progressive's Plan For November Are you opposed to Obamacare or illegal immgration? You’re a racist. Are you opposed to gay marriage? You’re a homophobe. Did you oppose Elana Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court? You’re a sexist. After less than two years of complete Democrat control of government, there aren’t many Americans progressives haven’t accused of some sort of bigotry for simply having an opinion different from theirs. The politics of “hope” and “change” have devolved into exactly what those espousing them claimed they would end. Is this really Democrat’s plan to win votes in November?... Progressives show little concern for the will of the people. They have an agenda, and nothing is going to stand in the way of achieving it. They will lie, they will demonize, they will do anything to achieve it... (P)rogressives will learn the hard way when it comes time for these “bigots” to vote. Derek Hunter, Big Government August 31, 2010 If VAT Is Rx For Deficits And Debt, Why Are VAT Users On The Brink? Drums are beating in Washington for a value-added tax in addition to the "stimulus" taxes, health care taxes, energy taxes and other taxes President Obama has imposed and wants to impose on hard-pressed taxpayers. Supposedly a value-added tax is a magic elixir for curing budget deficits and excessive debt. Quack remedy would be more like it. If it worked, you'd observe that countries with a VAT had budget surpluses and no debt problems. But almost every country that has a VAT is plagued with budget deficits and excessive debt. The most notable exception is Norway whose government has net assets larger than its gross domestic product, thanks to large oil revenues and a small population. By contrast, the U.S. GDP is dwarfed by trillions of dollars of the government's unfunded liabilities. In the event Washington introduced a VAT, the government would spend all the revenue and then some, as has happened so many times before, and we would again find ourselves struggling with budget deficits and excessive debt — and a bigger tax burden. A VAT puts big spenders on steroids. It generates lots of revenue, and because this tax is substantially hidden from consumers, there's less political resistance to it... The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development reported that since the 1960s, when the VAT began to be widely adopted, government spending by OECD member countries with a VAT soared from 30% of their GDP to 50%. Governments tend to spend all available revenue, and then some. No surprise that the worst financial basket cases all have a VAT. Iceland has the highest VAT rates, but this didn't prevent its financial crisis and the near bankruptcy of its government. Italy's VAT rates are almost as high, and its debt exceeds its GDP. Financial crises are looming in Spain and Portugal, and of course they have a VAT. Greece has a VAT, too, and when politicians ran out of money to pay government employees for more than a year's worth of work every year, they rioted in the streets. Great Britain has a VAT, and its government finances are in the worst shape since World War II — its budget deficit is expected to be bigger than that of Greece. Moreover, the OECD has acknowledged that "(VAT) tax and transfer wedges have discouraged firms from offering employment and individuals from taking it, reduced employment and increased inequality." By disrupting the economy, VAT-induced spending makes it more difficult to handle budget deficits and debt. The last thing we need is a VAT.

Jim Powell, Investor's Business Daily August 31, 2010 Charter Schools Rise In Katrina's Wake Hurricane Katrina destroyed more than just buildings. Left with scarce resources and personnel, local government in New Orleans became weak and ineffective in the aftermath of the flooding. Five years later, the rebuilding of New Orleans is far from complete, but reformers can point to at least one major accomplishment: a new school system built around charter schools and parental choice. As a recent Newsweek article explains in some detail, Louisiana established the Recovery School District (RSD) to replace the old school system in New Orleans. Eschewing centralized control, RSD officials created a plethora of charter schools throughout the city, offering far more choices to parents than they had pre-Katrina. Continue reading...

James Carafano, The Heritage Foundation August 31, 2010

To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – September 1, 2010

gorightgirl — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:00:24 +0000

Summary Of History Of The World The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) Ignoring Glenn Beck — And Us The president says he didn't watch any of Glenn Beck's "Restore Honor" rally on the National Mall. That's not surprising. Democrats and the White House haven't been listening to the people for awhile. Whistling past the political graveyard looming for his party in November, President Obama dismissed the crowd gathered to hear the Fox News pundit, telling Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News, "It's not surprising that someone like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of (the American people) ... " He dismissed this crowd just as he and his party dismissed the "angry mobs" that descended on health care town meetings wanting to know why their government no longer wanted to hear their voices or seek out the consent of the governed. Those people were also said to have been "stirred up" by political opponents and conservative talk radio. This genuine grass-roots movement was dismissed as "astroturfing" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others. But their anger did not have to be manufactured. It was a quite natural response to a government that is bankrupting their children and grandchildren as it spends money we don't have on things that don't work. "Mr. Beck" didn't manufacture the people on the Mall. He merely has given them a voice and a focal point, and a reminder that we are endowed with inalienable rights from a higher authority than any gaggle of senators and representatives. "We the people" assembled on the Mall, not an angry mob stirred up by rabble-rousers... The Democrats push health care that Americans don't want by overwhelming numbers. The feds sue the sovereign state of Arizona over the wishes of a majority of Americans that want secure borders. Then the secretary of state slams Arizona, citing SB1070 as a human rights violation to the United Nations. The American people see the disconnect between "saved" jobs and near double-digit unemployment. They are weary of a government so out-of-touch that once again we seem to have taxation without representation. They see a government making war on job-creators, punishing success and rewarding failure, redistributing wealth while creating none. They see an energy policy that produces no energy in order to save a planet that is not in danger. Ignore that crowd on the Mall at your peril, Mr. President. That "certain portion" of the people grows bigger every day and by November your party may lose big in all 57 states you campaigned in. Editorial, Investor's Business Daily August 30, 2010 GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead On Generic Ballot PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress... Republicans Have 25-Point Lead on Enthusiasm. Republicans are now twice as likely as Democrats to be "very" enthusiastic about voting, and now hold -- by one point -- the largest such advantage of the year... The wide enthusiasm gaps in the GOP's favor so far this year certainly suggest that this scenario may well play itself out again this November. The last Gallup weekly generic ballot average before Labor Day underscores the fast-evolving conventional wisdom that the GOP is poised to make significant gains in this fall's midterm congressional elections. Gallup's generic ballot has historically proven an excellent predictor of the national vote for Congress, and the national vote in turn is an excellent predictor of House seats won and lost. Republicans' presumed turnout advantage, combined with their current 10-point registered-voter lead, suggests the potential for a major "wave" election in which the Republicans gain a large number of seats from the Democrats and in the process take back control of the House. One cautionary note: Democrats moved ahead in Gallup's generic ballot for several weeks earlier this summer, showing that change is possible between now and Election Day. Frank Newport, Gallup August 30, 2010 More Evidence Against The VAT In the ongoing discussion on how best to address the nation’s out-of-control deficit spending, one proposal would increase taxes by adding a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the current tax system. Proponents argue that a new tax on consumption would raise the needed revenues to close the deficit gap without the negative economic effects of raising the income tax. However, rather than putting Washington’s fiscal house back in order, a VAT is more likely to grow the size of government and encourage growth in spending—effects that would be counterproductive to its intended purpose. Recent analysis by Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith finds that in addition to the existence of a “strong, indisputable, positive relationship between use of a VAT and government spending as a fraction of GDP,” evidence points to a causal relationship between the creation of a VAT and growth in government. Continue reading... Kathryn Nix, The Heritage Foundation August 31, 2010 Boston Globe Latest Liberal Paper To Become Disenchanted With Obama The Boston Globe? "President Obama returned to work yesterday to find deeper fears of a return to recession. So it was somewhat fitting that, when he stepped to the microphone to address those concerns, it didn't seem to work. "How're we doing on sound, guys?'' he asked the gathered press. Not that well, actually. It is now understood by everyone, apparently including the administration, that Obama did a poor job explaining last year's stimulus package. And with many of its programs starting to expire, it may not be worth the breath to try to explain it now. Rather, Obama needs to lay out a post-stimulus economic plan. The hints offered yesterday - extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, taking more steps toward a clean-energy future - were neither new nor inspiring. And Obama's slumping body language couldn't have looked less confident if he were dragging a coffin." Obama looking like he's "dragging a coffin?" "Uninspiring?" They're not even bothering to defend the stimulus. If this is a precursor of things to come, the idea of a primary challenge to Obama will start becoming less and less far fetched. Rick Moran, American Thinker August 31, 2010 A Boehner Moment The American Legion's annual convention was on former President George W. Bush's radar back in the day; he attended the patriotic event multiple times during his terms in office. President Obama? Missing in action at the group's 92nd gathering, which begins Tuesday... Not so House Minority Leader John A. Boehner. The Ohio Republican will journey to Milwaukee with a perhaps unwelcome preamble and reality check for Mr. Obama's speech, to be delivered just hours before the president steps before network cameras for his big moment. "He will address the situation in Iraq as well as the records of those folks who originally opposed the troop surge," a spokesman tells Inside the Beltway. "And he considers this an honor to address an audience with such a distinguished record of service to their country." Mr. Boehner credits the surge strategy - opposed by Mr. Obama and also Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. - as the catalyst for advancement in Iraq, and the much ballyhooed shift from combat to advisory role for remaining U.S. troops. "With all due respect to them, our troops who have served so courageously in Iraq deserve the credit for the success of the surge and, along with the Iraqi people, the turnaround in Iraq," Mr. Boehner says. Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway August 30, 2010 Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama Daniel S. Loeb, the hedge fund manager, was one of Barack Obama’s biggest backers in the 2008 presidential campaign. A registered Democrat, Mr. Loeb has given and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democrats. Less than a year ago, he was considered to be among the Wall Street elite still close enough to the White House to be invited to a speech in Lower Manhattan, where President Obama outlined the need for a financial regulatory overhaul. So it came as quite a surprise on Friday, when Mr. Loeb sent a letter to his investors that sounded as if he were preparing to join Glenn Beck in Washington over the weekend. "As every student of American history knows, this country’s core founding principles included nonpunitive taxation, constitutionally guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority and an inexorable right of self-determination,” he wrote. “Washington has taken actions over the past months, like the Goldman suit that seem designed to fracture the populace by pulling capital and power from the hands of some and putting it in the hands of others.”... Less than two years ago, Democrats received 70 percent of the donations from Wall Street; since June, when the financial regulation bill was nearing passage, Republicans were receiving 68 percent of the donations, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. But what is surprising is that some of the president’s biggest supporters have so publicly derided his policies, even at the risk of hurting their ability to influence the party in the future. Issues like the carry-interest tax on private equity or the Volcker Rule have become personal. Why so personal? The prevailing view is that bankers, hedge fund mangers and traders supported the Obama candidacy because he appealed to their egos... What they say they did not realize was that they were going to be painted as villains... Now Mr. Loeb, who manages about $3.4 billion at his firm, Third Point Partners, has articulated in a more thoughtful way what a lot of others in finance and business are saying... Mr. Loeb’s views, irrespective of their validity, point to a bigger problem for the economy: If business leaders have a such a distrust of government, they won’t invest in the country. And perception is becoming reality... Just last week, Paul S. Otellini, chief executive of Intel, said at a dinner at the Aspen Forum of the Technology Policy Institute that “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.”... Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times August 30, 2010 Businessmen Don't Need A Lecture Yesterday, President Obama insisted that a coalition of Senate Republican legislators is playing partisan politics yet again. He told Americans that he knows exactly what small businesses need in order to start productively hiring, and that’s the Small Jobs Act, which is currently before the Senate. The business community does not need President Obama to lecture to them about partisan politics, and they certainly do not need him to do the same about legislation that replaces the private sector with agencies of the federal government to “promote” entrepreneurship, exporting, and so on. Businesses have witnessed an onslaught of federal legislation with the economy only sputtering along and a net negative balance for overall employment. The President fails to note that the health care reform legislation passed earlier this year includes crippling mandates and fees on small- and medium-size businesses. (Those testy Republicans would like to see at least one of these provisions, the new requirement that all businesses file a 1099 for every business transaction exceeding $600, repealed in any “jobs bill.”) Continue reading... John Ligon, The Heritage Foundation August 31, 2010 Polling On The Spill The oil spill in the Gulf may be mostly out of the headlines now but Louisiana voters aren't getting any less mad at Barack Obama about his handling of it. Only 32% give Obama good marks for his actions in the aftermath of the spill, while 61% disapprove. Louisianans are feeling more and more that George W. Bush's leadership on Katrina was better than Obama's on the spill. 54% think Bush did the superior job of helping the state through a crisis to 33% who pick Obama. That 21 point margin represents a widening since PPP asked the same question in June and found Bush ahead by a 15 point margin. Bush beats Obama 87-2 on that score with Republicans and 42-30 with independents, while Obama has just a 65-24 advantage with Democrats... If there is a political 'winner' in the aftermath of the oil spill it's Bobby Jindal. 70% of Louisiana voters are happy with how he handled the spill to only 20% giving him bad marks and his overall approval rating of 58% puts him at the top of the heap for Governors and Senators PPP's polled on this year. Specifically on the issue of the spill 89% of Republicans, 76% of independents, and even a 47% plurality of Democrats think he did a good job. One thing very clear is that the spill hasn't done much to change Louisianans' opinions on offshore drilling. 82% of voters in the state support it with only 9% opposed and only 21% say the spill made them less supportive of drilling while 32% say it actually made them more so. Public Policy Polling August 27, 2010 Birthright Citizenship In The United States: A Global Comparison Every year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the executive branch of the U.S. government automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. Since large-scale tourism and mass illegal immigration are relatively recent phenomena, it is unclear for how long the U.S. government has followed this practice of automatic “birthright citizenship” without regard to the duration or legality of the mother’s presence... The current Congress saw the introduction by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) of the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009,” which so far has gathered nearly 100 sponsors. This Backgrounder briefly explains some policy concerns that result from an expansive application of the Citizenship Clause... and includes a discussion of how other countries approach birthright citizenship. The paper concludes that Congress should clarify the scope of the Citizenship Clause and promote a serious discussion on whether the United States should automatically confer the benefits and burdens of U.S. citizenship on the children of aliens whose presence is temporary or illegal. Among the findings: **Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. **Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. **No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens. **The global trend is moving away from automatic birthright citizenship as many countries that once had such policies have ended them in recent decades. **14th Amendment history seems to indicate that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens nor legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States. **The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens are covered by the Citizenship Clause, but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal. **Some eminent scholars and jurists have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution...

Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies August 2010Mosque Mania: Muslims' Turn To Be Tolerant The proposed mosque near where the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed, along with thousands of American lives, would be a 15-story middle finger to America. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious, so it is not surprising that the intelligentsia are out in force, decrying those who criticize this calculated insult... The big talking point is that this is an issue about "religious freedom" and that Muslims have a "right" to build a mosque where they choose. But those who oppose this project are not claiming that there is no legal right to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center...

The intelligentsia and others who are wrapping themselves in the Constitution are fighting a phony war against a straw man. Why create a false issue, except to evade the real issue? Our betters are telling us that we need to be more "tolerant" and more "sensitive" to the feelings of Muslims. But if we are supposed to be sensitive to Muslims, why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor? It would not be illegal for Japanese-Americans to build a massive Shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it. When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it. He didn't say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp. That the president of the United States has joined the chorus of those calling the Ground Zero mosque a religious-freedom issue tells us a lot about the moral dry rot that is undermining this country from within. There are people for whom moral preening has become a way of life. They are out in force denouncing critics of the Ground Zero mosque. There are others for whom a citizen-of-the-world affectation puts them one-up on those of us who are grateful to be Americans, and to enjoy a freedom that is all too rare in other countries around the world, even at this late date in human history. They think the United States is somehow on trial, and needs to prove itself to others by bending over backwards. But bending over backwards does not win friends. It loses respect, including self-respect. Thomas Sowell, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 30, 2010 61 Percent Say Finding New Energy Sources Is More Important Than Conservation It's hard to think of a public policy issue area in which America's 70/30 public opinion split between the Political Class and Mainstream Voters is more evident than in energy, a point driven home yet again by the latest results from Rasmussen Reports. Sixty-one percent of those surveyed believe "finding new sources of energy is more important now than reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume," according to Rasmussen. That compares to only 31 percent who put a higher priority on reducing overall energy consumption. Rasmussen notes that the question asked of 1,000 likely voters Aug. 25-26 didn't specify what kind of new energy sources the respondents have in mind, but "with conflicting news reports continuing about the extent of damage caused by the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, support for offshore oil drilling has tied its highest level of support since the Gulf oil leak began." He added that "support for deepwater drilling like that which caused the incident in the Gulf is up to 55%." Slightly more than a third of those surveyed believe there is a conflict between seeking economic growth and protecting the environment, Rassmussen said... Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor, Washington Examiner August 29, 2010 Elitism Or Arrogance Lately it seems as if conservatives have been barraged by insults. Think that climate change may be natural, you are labeled a denier. Concerned about the record-breaking deficit, you are a tea bagger or a statist. Don’t want a mosque built near the site Islamic terrorists killed over 3000 Americans, you are a racist. Think that the current administration is taking the country too far to the left, there’s that racist charge again. As opposed to focusing on what is being said, let’s look at who are saying these things. These comments come from a select group of climate scientists, or mainstream media commentators and politicians. What each of these groups have in common is that they seem to think of themselves as elite. Elitism is the attitude or belief that some individuals, by virtue of wealth, intellect, or training are superior to others. Elitists can be found everywhere but are most commonly seen in upper management, Hollywood, academia, the media, and the halls of government. The principal difference between an elitist and an expert is that experts are recognized by others for their skill or training whereas elitists see themselves as superior. Elitists are typically agenda driven; they see themselves as fighting for a noble cause. As such, elitists tend to view themselves as individuals who are benevolently working for the good of mankind (or for some elitist groups, womankind)... We can see that elitists are not experts, they are simply individuals or groups of individuals who see themselves as superior. That superiority breeds disdain for those not a member of the elite group. That in turn results in intellectual inbreeding; a process that leads to defects in logic and rationale. When that superiority is challenged, they respond in a generally well defined pattern of progressively less professional steps. This behavior betrays them for what they actually are, weak and insecure. A fact they hide not with intelligence or intellectual prowess but by arrogance. “The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance” (Albert Einstein). So here is the good news. This barrage of insults and ad hominem attacks has revealed these elitists to be nothing more than empty suits; legends in their own mind, and arrogant legends at that. Since their viewpoints cannot stand the test of logic, then their viewpoints need not be respected. Nor do we need to fear their ad hominem attacks. When a climate scientist calls me a denier, or a columnist from the New York Times or the Washington Post calls me a racist, I can wear the terms with pride. Not because I am a denier or a racist, but because I know that for those individuals, calling me a name is a sign of how desperate they are. It is a sign that they are one step closer to becoming irrelevant. Bob Shoup, Canada Free Press August 30, 2010 No One Has Right To Violate U.S. Immigration Law President Obama has submitted his administration’s legal dispute with Arizona over immigration to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called that move “downright offensive.” Her characterization is correct, albeit somewhat mild. It is highly offensive that the administration would submit a constitutional argument over federalism and federal preemption to an international body for review – especially when that body includes dictatorial tyrannies such as Cuba and China that violate human rights routinely and with prejudice. It is another sign that President Obama holds our constitutional system of government in low regard and has little interest in upholding American sovereignty. Continue reading...

Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation August 31, 2010

To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – August 31, 2010

gorightgirl — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:16:01 +0000

The Average Voter

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Party Trend Has Yet To Kick In

Don’t confuse the dramatic swell of the Republican tide that is becoming increasingly evident to the pundits of the country with party trend. Right before Election Day, the numbers will get even better and presage an even larger Republican victory. Party trend usually indicates itself in the ten days before an election when voters who do not typically follow politics closely tune in and decide for whom to vote. Until this window, they usually describe themselves to pollsters as “undecided.” There will be a huge Republican party trend this year, but it hasn’t happened yet.

The huge Republican poll numbers these days do not reflect the last minute switches typical of less involved voters but rather mirror the disappointment with Obama and with Congress among voters who do follow politics closely that has accumulated over the past year and a half. It is this reappraisal of their political opinions that is occasioning the big swing toward Republicans in the 2010 election.

The ranks of these disaffected voters who are now turning against Obama and the Democrats will soon be joined by the less involved voters who will come around in the week or ten days before the election.

From the perception of the pollster, party trend is a bit like a curveball thrown by a pitcher to a batter. The election statistics remain fairly static for weeks or even months with little change as the race unfolds through September and early through mid October. Like a fastball that comes in straight and true. Then, suddenly, as the election nears, the vote swings wildly to one side or the other, akin to a curve ball that breaks as it approaches the batter – usually too late for him to make an adjustment. Suddenly, the tied races show up as decisive victories for the side that benefits from party trend. And the unwinnable races come into play.

2010 is a year like no other in the magnitude of the partisan shift going on. It dwarfs 1994 and even 1974 in its order of magnitude. But we haven’t yet seen the full impact of the last minute party shift that will take place. Plenty of voters who are now undecided are yet to be heard from and, when they are, they will impact the results decisively. In which direction? Most likely they will transform a massive Republican win into an even more massive victory. The uninvolved voters who will decide late in the process are likely to break the same way the rest of the country is breaking – toward the Republicans. Surveys suggest that they share the disenchantment of the participating voters with the economy and Obama’s performance. They have just not focused on the coming election.

Democrats hope that the less involved voters are also less educated and more likely to be the young or minority voters on whom their party depends. But the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats for Obama indicates that these voters are likely to decide by staying home. In the most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics study, 54% of Republicans said they were “very enthusiastic” about voting in the 2010 elections while only 28% of Democrats felt the same way. So the net result is that for those who anticipate a major Republican win in 2010, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

Dick Morris & Eilleen McGann, Nationally Syndicated Columnists August 25, 2010

GOP vs. Dems: Who's Best For The Economy

The choice for voters in this year's fierce fight for congressional control will come down to a single question: Which political party -- Democrats or Republicans -- will do a better job coping with crippling unemployment and a devastating deficit?... (T)hose who insist that continued Democratic congressional control will improve prospects for job creation and deficit reduction cling to a naive misinterpretation of the past. They ought to examine the actual record of the past two decades and begin to reconsider their assumptions.

Michael Medved, TownHall August 25, 2010

Redistricting Could Prolong The Democrats' Pain

Every 10 years, it's time for reapportionment and redistricting. The framers of the Constitution created the first regularly scheduled national census and required, for the first time that I am aware, that representation in a legislature be apportioned according to population. Reapportionment is automatic: A statutory formula takes the Census figures and apportions the 435 House districts among the 50 states. Wyoming and six other states will each get one, California will probably get 53, and the rest some number in between.

Seven states, according to projections by Polidata Inc., will gain a House seat, and Texas will gain four -- nine states will lose a House seat, and Ohio will lose two. Overall, states carried by John McCain in 2008 will gain a net seven seats (and electoral votes), and states carried by Barack Obama will lose seven...

Democrats are threatened with losing many governorships and legislative chambers, and their chances of taking over many from the Republicans look dismal... This would be an even better redistricting cycle for Republicans than the one following the 2000 Census, which was their best in 50 years. It could move one to two dozen House seats into the Republican column...

In the end, the voters get a say. But in an otherwise close election, redistricting can determine control of the House. And that can make an enormous difference in legislative outcomes, as it has during the past decade. The unpopularity of the Obama Democrats' policies seems sure to hurt the party this year. Redistricting seems likely to extend the pain for several more election cycles.

Michael Barone, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 26, 2010 American "Islamophobia" -- The MSM/Left-Liberal Contribution

Both Time Magazine and the Washington Post have made much of a poll in which 25 percent of those surveyed said that most Muslim-Americans are not patriotic. Time and Post assume that this view is incorrect and consider the poll result evidence of America's Islamophobia. But what might cause 25 percent of Americans to believe that most Muslim-Americans aren't patriots? It seems unlikely that they base this conclusion on the acts of obvious outliers, such as the Fort Hood assassin. Moreover, many Americans don't know enough Muslims sufficiently well to form a conclusion regarding their level of patriotism based on personal observation. Nor, to my knowledge, is there is any publicly available empirical study of Muslim-American patriotism.

Under these conditions, perhaps the most reasonable way to assess the patriotism of Muslim-Americans, if asked to think about the issue, is through the statements of those who lead and/or purport to speak for Muslims in this country. Here, we must rely mainly on the mainstream media to identify Muslim leaders and spokesmen, and to help us locate them on the continuum of Muslim-American thought. Right now, the most prominent such leader is probably Faisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero Mosque... The MSM has trotted out both Rauf and his wife to address hot button Muslim related issues over the years.

Rauf is no sane person's idea of an American patriot. Americans have known for some time now that he considers America an accomplice to 9/11. And recently, thanks to Pamela Geller, we learned that Rauf thinks America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda. This is not ordinary, patriotic dissent; this is anti-Americanism at its worst. Rauf's prominence doesn't necessarily mean that most Muslim-Americans share his extreme views. Neither does the fact that our government sends him abroad. It's possible that the Bush and Obama administrations didn't vet him well. Alternatively, (though I hope this isn't the case) the State Department might have wanted to use a harsh critic of the U.S. to cultivate better relations with Muslim countries on the theory that he would be more credible than a Muslim-American patriot.

But if Rauf doesn't speak for most Muslim-Americans on questions of American goodness, or lack thereof, the MSM has provided no signal of this. Instead, from what I've seen, he is typically portrayed as a moderate Muslim. Now, it may be true that, by global Muslim standards, Rauf does occupy some sort of middle ground position - he holds America in contempt but does not want to kill Americans. But if Rauf is a moderate Muslim-American by American standards - i.e., someone in the mainstream of Muslim American thought - then it follows that most Muslim-Americans hold views similar to his. This would mean, in turn, that most Muslim-Americans are not patriotic.

Thus, if the mainstream media and other left-liberals want to strike a blow for interfaith faith understanding and against Islamophobia, they should take the position that Rauf is not a moderate Muslim. But that would undermine the case for building the Ground Zero Mosque. For many in the mainstream media and other left-liberals, this in-your-face objective trumps all other considerations. And for some, Rauf's view of America may be too close to their own for them to confess its immoderate nature.

Paul, PowerlineBlog August 25, 2010 The Emerging Wedge Between Democrats And Republicans Now even Democrats are admitting that they may lose the House entirely. Maybe this is why ... voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 of the important issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen. Those issues would be education, Iraq, the economy, healthcare, social security, government ethics, national security, Afghanistan, taxes and immigration... (W)hat is becoming the "wedge issue" between Democrats and Republicans? The growing gap between government and private sector workers. In case you missed John Boehner's speech the other day, he points out the illogic behind the growing number of government jobs (and their growing salaries) compared to the dwindling numbers of the private sector. He said, "We've seen not just more government jobs, but better-paying ones too .. It's just nonsense to think that taxpayers are subsidizing the fattened salaries and pensions of federal bureaucrats who are out there right now making it harder to create private sector jobs." Republican attempts to freeze federal salaries have all been rejected by the Democrats. There's a big shocker - the Democrats depend on these government hacks to keep them in office. So long as they have their paychecks and smoking breaks and outrageous pension plans, the Democrats have no reason but to keep these people fat and happy.

Stories like this don't help paint a pretty picture for government employees - In Norfolk, Virginia a Community Services Board employee collected a salary with benefits for 12 years and never showed up for work. How does this happen? If you work in the private sector, if you own your own business, can you imagine paying a salary for someone who didn't show up for work? For twelve years! The private marketplace has no room for this level of lunacy. Government clearly does.

Neal Boortz, Nealz Nuze August 27, 2010

`Dorsal Fins Surround White House`

You've got to wonder when White House political guru David Axelrod will look at the churning pools of poll data and, like Chief Brody in "Jaws," say: "We're gonna need a bigger boat." The analogy isn't quite right, because in the movie, the shark ultimately loses. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Barack Obama and Axelrod victoriously paddle away on the flotsam of their own political wreckage. But in one sense, the analogy works just fine: This White House is rudderlessly lost at sea and inadequate to the challenges it faces.

At the beginning of the year, retiring seven-term Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., recounted a conversation he had with the president. Obama's unrelenting push for health-care reform in the face of public opposition reminded Berry of the Clinton-era missteps that led to the Republican rout of the Democrats in 1994. "I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn't want to see it again because we know how it comes out," Berry told a newspaper.

Or, to quote Brody in "Jaws 2": "But I'm telling you, and I'm telling everybody at this table that that's a shark! And I know what a shark looks like, because I've seen one up close. And you'd better do something about this one, because I don't intend to go through that hell again!" Convinced that his popularity was eternal, Obama responded by saying, yes, but there's a "big difference" between 1994 and 2010, and that big difference is "you've got me." The funny thing is, Obama might have been right. Because things might be much worse for Democrats in 2010 than they were in 1994 -- and the big difference might well be Barack Obama...

What's clear right now is that the president who claimed to be the personification of a world-historical moment has clearly misread his mandate, the mood and the moment. He's lost at sea, and not even a bigger boat will save him.

Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online

August 27, 2010 Why Does Obama Tell Muslims America Is Nation Of 'Non-Believers'?

Why has President Barack Obama on at least two occasions told specifically Muslim audiences that America is a nation of -- among other things -- "non-believers"? The Pledge of Allegiance says America is one nation under God, our national motto says in God we trust, the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and since the time of George Washington our presidents have placed their left hands on the Bible as they raise their right hands and swear to defend our Constitution...

The Census Bureau's official Statistical Abstract of the United States says a miniscule 0.7 percent of American adults -- or 1,621,000 out of 228,182,000 -- are atheists. If you accept the Pew Hispanic Center's March 2005 estimate that there were 11 million illegal aliens in the United States back then -- and assume for the sake of argument there are still roughly that many today after another half decade of unsecured borders -- then a person randomly passing you on an American street is about seven times more likely to be a foreign national illegally residing here than an atheist...

On Aug. 13, hosting an Iftar dinner for Muslim guests at the White House, Obama not only suggested that he approved the building of a mosque next door to Ground Zero in New York, but he also said this: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers." Is Obama's repeated declaration -- including to Muslim audiences -- that America is, among other things, a nation of "non-believers" truly accurate? Does it comport with Obama's professed strategy of reaching out to the Islamic world and improving America's standing there by increasing understanding of our true nature as a nation? The answers are: No and no.

In America, we have no established religion, and the First Amendment guarantees its free exercise, but we are and always have been an expressly God-fearing nation. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote of our God-given rights in the Declaration, later said in his "Notes on the State of Virginia": "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"...

Certainly, Obama is not purposefully seeking to diminish America's standing in the Muslim world. But his words -- on their face -- seek to diminish God's standing in America.

Terry Jeffrey, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 25, 2010 Is This What Obama Intended?

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses…now is not that time. And that's a message that I intend to send directly to them…" Those words were uttered by our President on January 29th of 2009. He was reacting to the news that some American corporations, even some that had received government “bailout” funds, had both posted profits, and had paid bonuses to their executives. And those were extraordinary words. They implied that, so far as President Obama is concerned, there are times when it is appropriate for American companies to not earn a profit, and times when it is appropriate for workers to not be compensated for their labor.

And now, after twenty months of our government’s policies being driven by Barack Obama’s very counterintuitive economic thinking, and with the national unemployment average approaching ten percent, I’m left wondering: is this what our President intended?... Some twenty months in to his presidency, Barack Obama apparently feels it is necessary to reassure Americans that he still wants a robust U.S. economy, and that he actually wants America to be “first” (we still are “first,” by the way – but that’s beside the point). It’s not surprising that Americans have doubts about our President’s support of America, but again I’m left wondering: is this what President Obama intended?

For as long as Barack Obama has been a household name, he has devoted much of his time and energy to maligning American free enterprise. While campaigning for the presidency, Senator Obama traversed the country preaching, among other things, his economic doctrines. And the recurrent themes from these economic messages were quite clear: A) our nation’s greatest enemies were not terrorists or hostile nations, but American corporations; B) American oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and businesses that “shipped jobs overseas,” were among the worst fenders; and C) victory over these enemies would not be achieved until he, himself, could control these various sectors of our economy. Recall that in 2008, global oil prices spiked upward, creating a sharp rise in gasoline prices, and candidate Obama’s “solution” to the problem of four dollar-a-gallon gasoline was to raise taxes on oil companies.

Anyone with the most limited appreciation of free market economics knows that raising taxes on product producers doesn’t lead to a lower price on the product (producers pass along the cost of the tax to their consumers by adding it into the pricing of their product). But lowering the cost of gasoline wasn’t necessarily Senator Obama’s goal, given that the other part of his “plan” was to use the revenue taken from the oil companies in the form of a “tax increase” to give “working Americans” a “voucher” that they could use for oil and gasoline purchases... (T)here is nothing “incoherent” about Barack Obama. He is consistent with his quest for control. Our President has demonstrated that, for him, it’s not about being “for” or “against” “the banks,” or “Wall Street,” or “Main Street” – it’s about seizing power over private affairs, and he will achieve that power by what ever means necessary.

Slumping economy or not, the truth is abundantly clear: our President is achieving precisely what he intended.

Austin Hill, TownHall August 22, 2010

Scaring White People

With polls showing that about 70 percent of Americans believe building an Islamic cultural center containing a mosque just two blocks away from Ground Zero is inappropriate, the far left is once again on the run. Failing with the bogus "freedom of religion" argument, the crew that is offended by the manger scene at Christmas is now saying the mosque controversy is another attempt to "scare white people." Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has put forth that loopy argument from his second home: MSNBC.

You may remember that the radical left designated the Shirley Sherrod story, the ACORN scandal, the New Black Panther Party-voting booth-Justice Department situation and the resignation of White House "green jobs" czar Van Jones as attempts to scare white Americans. I don't know about you, but I'm white and those stories did not frighten me. I hope I'm not out of the white loop. But here's a key question: Why are Howard Dean and Sen. Harry Reid trying to scare white people? Those committed liberals both believe the mosque should be built somewhere else. Why are these guys trying to frighten Caucasians, and what can we do to stop them? It is simply unfair to have the Senate majority leader and the former governor of Vermont running around trying to instill fear into white guys and gals. This must stop.

What is somewhat scary is that the far-left media continue to peddle this stuff even in the face of economic disaster. CNN and MSNBC are in deep ratings trouble. Newsweek magazine recently sold for one dollar, and Time is having a tough go of it, as well. Air America is bankrupt. The New York Times and The Washington Post are not nearly as successful or influential as they used to be. Not all of those concerns are far left, but they do have an ideological kinship with the loons. It's just a matter of degree. Meanwhile, the anti-liberal Fox News Channel and The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is conservative, are both doing very well. (Full disclosure: I work for Fox News, whose parent company, News Corporation, also owns The Wall Street Journal.)

It is because of situations like the Ground Zero mosque that the far left has lost credibility, as well as viability. Americans are not stupid. They understand that New York City has more than 100 mosques. One more located near the site where fanatical Muslims murdered thousands of innocent people is certainly not necessary -- especially considering the building would offend thousands of people who lost loved ones on 9/11. Why would anyone want to offend them? Paging President Obama.

Bill O'Reilly, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 26, 2010 Where Are The New Jobs?

"Corporate profits are soaring. Companies are sitting on billions of dollars of cash. And still, they've yet to amp up hiring or make major investments." So writes The Washington Post about the recession's stubborn refusal to go away. The statisticians at the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the Great Recession over -- but tell that to people who can't find jobs. Today, businesses replace equipment and inventory, but they are reluctant to hire new workers. Investment that does occur aims at replacing the use of labor by adopting advanced technology. In a growing economy, that's a sign of progress. Freed-up workers are then available for new projects. But lately, those new projects aren't being launched...

Why isn't the economy recovering? After previous recessions, unemployment didn't get stuck at close to 10 percent. If left alone, the economy can and does heal itself, as the mistakes of the previous inflationary boom are corrected. The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden.

In at least three big areas -- health insurance, financial regulation and taxes -- no one can know what will happen. New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers... Nothing more effectively freezes business in place than what economist and historian Robert Higgs calls "regime uncertainty."...

Uncertainty created by Obama's legislative "successes" are comparable to the Depression and World War II? This does not bode well for job growth. Higgs says: "Unless the government acts soon to resolve the looming uncertainties about the half-dozen greatest threats of policy harm to business, investors will remain for the most part on the sideline ... consuming wealth that might otherwise have been invested."

John Stossel, TownHall

August 25, 2010 To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – August 30, 2010

gorightgirl — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:54:48 +0000

It's All About Trust: Voters Trust Republicans **52 percent of U.S. voters trust Republicans to handle tax issues, 36 percent trust Democrats. **49 percent trust Republicans to handle national security, 37 percent trust Democrats. **48 percent trust Republicans to handle health care, 40 percent trust Democrats. **47 percent trust Republicans to handle the economy, 39 percent trust Democrats. **44 percent trust Republicans to handle immigration, 35 percent trust Democrats. Source: A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Aug. 19,20, 23 and 24. Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway August 26, 2010

Why Is Obama Letting Non-Citizens Get Away With Voting?

As Matt Mayer vividly describes in a new Heritage Web Memo, the Obama administration is implementing a de facto amnesty that will allow the vast majority of illegal aliens to remain in the United States without being disturbed by the Department of Homeland Security or any attempts to deport them. We can now add one more general amnesty that the administration is apparently extending – no prosecution of illegal voting by noncitizens and a green light to becoming a citizen even if you have violated federal law.

FOX News is reporting that DHS was informed by the county elections administration in Putnam County, Tennessee, about an immigrant in the U.S. on a work visa who registered and voted in the 2004 election. This immigrant has now applied to become a citizen. The only interest that DHS seemed to have in this information from Putnam County was asking the immigrant to submit evidence that he has been removed from the voter rolls. The letter also asks the immigrant, in an amazing example of bureaucratic incompetence, to explain when he “discovered” that he was “not a United States Citizen.” This would be funny if it did not illustrate such a profound lack of common sense. Continue reading...

Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation August 27, 2010

The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Government In US History

There is an instinctive conclusion among the American public that President Obama's stimulus package has failed to create a sustained recovery. Unemployment has increased, not declined; consumers have retrenched; housing starts have crashed along with mortgage applications; and there is a fear that a double-dip recession may very well be in the pipeline. The public perception, reflected in Pew Research/National Journal polls, is that the measures to combat the Great Recession have mostly helped large banks and financial institutions, and that's a view common to Republicans (75 percent) and Democrats (73 percent). Only one third of either political leaning thinks government policies have done a great deal or a fair amount for the poor...

People see the stimulus, fashioned and passed by Congress in such a hurry, as a metaphor for wasted money. They are highly critical about the lack of discipline among our political leaders. The question that naturally arises is how to forestall a long-term economic decline...

(W)hile many think that the only way to revive the economy and to inject more money into it is through governmental spending, the general feeling is that we can't afford that right now. The government will be writing more IOUs on top of those we already can't afford. Why plan a second stimulus if the first stimulus couldn't prevent high unemployment?... Obama must know that if he doesn't address this, he will be the president who drove us toward a debt crisis. And so too must Congress, for both have now participated in the most fiscally irresponsible government in American history.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman, US News & World Report August 26, 2010

`Debt's Dangers`

Warnings about America's impending financial car wreck are being sounded, loud and clear. The only question is whether those driving the car will slam on the brakes before it's too late. No doubt alarmed at the headlong plunge into fiscal irresponsibility by both the White House and the Democrat-dominated Congress, Wall Street is starting to fret that the recklessness could touch off another financial crisis.

On Thursday, Standard & Poor's said action is needed soon if the U.S. is to keep the much-coveted AAA bond rating that lets the government borrow in global markets at the lowest rates possible. S&P's warning came just days after Morgan Stanley asserted that the U.S., along with a number of other developed nations, is likely to default on some debt. Such defaults are "inevitable," it said, given the growing number of retirees in developed nations who will have to be taken care of by a shrinking pool of workers. The sovereign debt crisis "is not over," said the investment bank's Arnaud Mares, and that includes in the U.S.

What worries Wall Street is a public debt-to-GDP ratio of around 53%. That's high enough as it is, but it's about to go a lot higher. By 2020, recent data suggest, the ratio will top 100% — a red line that virtually all economists agree is dangerous.

In raw numbers, we owed roughly $7.5 trillion at the start of this year. By 2020 that explodes to $23.5 trillion, according to an analysis of Congressional Budget Office data by economist Brian Riedl. What do these numbers mean? To begin with, we spend $187 billion a year, or 1.3% of GDP, to pay our debts now. Just 10 years from now, that will surge to $1.1 trillion, or 4.8% of estimated GDP. Fiscally speaking, we'll be gasping for air.

Debt can be a good thing, but in big doses it's poison. If, as some fear, the U.S. should simply say it can't pay its debts and default — or do a de facto default by printing money to retire our debt — the consequences would be dire. No nation would want our bonds in their portfolios. To entice them to buy, we'd have to offer a much higher risk premium — that is, higher interest rates. That means our debt service could go even higher, squeezing out even more of our economy's spending.

The dollar would implode, and prices for foreign goods — which now make up 15% of our economy — would soar. Private investment would shrink and, along with it, private-sector GDP. Americans' standard of living, once the envy of the world, would recede into the pack of mediocre, government-run nations.

It doesn't have to be this way. All this is due to unrestrained spending. The federal government now spends about $29,000 per household. That will rise to $38,000 by 2020. If you think "the rich" will, or can, pay for it all, think again. Unless we begin to control spending, we can kiss our American lifestyles goodbye. It's that simple.

Sadly, the White House is unwilling to see reality. Which may explain why, as our debts mount to ruinous heights, Vice President Joe Biden — President Obama's point man on the recovery — can burble, "This is a chance to do something big, man!" Yeah, man, something big — like wreck a country.

Editorial, Investor's Business Daily August 26, 2010 Contact Sports

Midterm elections ain't what they used to be. 2010 is no mere "off-year" event, nor is it quiet, inconsequential or dull. Canny candidates are on message and ready to rumble, particularly conservative Marco Rubio, who already has signed on for seven aggressive, debates in his quest for the U.S. Senate seat in Florida. Match one is scheduled for NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 5. "I am the only candidate for Senate who has outlined specific ideas and proposals as a clear alternative to the wrong direction that Washington politicians are taking our country," Mr. Rubio says with a gladiator's relish. "I enthusiastically accept these opportunities to debate my opponents and present Floridians with the clear choice they have between a faithful loyalist of Washington's agenda, a say-and-do anything opportunist who only cares about winning, and the clear, idea-based alternative I am offering." No word yet from his opponents Gov. Charlie Crist and Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, independent and Democrat, respectively.

Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway August 26, 2010 Government Alters Stimulus Sign Policy, Raising More Propaganda Questions In the 18 months following approval of President Obama’s stimulus package, the Department of Transportation required recipients of government funds to post placards touting the economic recovery. As a result, signs prominently featuring the recovery act logo appeared everywhere — by the side of the road, in public transportation stations, as bumper stickers on government vehicles. Then, abruptly, on July 15, the Department of Transportation relaxed its requirements. No longer would government agencies require grant recipients to mount the by-then-familiar signs: They would simply encourage them to do so. The White House website was updated to reflect the change — and, seemingly, to give the impression that signs had never actually been required.

It might just have been a coincidence, but, shortly before the shift in policy, on June 24, Rep. Darrell Issa (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Government Oversight Committee, asked the DOT inspector general to look into the administration’s use of the signs. That request was part of a larger investigation into White House propaganda use. Continue reading...

Tina Korbe, The Heritage Foundation August 27, 2010

`Harry Reid: Praying That History Won't Repeat`

It's axiomatic that the most dangerous place in Washington (perhaps in all America) is between Senator Chuck Schumer and a camera. A barely safer location is being a Democratic leader of the United States Congress. This year, Harry Reid is proving that. Despite having served in public office nearly continuously since 1964, leading the United States Senate majority since 2007, and now having the luxury of facing the controversial former Nevada Assembly member Sharron Angle this November, his chances for reelection remain decidedly dicey. Reid's situation, however, is hardly unique. Since 1950, an unusual number of top Democratic congressional leaders have faced the wrath of irate voters -- and not lived (politically) to tell about it. At least, not from Washington, anyway... Harry Reid may yet return to Washington. But if Reid fails to make that journey, he will not be the first, nor -- though the Beltway may not wish to believe it -- the last. David Pietrusza, American Thinker August 27, 2010 Mosque's Saudi Patron New dots are emerging from the probe into who's behind the Ground Zero mosque, and the radical Muslim Brotherhood is coming into view. While a couple of U.S. nonprofits — the Cordoba Initiative and its sister, the American Society for Muslim Advancement — are coordinating the New York project, they hardly give the full picture. A Saudi charity has sunk more than $300,000 into ASMA. It's called the Kingdom Foundation — headed by Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi prince whose 9/11 relief check was rejected after he blamed the attacks on U.S. foreign policy.

Bin Talal is a major financier of Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the U.S. His foundation is run by Saudi hijabi Muna Abu Sulayman, who appears on ASMA's Web site as one of its "Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow." "Her work," according to her official bio, "focuses on increasing understanding between Islam and the West through establishment of academic centers and programs, both in the Middle East and the United States."

Sulayman, who spends much of her time in the U.S., happens to be the daughter of Dr. AbdulHamid Abu Sulayman, "one of the most important figures in the history of the global Muslim Brotherhood," according to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report. So? The Egypt-based Brotherhood is the parent of Hamas and al-Qaida and the source of most of the jihadi ideology and related terror throughout the world today. Citing its secret U.S. archives, prosecutors say the Brotherhood has a plan to "destroy" America "from within," and is using its agents and front groups in the U.S. to carry out that strategy. Like the mafia, it's highly organized, and uses shells and cutouts to launder money.

Dr. Sulayman's U.S. offices were raided by the feds after 9/11 on suspicion of providing material support to terror groups. An unsealed federal search warrant lists him as chairman and president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT, the Brotherhood's U.S. think tank. In December 2008, IIIT hosted Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Rauf to discuss his Shariah Index Project, which will be housed in the planned 15-story structure. The index will formally rate which governments best follow Islamic law, as practiced by Saudi.

Sulayman succeeded Rauf's late father, Muhammad, as rector of the International Islamic University in Malaysia. Rauf keeps an office in Malaysia, and he's held Shariah project meetings there. Moreover, Rauf's 2004 book on Islam was published in Malaysia under the title, "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11." Dawa is Arabic for proselytizing. In the book, the New York imam calls for a "subsidiary entity within the judiciary" in America that adjudicates on Shariah compliance.

Rauf's father was born in Egypt. Both he and Sulayman studied Islam in Cairo, Brotherhood headquarters. Sulayman is also listed by the feds as secretary of an Islamic school in Virginia called GSISS — at least that's what it used to be called, before it was raided. Now it goes by "Cordoba University." Rauf insists he's a "healer" trying to build "bridges" between Islam and the West. But these radical Brotherhood connections raise new suspicions.

Editorial, Investor's Business Daily August 26, 2010 Why Does UNDP Continue To Aid Repressive Regimes?

A recent story by Fox News provides yet another example of the United Nations Development Program’s refusal to accede to an unfortunate reality: that the organization’s efforts to work with, and through, the world’s most despotic regimes are regularly twisted to serve the goals of the regime rather than the people suffering under their rule. According to the story: "An independent assessment of a $100 million United Nations Development Program aid effort in Burma calls it ‘disappointing,’ and ‘unsatisfactory,’ and suggests that major portions of the program be discontinued next year. Nonetheless, the director of UNDP intends to keep it alive with as-yet unspecified fixes." Continue reading...

Brett Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation August 27, 2010 President Obama's Compulsive Appeasement Disorder With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the U.S. became the world's only superpower -- Uncle Sam would say, "Jump," and the response would be, "How high?" This has not continued; if anything, on today's world stage, Uncle Sam increasingly resembles Rodney "I don't get no respect" Dangerfield. We cannot even kill off a few ragtag third-world pirates, let alone impose our will on Iran or make Hugo Chávez nervous. There's a simple explanation: we are no longer feared. Superpowers of yesteryear, going back to the Greeks and Romans, were feared for a reason -- they leveled a city to make an example. Today, by contrast, Uncle Sam relies on cajoling, bribery (think North Korea), entreating puny leaders of inchoate states (special envoys to the PLO's Mahmoud Abbas) and otherwise playing weak hands. We have gone from resolve to U.N. resolution. We've forgotten Machiavelli's sage advice: since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved... Saul Alinsky was a genius on intimidating American corporations or stealing elections, but these lessons are immaterial when confronting tyrants starving and beheading their enemies. This wimp quality is most apparent when Obama travels abroad to "represent" the U.S. Make no mistake: foreign leaders scrutinize these events to size up the president. Perhaps his troubled childhood ingrained in him the habit of appeasing bullies. As one peruses his speeches, there is absolutely nothing in them suggesting woe to those who cross Uncle Sam. At bottom, he is asking the world to like America, please, pretty please, and if you do, I'll be your best friend. This solicitation might fly in Norway when Peace Prizes are awarded, but it will bomb in Iran... (H)is June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo would remove all doubt regarding Obama's toughness. It was an exercise in self-humiliation, as if the assembled Muslims, not the U.S., were the superpower. The president asserted, "For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress." He then claimed some remarkable accomplishments for Islam: the order of algebra, the magnetic compass, a mastery of pens and printing, wondrous architecture, plus timeless poetry and cherished music. Islam was also hailed for its religious tolerance and racial equality. As for Muslims in America, they have stood for civil rights and excelled in sports. And just to make sure that his audience grasped America's military might, Obama explained how we plan to spend billions on schools and hospitals in Pakistan and Afghanistan while pulling our troops out of Iraq by 2012. These are hardly worlds to inspire fear, let alone respect... There is nothing to contradict this personal wimpiness. To exaggerate only slightly, if Obama really gets angry, he may dispatch his failed political rival Secretary of State (or worse, the fearsome Joe Biden) to warn the bad guys that unless they stop hurting Uncle Sam, they're going to get stockings of coal next season (Christmas or holidays obviously constitute impermissible offensiveness). What would Teddy Roosevelt say?

Robert Weissberg, American Thinker August 27, 2010 The Busy Border

"Statistics show that human smuggling continues to be a crisis on the nation's southern border. And the problem is only going to get worse as a result of the Obama administration's hostility to the strong enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, especially in Arizona," says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who has reason to fret. His watchdog group has obtained documents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection detailing numbers from Arizona's "Tucson Sector" that covers 262 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.

Last year, 70,328 persons were "smuggled and apprehended" in this area alone; 963 smugglers were identified, while 599 were deported. More than 17,000 immigration infractions were referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution. But the documents also revealed that the apprehended population known as "other than Mexicans" caught in the area is rising, with a fivefold increase in those from the People's Republic of China - from 15 in 2008 to 79 last year - plus "significant increases" in Romanians, as well.

Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway August 26, 2010 Crying Bigotry: Last Refuge Of The Liberal

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the 40-year liberal ascendancy that James Carville predicted into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" — this part is less remembered — "antipathy toward people who aren't like them." That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities — often lopsided majorities — oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, ObamaCare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a Ground Zero mosque.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that pre-empts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and SB 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays — particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the Ground Zero mosque. The intelligentsia are near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" — blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims — a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

Charles Krauthammer, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 26, 2010 To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – August 26, 2010

gorightgirl — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:51:08 +0000

Socialism=Failure, Ignorance, & Envy

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Bush More Popular Than Obama In Key Districts

Two years after Democrats rode Barack Obama's coattails into office, senior Democratic strategists are characterizing the president as a "walking radioactive disaster." Ah, change. According to The Hotline, Obama's approval ratings in key congressional districts are so disastrous for Dem incumbents, the party's strategy is for their own people to run away from Obama's presidency. In fact, their own polling is telling them that Pres. Bush--the Left's favorite pi ?ata--is more popular than Obama: "The advice from Democratic consultants and strategists is almost unanimous: Run away from the president, and fast. A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in "Frontline" districts -- seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear."

Meredith Jessup, TownHall.com Blog

August 20, 2010

Barney Frank Comes Home To Facts

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong. But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.” When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied: “Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing.”...

Some would say Frank’s mea culpa is politically motivated in advance of an election where bailout nation and big government are public enemies number one and two. Of course, poll after poll shows that the $150 billion Fan-Fred bailout, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could rise to $400 billion, is detested by voters and taxpayers everywhere.

In fact, these failed government agencies are in such bad shape that they can’t even pay Uncle Sam the dividends owed under the conservatorship deal reached two years ago. That’s right. In order to pay a $1.8 billion dividend on Treasury department stock, Fan and Fred had to borrow $1.5 billion from -- you guessed it -- the Treasury... Voters are on to all this. So politics may indeed be motivating Barney Frank’s turnaround...

I think Chairman Frank watched these government behemoths descend into hell and then witnessed the financial catastrophe that ensued. And I think he has come to realize that the whole system of federal affordable-housing mandates that was central to the real-estate collapse -- including the mandates on Fannie and Freddie and the myriad bad decisions made by private banks and other lenders in response to the government’s overreach -- simply needs to be abolished... We will have to see if Congress really does say good-bye to Fan and Fred, as Republicans like Jeb Hensarling are advocating. Equally important, we will have to see if the federal affordable-housing mandates created by Congress and implemented by HUD and banking regulators are similarly repealed.

And then we will have to see if reformed federally guaranteed housing insurance includes larger down-payments, stricter underwriting standards, and greater reliance on private capital markets, lenders, and insurers. In other words, we need to see if housing will be restored to a market-based system and removed from the government-backed system that has proved so disastrous. The broader lesson here is that government planning doesn’t work...

Larry Kudlow, Nationally Syndicated Columnist

August 21, 2010

`'Anti-Muslim' Attacker Works For Pro Cordoba Mosque Group`

You cannot make this stuff up. Politico reports today that the man who attacks a Muslim cab driver in NYC apparently as an anti-Muslim act, works for a group supporting the building of the mosque at ground zero. "The apparent anti-Muslim assault on a New York city cabbie by a manshouting "Assalamu Alaikum. Consider this a checkpoint" produced an immediate round of recriminations over its connection to opposition to a New York Islamic Center and an apparent rising tide of Islamophobia. But as often at the intersection of politics and violent crime, the story doesn't appear to fit any easy stereotype: The alleged assailant, Michael Enright, is - according to his Facebook profile and the website of the left-leaning media organization Intersections International - a student at the School of Visual Arts and a volunteer for Intersections, which recently produced a statement of support for the Park51 project, and is funded by the mainstream, liberal Collegiate Church of New York."

Make sure you cite this when the inevitable blame the opponents charges fall from the pens of the media.

Clarice Feldman, American Thinker

August 25, 2010

`That Mosqued Man`

The campaign to label anyone who opposes the Ground Zero mosque as racist and Islamophobic is in full flight. Of course, this allows the media to avert their gaze from what's really important. Last week, MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell said opponents of a mosque going up just north of where Muslim terrorists massacred thousands are acting "like the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people." Former TV talk-show host Dick Cavett weighed in, saying he was "genuinely ashamed of us" over the mosque issue. "It doesn't take much, it seems, to lift the lid and let our home-grown racism and bigotry overflow," he wrote in a New York Times blog headlined, "Real Americans, Please Stand Up." The media effort hasn't let up. On Monday, Time's Mark Halperin condescendingly told families of 9/11 victims who don't want the mosque built that they need to be led "through a discussion." The magazine itself asks on its Aug. 30 cover "Is America Islamophobic?" The answer, of course, is "yes." Katie Couric of CBS also weighed in, saying "we cannot let fear and rage tear down the towers of our core American values."

As media elitists condemn the 68% of Americans who oppose building a mosque at Ground Zero, they ignore the fact that the man behind the mosque, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, is no moderate "bridge-builder" searching for common ground with America. Moderate? Rauf says the U.S. "has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims." He also claims U.S. "policies were an accessory to" 9/11 and that "in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."

Rauf's reputed links to the Muslim Brotherhood are a problem. That group insists members "understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within" and sabotaging "its miserable house." A real moderate should at least denounce Hamas, a terrorist group. Rauf won't. Yet, the mainstream media have been filled with mostly sympathetic profiles of Rauf's "moderation."

Why can't the media be bothered to do their job? Maybe it's because they're too busy slandering the public.

Editorial, Investor's Business Daily

August 24, 2010

Labor Unions Pitch A Fit

Labor union leaders in New York are upset with Democrats. Why is that? Because these Democrats dared to accept "blood money" from the evil, hideous WalMart. Remember that WalMart does not have unionized employees, therefore they are anti-worker, in the eyes of a union goon. The reason why WalMart is targeted is obvious .. it employees so many people, people that could be union members if it weren't for evil management! By the way ... I shop at Wal-Mart. I love Wal-Mart. I bought my airplane with money I saved shopping at Wal-Mart...

Neal Boortz, Nealz Nuze

August 25, 2010

President Obama & Union Leaders Continue To Advocate For Job-Killing Legislation

In spite of the fact that our nation's economy is struggling and talk of a meaningful recovery has halted, both President Obama and Big Labor bosses continue to advocate for the Employee 'Forced' Choice Act (EFCA), legislation economists believe would result in massive job loss and seriously harm our nation's top job creators, small businesses. Due to the burdens and restrictions it would place on employers, EFCA would result in 600,000 lost jobs in one year alone, while at the same time, saddling small businesses with debts and liabilities forcing many to close their doors or move overseas. As a result, for well over a year, nearly every major business organization in the country has been calling on the Obama Administration and Congress to table the job-killing legislation and focus on measures that will grow the economy and stimulate hiring. Unfortunately, Big Labor's millions appear to have more influence with politicians in Washington, D.C. than do the voices of their constituents. President Obama recently re-stated his support for EFCA telling the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Executive Council that "we are going to keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act."...

This leads one to ask, why would the President say in one breath job creation is his top priority and in the next espouse having bureaucrats enact job-killing policies? The answer is simple, "payback." Obama owes these same union bosses for having helped elect him in 2008 when Big Labor spent nearly half a billion dollars to propel him into office. And these same bosses have said very clearly and on the record, they expect a return on that investment and have put politicians on notice that they had better hold up their end of the bargain...

Katie Gage, TownHall

August 21, 2010

`Mr. Mayor, Have You No Shame?`

Why Michael Bloomberg is imitating Joe McCarthy. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has an op-ed in today's New York Post defending the Ground Zero mosque. Actually, the Post informs us, it's an adaptation of "Bloomberg's prepared remarks for his annual Ramadan celebration at Gracie Mansion yesterday." It is a low performance. Bloomberg panders to his audience by slandering the two-thirds or so of Americans who take offense at the idea of a fancy new mosque near the site of an Islamic supremacist atrocity: "Islam did not attack the World Trade Center--al Qaeda did. To implicate all of Islam for the actions of a few who twisted a great religion is unfair and un-American." The substance of this statement is unremarkable: Obviously it is wrong to implicate all of Islam in the 9/11 attacks.

But the mayor employs scurrilous McCarthyite rhetoric in an attempt to inflame emotions and divert attention from a point that should be equally obvious: The Ground Zero mosque planners have implicated themselves by seeking to exploit the symbolism of the site, whatever their purpose is in doing so.

James Taranto, Best of the Web Today

August 25, 2010

Races To Root For

A hodgepodge of interesting polls came out this week, most notably the Harry Reid / Sharron Angle spread, showing the Reid's lead decrease from 2.5 percent to 1.5 percent amidst an onslaught of television advertising from Angle's side. That was a RealClearPolitics poll average, and it says a lot about the safety of one of the most powerful men in Washington. RealClearPolitics also showed Rand Paul’s lead over Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway increase from 6.5 percent to 8.2 percent in the Senate race. As for the Pennsylvania Senate race, Congressman Pat Toomey saw a big jump in his lead over Rep. Joe Sestak, from 2 percent to a 5.6. Let's not forget Nathan Deal leading Roy Barnes in the Georgia Governor's race.

Meredith [Jessup], highlighted "The latest numbers coming out of Arkansas are brutal for Democrat incumbent/Obamacare supporter Sen. Blanche Lincoln: Republican John Boozman is leading the race, 65-27." Altogether, its mostly good news for the GOP, with a few races still on the edge but many more that should keep you optimistic.

Jillian Bandes, TownHall.com Blog

August 20, 2010

Mike Malloy Et Al

Among other things, liberal pundits have called conservatives "terrorists" without having to answer for their vicious language - until now. The Media Research Center has tracked the trends and offered an array of on-the-record incidents where left-leaners have struck at conservative rivals early and often. "We now have proof that the real hate is being spread by liberal talk-show hosts with no repercussion from the media. Wishing for the death of Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh goes ignored by the so-called 'news' media. Accusing conservatives of wishing to kill President Obama goes ignored as well," says the center's founder Brent Bozell. "Look. We have the proof. We have their words on record. The media must tell the truth about these vile offenders, else they participate in outright hypocrisy."

Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway

August 24, 2010

A Matter Of APpearance

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, is on vacation, and the Associated Press's Glenn Johnson reports from Vineyard Haven, Mass., the president's latest vacation spot, on Gibbs deputy Bill Burton, who isn't on vacation: "For two weeks, Burton is standing in for the vacationing Gibbs, serving as the public face of the White House. That's allowed Burton to gain stature on one of the key indices in Washington: proximity to power. Just 33 years old, the Buffalo, N.Y., native has already worked in three presidential campaigns and on Capitol Hill. He's seen as a top contender to be White House press secretary if Gibbs moves on. Burton--like Obama, the son of a black father and white mother--appears to be the first African-American to take the podium and speak on behalf of the president.

Burton "appears to be the first African-American" in that role? A curious formulation, that. Is Johnson literally making an observation about Burton's skin color, or is this just the reporter's high-sounding way of saying he assumes Burton is the first and is too lazy to find out if it's true?

James Taranto, Best of the Web Today

August 25, 2010

Hamstringing Nonprofits That Disagree With The Obama Administration

Is the IRS discriminating against nonprofit organizations that disagree with Obama administration policies? A lawsuit against the IRS filed by the pro-Israel group Z-Street alleges that, "An IRS agent told Z STREET's lawyers that the application was delayed because of a Special Israel Policy that requires more intense scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current Administration. This is a chilling matter. I hope that there is a recording of the alleged comments."

Thomas Lifson, American Thinker

August 25, 2010

College Students May Lose Health Care Option Under Obamacare

Health care isn’t something most students worry about. Government stats show about 80 percent of college students are covered under a parents’ plan. For them, Obamacare may mean they can keep the insurance they already have for a few years beyond college, but it won’t affect the coverage they carry during school. But what about kids without parental coverage? The new law’s requirement that insurance cover children up to age 26 won’t make any difference for them... Continue reading...

Kathryn Nix, The Heritage Foundation

August 25, 2010

`Political Ad Of The Day`

Congressional Democrats are staring into an abyss in November. Few deserve defeat more than Barney Frank, whose fingerprints are all over the subprime mortgage crisis. Yet Frank's district, comprising Boston's Back Bay and adjacent neighborhoods, is one of the most liberal in America. Voters there returned him to Congress even after the revelation that his live-in boyfriend was running a gay escort service out of his apartment. A subsequent boyfriend was a senior executive at Fannie Mae in the period during which Frank vigorously defended Fannie, while pushing banks to lend more to uncreditworthy home buyers. Could Frank be defeated in a wave election? It looks very much as if he could, based on Frank's own behavior. Check out this ad from his opponent. Sean Bielat: Video: 53 Seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC88oox9TBo&feature=player_embedded

Thomas Lifson, American Thinker

August 25, 2010

White House Disappointed With America...Again!

This morning, the U.S. State Department announced that the U.S. had submitted its “Report of the United States of America” to the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights. This report was submitted as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) conducted by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). In November, the U.S. Administration will formally present the findings of its report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Judging from the content of the U.S. report, that November presentation will consist of much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the inadequacy of America.

The U.S. report is revealing of how the current administration views the American people and America’s place in the world. The first section of the report (entitled “A more perfect union, a more perfect world”) begins by quoting the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and Obama White House documents, including President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Though presented as coherent and harmonious thoughts, the intellectual inconsistency among these documents is striking. Continue reading...

Marion Smith, The Heritage Foundation

August 24, 2010

Scratch 2012

The nation is in such chaos that some already have suggested that President Obama is comfortable serving only a single term in office. "Maybe Michelle and Barack just assume the president is not going to be re-elected, so why bother to keep up pretenses?" says Pajamas Media founder Roger Simon.

Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway

August 24, 2010

Ground Zero Mosque: The Real Issue

The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be -- as many mosques throughout the nation are -- a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia law, with its requirement of jihad and violence, that is the nub of the issue. There is a global effort to advance Sharia law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia compliant funds, which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia index that rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims. Not only is Sharia law a vicious anti-female code that orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent jihad is as inherent in Sharia law as revolution is in communist doctrine.

But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy found that 20 percent of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80 percent are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of jihad and its inevitable concomitant -- terrorism.

Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate. President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.

Politically, President Obama's... He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans -- the mosque and opposition to Arizona's immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law, but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?...

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Nationally Syndicated Columnists

August 21, 2010

To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – August 25, 2010

gorightgirl — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:10:40 +0000

Socialism: Philosophy Of Failure

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."

Winston Churchill, (1874-1965) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1948

Looking Very Red

Tweet, baby tweet. A new George Washington University and New York University analysis finds Republican senators have sharper social-media skills than Democrats. Researchers evaluated and ranked the "online competence" of 100 senators based on their websites, Facebook presence and Twitter followings to find that Republicans rank an average 5.5 points higher on the Web applause meter than their colleagues across the aisle.

Seven out of 100 senators ranked "genius," the highest level of digital competence; out of those, seven are Republican. Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, has the greatest "digital velocity" - acquiring the approval and allegiance of many followers - of any senator. "Social media gives voice to peoples preferences and intentions, demonstrating the affinity for candidates and ideas. As a forward-looking indicator, social-media following may be a crystal ball for what will happen in the voting booth this November, and its looking very red," says Scott Galloway, a marketing professor on the New York campus who led the study.

Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway

August 24, 2010

Obama Is Dukakis, Not Carter

The Weekly Standard's Noemie Emery argues persuasively that Obama should be compared to Dukakis, not Carter, concluding:

"The first America tends to make the finer sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes," says the New York Times's Ross Douthat. This is a nice point, and leads one to further comparisons: The first America is full of itself and the second one isn't; the first America is filled with Ambinder's "modernists, seculars, [and] suburban couples who believe in the virtues of tolerance," while the second is filled with "f-ing NASCAR retards" (as Eric Alterman of the Nation puts it).

"The first thinks Newsweek helps keep the culture from darkness and the second knows why it had to be sold for one dollar; the first thinks imams need their sensibilities coddled and those of Catholics, Jews, veterans, and evangelicals can be trashed with impunity; while the second believes this is mad. The second America thinks assault, rape, and murder are serious crimes that merit harsh punishment; the first America thinks these things disturb white Americans only if and when the assailants in question are black.

"The second America was ready in the summer of 1988 to elect Michael Dukakis (Greek name, Jewish wife, and the rest of it), and backed off when it came to know more about him. It did, however, elect Barack Obama (middle name of "Hussein" and the rest of it), and is right now repenting as it wakes up to reality: He is not FDR, JFK, or the liberal Reagan, but Michael Dukakis. Which is not what was wanted at all.

Clarice Feldman, American Thinker

August 24, 2010

`L.A.'s 'Taj Mahal' School's Real Cost`

`For anyone who ever doubted bureaucrats' ability to spend, one need look only at Los Angeles' newest public school, the most expensive ever built. If only the education inside was as rich. With a price tag of $578 million, the new Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools is an impressive building — perhaps indicative of what some call the Los Angeles Unified School District's edifice complex.`

Critics have already dubbed it the Taj Mahal. Built on the site of the former Ambassador Hotel, where presidential candidate Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, the 4,200-student school is a monument to the fiscal irresponsibility and extravagance of the nation's second-largest school district.

Remember, this is a district that complains chronically about being short of funding. And with good reason. The sprawling L.A. school district's 885 schools educate more than 600,000 students — about one out of every 10 students in California, and currently has a deficit of more than $600 million. The district is undergoing a building boom, with 131 new schools being built now to ease expected overcrowding. But this is the third L.A. mega-school in as many years, each one pricier than the last. It reflects a peculiar inversion of priorities — where buildings are lavishly funded, while the teachers' union does its best to undermine badly needed reforms. Who's looking out for the students? This is public policy at its worst, squandering precious money that will further weaken Los Angeles' failing public school system...

For the record, Los Angeles has a 50% dropout rate, and its school test scores are among the nation's lowest. Why? A recent Los Angeles Times series looked in extraordinary detail at school test scores over seven years and found the biggest influence on students' test performance was individual teachers — not socioeconomic background, or the school they attended, or its location, or spending. So why build big, hyperexpensive temples to learning if you're only going to fill them with rotten teachers? Rather than building more spectacular educational Taj Mahals, school officials and parents would be wiser to challenge the all-powerful United Teachers Los Angeles union, which has put a headlock on all meaningful school reforms.

If teachers are rewarded based on performance, not tenure or political clout, Los Angeles will finally get the schools it deserves and wants — and for which it has already paid handsomely.

Editorial, Investor's Business Daily

August 23, 2010

Obama Is Colluding With A New Fascist Imperialism

Nothing is more like the fascist Axis of the 1930s than Islamist expansionism today. Like the Hitler-Tojo-Mussolini Axis of the 1930s, Islamic fascists are fundamentally imperialistic, with an explicit order from on High to subjugate civilized people or turn them to ashes. Mohammed himself famously threatened the cultured Persian and Byzantine Emperors of his time, and in the following years, his followers knocked those empires over like devouring army ants.

The peace-loving Buddhist monasteries of India were consumed by invading Muslim armies, with the result that there are no Buddhist monasteries left in India today. Not a single one. Only Hinduism survived the Muslim invasions, because Hindus are not pacifists. You can ask any Sikh about that; they are a huge warrior religion that arose as a buffer between Hindu India and its many Muslim invaders, who now hold Pakistan and Afghanistan. In India, the Buddhist monks just died or fled to Tibet. So much for the glorious results of peaceful resistance against Muslim armies.

Wherever Islamic fascists go, they first like to frighten and intimidate less warlike peoples -- as in London today, where any BBC criticism of Islamic fascists is streng verboten. That's what the Ground Zero Mosque and the Mohammed cartoon uproar have in common: They are purposeful agitprop campaigns to scare and intimidate all the weak-willed liberals in the West, a standard Islamist tactic to conquer by intimidation, just as Muslim conquerors have always done. Why bother to wage war when you can win by terror? Putin understands that, the Chinese understand it, and it's clear enough around the Middle East. Only American liberals and European socialists are in denial. That's why they are the biggest round-heels in the world. They will happily collude in their own subjection and degradation.

Islamic practice has always required mosques to have the highest towers in any subjugated city. No Jews or Christians were ever allowed to build higher places of worship, to ride higher (on horses or mules), or even to raise their heads higher while walking the streets than any Muslim. If you were a Jew or a Christian, you would duck your head deep down as you passed a Muslim, who was allowed to spit on you at will... Islamic fascism is committing African genocides here and now, as in the Sudan, where a radical Muslim murder regime has been enabled by the "international community" to persecute and kill animist and Christian Africans since the 1990s... You think that evil is safely dead and in the past? You must be a liberal and self-deluded. But I repeat myself, as Mark Twain said in similar circumstances.

Islamofascists constantly threaten genocide against the Jews, as in the daily fulminations of that little Twelver freak Ahmadinejad -- but also in the words just reported by our good friend the Saudi King of the Arabian desert: "There are two nations that do not deserve to live: Israel and Iran." This is the 7^th-century king of the camel-raiders that the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, publicly bowed down to -- in a universal gesture of submission that was instantly understood throughout the Muslim world.

Neville Chamberlain gave Adolf Hitler only a half-bow after the Munich appeasement summit of 1938. Liberals are forever thus. To complete the bleak parallels to the horrible 1930s, we see the Left-Fascist alliance together again. If you think Bill Ayers and Jodie Evans were just accidentally whipping up a PR stunt with the Turkish suiciders off the coast of Gaza a few months ago, then you, too, were taken in by classic agitprop collusion between the radical Left and Islamic fascists...

Some people define Fascism as a corporatist economic system, like Obama Motors today. It could just as well be defined as the public celebration and practice of massive sadism against enslaved peoples... The historic fact is that the Left always enables fascist monsters. I don't claim to understand that fact, but it's easy enough to see it over and over again. It seems to be part of their deep moral cowardice and weakness of character...

We can see that delusional thinking right now in Barack Hussein Obama and in Hillary, just as we saw it in the Carter administration -- which gave Islamic fascism its first taste of real power in 1979. It's important to remember that reactionary Islamic fascism was mostly gone after the Ottoman Empire crumbled in 1917. A number of Muslim countries desperately tried to modernize for sixty years -- until Jimmy Carter gave the pre-medieval throwback Ayatollah Khomeini his first big chance in 1979. That started a race among all the suppressed Islamofascists in Sunni and Shiite countries. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter's dysfunctional politics was not an accident, nor his love affair with Hamas and Khomeini; it is an obsessive-compulsive psychopathology, and it happens over and over again in human history.

That's why the Norwegian politicians keep handing out that the Nobel Appeasement Prize. It's why Obama got it just for getting elected. The Left and the Islamic fascists figured out who Obama was long before the people of America were told. After all, he's one of them.

James Lewis, American Thinker

August 15, 2010

Reagan's Words Still Speak Volumes Today

In October 1964, then spokesman Ronald Reagan stepped into the national political spotlight for the first time with his now-famous “A Time for Choosing Speech,” delivered in support of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Video: 2:18 Minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wusgcG4rfo

His words stand in stark contrast to those of many of America’s elected officials today, as this video by the Republican Study Committee shows. Continue reading...

Mike Brownfield, The Heritage Foundation

August 23, 2010

GOP To Smack Obama's Hanging Curve Ball

The curve ball in baseball, if thrown correctly, is a pitcher's "out pitch." Breaking anywhere from 6 to 12 inches down and 4-8 inches to the side, a Major League curve ball flummoxes even hitters destined for the Hall of Fame. If it is thrown correctly. If not, the ball spins up to the place at batting practice speed and hangs like ripe fruit over the middle of the plate with a sign on the ball screaming "Hit Me!" In baseball parlance, it's called a "hanging curve." And in politics, Obama has thrown one right into the GOP's wheelhouse. ABC News:

"Sadly, this so-called 'Recovery Summer' could end up with more Americans finding themselves out of work then when it began," said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain. "Expect Republican candidates across the country to ask one simple question of Democrat incumbents: 'Where are the jobs?'"

"Private companies only added 153,000 jobs in May, June and July combined, according to the Labor Department. If you count government jobs and the shedding of special Census hires, the net gains were only 80,000 over the period. The economy would need to add 8 million jobs to reach pre-recession levels.

"Most economists agree the $787 billion Recovery Act has helped prevent the recession from being significantly worse, boosting the gross domestic product and stemming job losses. But many say its effect has largely begun to wear off."

That sound you heard was the crack of the bat as GOP candidates make solid contact against their Democratic opponents. It's a can't miss, 100% godsend for Republicans to throw "Recovery Summer" back in the faces of Dems as they try and change the subject to anything but jobs.

Any Republican who uses this strategy is bound to hit a few out of the park.

Rick Moran, American Thinker August 24, 2010

Jobs Killing Machine

Let's say you had an economy that has held steady for months at an unemployment rate of around 10%. Let's say jobless claims climb to about 500,000. Let's say that you spent $787 billion of taxpayer money to "save or create jobs." Let's say the private sector is only adding a scarce number of jobs. Let's say that you claim to be all about "jobs, jobs, jobs." Let's say you demonize the private sector and the evil corporations for not hiring.

Now considering all of these facts ... let's say that you are presented with a plan which says it would cost the economy 23,000 jobs. Wouldn't your first reaction be - Are you off your rocker?? The last thing that we need to do right now is implement policies which would deliberately cost our economy jobs. But that is exactly what the Obama administration did. In the wake of the BP oil spill, the Obama administration concluded that a federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost 23,000 people their jobs. Knowing this fact, the Obama administration went ahead and did it anyway. Not only did they know ahead of time that it would cost 23,000 jobs, but they were blocked .. twice! .. by a federal judge. On top of that, top scientists came out in opposition to the ban, stating that there was no need for such action. With all of these facts, the Obama administration STILL went ahead with its drilling moratorium. The only reason I can fathom? Pandering to the environmentalists. All of you 23,000 people can go to hell, we've got an agenda and interest groups to appease...

Neal Boortz, Nealz Nuze

August 23, 2010

Success In Iraq Is Bush's Fault

- 81 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Democrats say Iraqis are better off now than they were before the Iraq war. - 67 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats say the war was not a mistake. - 65 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of Democrats say U.S. troops should remain in Iraq beyond 2011 if Iraqi forces fail to keep order. Source: A Gallup Poll of 1,013 adults conducted Aug. 5-6 and released Friday.

Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway

August 24, 2010

Fishermen Aim Vineyard Protest At Obama

Leaders of the recreational and commercial fishing industry are planning a boat protest against federal policies Thursday outside the harbor of Vineyard Haven on Martha’s Vineyard, where President Obama and his family are summer vacationing. The protest is being organized after a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of federal lawmakers -- including the core of the President’s Congressional base on banking and health care issues -- have given up hope of working productively with Obama’s top appointee for oceans and fisheries, Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Boats from Gloucester and New Bedford, the hub ports of New England, Point Judith, R.I., and New York and New Jersey are expected, according to Tina Jackson, president of the American Alliance of Fishermen... "There is a call for a protest of all fishermen, commercial, recreational, lobstermen," the statement said. "... Now is the time to show our backbone, our strength and our unity."

Richard Gaines, Gloucester Daily Times

August 24, 2010

"When Liberalism Doesn't Work It Discredits Liberalism"

This past Friday the Associated Press reported: "Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out. The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say."

Conn Carroll, The Heritage Foundation

August 23, 2010

Muslim Is The New Code For Racism

If you will recall, during the campaign there were some rather amazing charges of racism. Let's see if we can remember a few:

**Using the word "skinny" to refer to Obama is racist. **Community organizer" is a racist term. **Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist ... that would be because Raines is black. **All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black. **Referring to Obama as "eloquent" is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent. **For goodness' sake, don't say that Obama is "clean." **Calling Obama a "socialist" is also racist because "socialist" is just another code word for black.

Well who knew that we were still adding to this list? In the wake of this discussion over the Ground Zero Victory mosque, Obama faith has come into question again. One out of every five Americans believe Obama to be a Muslim. Well now, according to MSNBC, calling Barack Obama a Muslim is a backdoor way of calling him the "N-word." That's right .. even talking about Barack Obama and Islam in the same conversation is the latest way of implying that you really don't like Barack Obama because he is black. Isn't that amazing?

Neal Boortz, Nealz Nuze

August 23, 2010

Voter ID And Illegal Aliens

The latest Rasmussen poll on voter ID is sure to frustrate liberal advocacy organizations like the NAACP and the League of Women Voters that oppose commonsense proposals to ensure the integrity of our election process. They have been waging a losing litigation battle against states to try to prevent them from implementing photo ID requirements. Rasmussen reports that an overwhelming majority of likely voters (82 percent) believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote (that includes a majority in every demographic group). Only 14 percent disagree. This is the highest level of support for photo ID since Rasmussen started polling the question in 2006. Continue reading...

Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation

August 23, 2010

48% Say Obama’s Views Are Extreme; 51% Say Hillary Is Mainstream

Forty-eight percent (48%) of U.S. voters now regard President Obama’s political views as extreme. Forty-two percent (42%) place his views in the mainstream, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey... Predictably, most Republicans view Obama’s views as extreme, while a sizable majority of Democrats say they are mainstream. But most voters not affiliated with either party also describe the president’s views as extreme by a 54% to 30% margin. Eighty-one percent (81%) of liberals say Obama’s in the mainstream. Seventy-five percent (75%) of conservatives regard him as extreme. But then most voters in the country now believe the president and the average Democrat in Congress are more liberal, politically speaking, than they are...

Rasmussen Reports

August 23, 2010

Challenges To Obamacare Build Momentum

When Missouri voters attempted to stop ObamaCare at the ballot box via the initiative process, the national news media took notice. In the August 3 vote, 7 in 10 voters in the "Show Me State" supported Proposition C, which overturns government mandates requiring health insurance. Proposition C actually bars penalties against people who pay their own health bills without insurance... But our personal favorite of the many lawsuits challenging ObamaCare is from Arizona. Yes, the land of immigration enforcement could also be the site of a major constitutional battle about ObamaCare. The citizens of Arizona are restless with their Washington, D.C. overseers.

The Goldwater Institute, a public policy outfit named for Arizona's most famous son, is taking a different swing at the question. Representing a local business owner, Nick Coons of Tempe, Ariz., the Goldwater Institute has built an intriguing legal strategy which will shake up the debate: "Mr. Coons pays for all of his medical care out of his own pocket and he wants to continue making his own health care decisions. Under the federal health care bill, Mr. Coons will face significant fines from the IRS if he doesn't buy a health insurance plan that has been approved by the government by 2014."

In announcing the lawsuit Coons complained, "The government is making me spend money on something that I don't want. Is a stranger who works for the government in some other part of the country really going to know what I need? I am the best qualified to make these decisions for myself." The Goldwater Institute's lawyer is well-known constitutional litigator Clint Bolick. Bolick argues, "The new federal law also violates Mr. Coons' medical privacy by forcing him to disclose his medical records to an insurance company, and those records could be accessed by the federal government and others without his permission."

We have always been disturbed by the arrogance of government officials that seem to believe they have a right to know the most intimate details of your discussions with your doctor. ObamaCare will violate the sanctity and privacy of the relationship you have with your physician. The framers of the U.S. Constitution would be shocked by the manipulation we have recently experienced at the hands of Congress, Obama and out-of-control federal judges. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sums it all up when he said of ObamaCare's attempts to regulate the behavior of doing nothing: "Even the king and the parliament acknowledged they didn't have this power back before the Declaration of Independence."

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, TownHall

August 14, 2010

To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.

Daily Dose – August 24, 2010

gorightgirl — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:13:39 +0000

Intoxicated With Power "Those who have been intoxicated with power... can never willingly abandon it." Edmund Burke, (1729-1797) Irish-born British statesman, parliamentary orator, and political thinker Two Americas: The Working Class And The Serf Class

I have been reading Frederick A. Hayek's seminal work, "The Road to Serfdom". Serfdom was the socioeconomic status of unfree peasants under feudalism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery. Serfdom was the enforced labor of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.

I believe we have a new form of serfdom in America and government is the new feudalism. Hayek's book helps explain how we got to this new feudalism and became a new breed of serfs. The main point of Hayek's book is that: "[t]he most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people."

I fear that the "character" of the American people has changed. A majority of Americans have become the modern day serfs of our feudal government. Please let me explain. Remember when John Edwards, former Democrat Senator from North Carolina and Presidential candidate, talked about two Americas? Edwards and Democrats consistently talk about rich America and poor America.

I agree that there are two Americas but not in the way John Edwards and Democrats portray it. May I respectfully suggest we actually have two Americas - those who produce wealth (the working class) and those who consume wealth (the serf class). This new "serf class" includes: government, those who work for government or "bureaucrats", those receiving monetary payment directly from government and those subsidized by government.

Today in America we have a growing population living off of "government largesse" - the new feudalism. Government is defined as a "system of ruling or controlling". Largesse is defined as, "the liberal giving (as of money) to or as if to an inferior (e.g. serf)." Please read: Government Largesse - The Opiate of the People.

Government largesse includes all local, state and federal social programs. Many of these social programs began in the 1930s under the New Deal, and greatly expanded during the 1960s with the Great Society. Government social programs have grown exponentially. Social programs include: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the bureaucrats at every level hired to oversee and manage them. Additionally, there are other feudal government programs, which includes regulating or subsidizing individuals or groups of individuals to achieve "social justice" a redistributive model of governing.

At some point in time the cost of government largesse exceeds the capabilities of those paying for it. I believe we may have have reached that "tipping point". I believe we now have two Americas - those who are in large part dependent on government largesse and those who are not. What are some of the key indicators that I believe show we have reached that tipping point?

1. When the costs of social programs approach half of our gross domestic product. 2. When government control of the gross national product approaches fifty percent. 3. When the cost of operating government at all levels becomes so large as to restrict growth. 4. When the working class is more concerned about government intrusion than it is about personal liberty. 5. When government begins to bail itself out. 6. When a nation's national debt payments at all levels of government approach thirty percent of all revenues.

It is time for Americans to look at who they are dependent on and why. There are many indicators today that America has reached a tipping point with a new expanding serf class dependent on government paid for by an ever decreasing working class. As Hayek states: "The important point is that the political ideas of a people and its attitude toward authority are as much the effect as the cause of the political institutions under which it lives. This means, among other things, that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit."

Have we become a nation of government serfs? Have we become so dependent on government largesse that we will actively work against our own liberty in order to get that next bailout, subsidy or government benefit check? Hayek gives us some hope that the road to serfdom is neither inevitable nor reversible. Hayek states, "The consequences can of course be averted if that spirit reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course."

Are you ready to change your course?

Dr. Richard Swier, Red County August 21, 2010 Fast Track To Government Health Care

While there is broad agreement there are problems in our health sector that must be solved, the American people consistently have said they oppose government control. Yet many of the decisions now being made in the bowels of the bureaucracy could lead to a government system that people fear. The consequences of government involvement in health care have become more and more apparent as people have become informed about what the health overhaul law would do. No longer does the government seem to be a fairy godmother but rather a tough enforcer of an avalanche of new mandates, taxes and regulatory requirements... Many of the decisions being made by regulators could make it almost impossible for private insurance companies to comply, leading inevitably to a government-run health system.

Connecticut state insurance commissioner Thomas Sullivan warned, "What we've learned since March, is that if you like your health insurance you may not be able to keep it," he told the Seattle meeting, "and state regulators will have a role in implementing health care as long as that role supports the goals of HHS (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), which may not necessarily be what's in the best interest of consumers." He later told reporters: "I'm concerned there's still a lot left to be done in interpretation ... I fear that some have an agenda to interpret ... with the express purpose of getting to a single-payer option." Many other health actuaries and experts at the Seattle meeting said they believed the MLR was meant to be so disruptive to private insurance that it would eventually push us into a single-payer system...

So the politicization of health care begins, with even the president set to weigh in on a decision that would make most people's eyes glaze over in the minutia. The president will meet with the NAIC at the White House in September or so to discuss the issue. It now is clear that decisions about what kind of health insurance we have, how much we must pay, what it covers or doesn't cover, will be made by politicians and bureaucrats...

The process has begun. Unless ObamaCare can be rolled back, the politicization of American medicine will reach into the smallest decisions affecting our medical care for decades to come. And, just five months after the health overhaul law was enacted, we see how the regulatory bureaucracy may well push us into the single-payer, government-run health care system that even the very liberal 111th Congress couldn't enact.

Grace-Marie Turner, Investor's Business Daily August 20, 2010 Obama's Four Disasters: Heckuva Job, Mr. President Recovery summer, opposition to Arizona’s immigration law, negative campaigning, and intervention in the Ground Zero mosque dispute—call them Obama’s Four Disasters. As policy, they’re questionable. As political exercises, they’re losers. As clues about Obama, they’re evidence he’s lost his political knack. What was Obama thinking? These weren’t initiatives taken suddenly. They were carefully thought out and plotted, no doubt in expectation the president would gain politically and so would Democratic candidates. Whatever calculations the White House made, they were faulty.

Recovery summer. This was proclaimed in June, with fanfare, in a briefing by Vice President Biden and the issuance of a report titled “Summer of Recovery: Project Activity Increases in Summer 2010.” The report said “millions of Americans [are] on the job today thanks to the Recovery Act”—better known as the “stimulus package”—but its work is not done. “Summer 2010 is actually poised to be the most active Recovery Act season yet.”

Not quite. Obama, Biden, and company should have known better. It’s true there were indicators the economy would grow and hiring by private firms would increase. But anyone who traveled outside Washington would quickly discover that slow growth and minimal hiring were at least as likely to occur. And they have. The economy has hit the brakes, the stock market is stagnant, the jobs picture has -worsened, unemployment claims are up, and the notion of a summer of recovery has become an embarrassment. If there were even a glimmer of doubt about a summertime boom, you wouldn’t want to put a chronic exaggerator like Biden out front. He tends to gush uncontrollably... Sounds nice. Too bad it hasn’t happened.

Opposition to the Arizona immigration law. This is what’s known as a 70-30 issue. Obama has taken the 30 percent position, which puts him athwart the vast majority of Americans. The White House said the decision to file suit against the Arizona law was made by Attorney General Eric Holder. But Holder works for Obama, who could have told him to back off...

Negative campaigning. Obama’s great gift as a politician is the ability to rise above the normal pushing, shoving, and name-calling of politics and appear statesmanlike... Now he’s abandoned it. In his current stump speech, he does two things. He talks about “a lot of things I’m very proud of that we’ve done over the last two years,” including health care reform. And he attacks Republicans for “constant, nonstop opposition on everything.” Guess which one the media devours. His criticism of Republicans is not limited to political appearances. He’s begun attacking them in his Saturday radio address from the White House. This is both unappealing and unpresidential...

The Ground Zero mosque. This is another 70-30 issue, and Obama is again in the minority. We know his decision to defend the plan of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero wasn’t a spur of the moment thing. He put out a prepared text of his speech on this subject before it was delivered to a group of Muslims at a Ramadan event at the White House. He backtracked the next day...

The contrast between the political adroitness of Obama as a presidential candidate and Obama as president is striking. His campaign was nearly error-free. As president, he’s made a string of unforced errors. He’s lost his touch, and chances are it won’t come back.

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard August 30-September 6, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 47 What Obamacare And The Death Star Have In Common

So far, 21 states have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. As they move forward, it’s worth pondering what would happen to the health care overhaul if they succeed. Could one lawsuit be the proton torpedo that blows up the Obamacare Death Star? Typically, courts can deem a legislative provision unconstitutional without it spelling doom for the entire piece of legislation. But Obamacare isn’t typical legislation. Ben Domenech explains: “Most laws of large size and scope have something called a “severability clause” attached to them. Essentially, this means that if one part of a piece of large legislation is ruled unconstitutional by a court, that unconstitutional portion is “severed” from the rest of the bill — the ruling doesn’t stop the rest of the law from being enforced.” Continue reading...

Kathryn Nix, The Heritage Foundation August 20, 2010 Iran Realities Democrats say bombing would only slow Tehran's nuclear program. The U.S. tells Israel that Iran is far from having a nuke. Are we lying to ourselves about the dangerous realities of Iran's nukes?Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, says the mighty U.S. arsenal can't destroy Iran's nuclear program. "We can't stop it. We can slow it down," Smith told FoxNews.com last week.

The thinking is that there are too many targets, many of which are fortified and even built deep within mountains. Bushehr, Natanz, Qom, plus other facilities, known and unknown, spread out far and wide — we'd never destroy it all, we're told. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that the Obama administration has been telling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Israel not to worry; Iran's nuclear activities are prone to glitches, and it will be a year or more before it can build a weapon, according to U.S. intelligence and U.N. inspector reports.

In fact, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency has said it might take Tehran only three months. As Gary Milhollin, executive director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, wrote on the Atlantic magazine's Web site, President Obama's mantra that Iran's "nuclear clock has slowed" is false.

"The clock is still ticking, vigorously," according to Milhollin. "By the beginning of this year, Iran had produced enough low-enriched uranium to fuel two nuclear weapons if the uranium were further enriched to weapon-grade. By now, Iran has added almost enough low-enriched uranium to fuel a third weapon, and by the middle of next year (at current production rates) it will probably produce enough to fuel a fourth."... Are we really willing to bet our lives on a nuclear-armed Iran being only a far-off possibility? Would we gamble that the ayatollahs do not secretly seek to arm terrorist operatives with some kind of portable weapon that could incinerate a U.S. or European city?

If we do fear such a scenario, are Americans content to accept that with sanctions not working a military solution is impossible? As the Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough described it earlier this month, based on the analysis of military experts, the Pentagon has worked out an Iran attack plan, using B-2 Stealth bombers and cruise missiles launched from ships, subs and B-52 bombers. "It will be primarily an air attack with covert work to start a velvet revolution so (the) Iranian people can take back their country," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a former fighter pilot, told Scarborough.

We should have been supporting Iranian freedom fighters — covertly and overtly — for the past five years at least. It may now be too late for that, and with Iran's Islamofascist regime so close to nuclear weapons capability, those who insist "we can't stop it" or that it isn't an imminent threat may end up having to explain themselves to the dead.

Editorial, Investor's Business Daily August 20, 2010 Muslims, Not Americans, Are Religious Bigots Time magazine asked this week whether America has “a Muslim problem,” and suggested that “many” of those opposed to the Ground Zero mosque “are motivated by deep-seated Islamophobia.” The same article scowls disapprovingly that “46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers.” (What could have possibly given them that idea?) But, as the article concedes, there has been no increase in violence against Muslims. In reality, Americans remain fastidiously tolerant of all religions, even one that inspired 19 fanatics to hijack four commercial airliners on 9/11 and kill more than 3,000 Americans in the bloodiest attack in our nation’s history. Time requires a peculiar sort of blindness to see so much imagined intolerance in America — especially based solely on “anecdotal evidence” — while nearly ignoring the religious intolerance in most Islamic countries. A group of triumphalist Muslims seeks to erect an Islamic center near Ground Zero in a city that already has 100 mosques, and they face, at worst, disapproval, stern looks and calls to relocate their project.

Contrast this with a news report by journalist Mindy Belz in the current issue of World magazine, concerning Afghanistan’s small community of Christian converts. Belz describes how an Afghan television station recently broadcast a video of a baptismal service, sparking riots in the streets of Kabul and leading to the arrest of 25 Christians. Nobody knows at this time the fate of those arrested. Because it is illegal for Muslims to convert in Afghanistan — as it is in most Islamic countries — people who choose any other faith face the death penalty. Adherents of other religions, meanwhile, are subject to official discrimination and persecution, despite guarantees to the contrary in Afghanistan’s constitution. Thus, the plight of Christians is shared in many Islamic countries by Buddhists, Baha’is, Hindus and Zoroastrians. As Time puts it, it is wrong to “conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery.” But the world must be dealt with as it is and not as we wish it were. That requires us to accept the reality that Muslim nations are the most religiously intolerant places on Earth, and that a startling number of Islamic clerics worldwide still refuse to condemn violence against nonbelievers. In contrast, Americans who oppose the mosque are not even demanding that its developers be arrested or harmed in any way for their beliefs. They ask only that the mosque developers voluntarily show common sense, decency and sensitivity for America’s loss on 9/11. Editorial, Washington Examiner August 20, 2010 Censorship And Confrontation Will Not Solve Chavez's Mounting Problems

On August 13 El Nacional, a Venezuelan daily, published a disturbing photograph of corpses piled up in a Caracas morgue. The photograph drove home an indisputable fact: Caracas has become one of the most dangerous places in the Americas. Reports the latest Economist: "Venezuela’s national murder rate is 75 per 100,000 people, up from 49 just four years ago, twice the rate in neighboring Colombia where guerrillas continue to wage war and an astonishing 220 per 100,000 people in Caracas, higher even than in Mexico’s drug-ridden Ciudad Juárez." Continue reading...

Ray Walser, The Heritage Foundation August 20, 2010 Hard Hats: No Mosque! No Mosque! A grass-roots movement among construction workers and unions asks Cordoba mosque supporters: Who do you expect to build it? The same people who built the World Trade Center perhaps? In real estate, it's said the price of a property is based on three things — location, location, location. The price in blood and treasure America has paid for the gaping hole where the Twin Towers once stood is incalculable.

The wounds are still fresh and the anger is still real, and it's something that supporters of the Cordoba mosque, named after a great Islamic victory over the West, simply don't get. Two blocks from the proposed mosque, construction workers at the WTC site are trying get across their point, and ours. The towers of the World Trade Center instantly became symbols of America, its strength, its embrace of freedom and free markets. It was the pride of the workers who built it, destroyed in just hours by madmen who turned passenger jets into flaming cruise missiles...

Despite tought times, L.V. Spina, a Manhattan construction worker who created the stickers adorning an increasing number of hard hats, says he'd "rather pick cans and bottles out of trash cans" than build the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero... Americans are not bigots. From Bosnia to Iraq to Afghanistan, young American men and women have put their lives on the line, many paying the ultimate price, for Muslim freedom. We freed a nation, particularly its women, from the intolerance of the Taliban. It was America in the forefront of aid to Indonesian earthquake and tsunami victims, and now flood victims in Pakistan.

The construction workers of Ground Zero seem to be saying, if you want outreach, grab a shovel and help us rebuild as we have helped you. Help us build a proper memorial to our dead, murdered in the opening salvo of the war on terror. As for your mosque, we'll build it for you, just not in this sacred place and not now.

Editorial, Investor's Business Daily August 20, 2010 President Still Thinking Like Local Agitator

The president of the United States has it hard enough without needlessly wading into, and fanning, local controversies. The economy is battered by sluggish growth, high unemployment, record annual deficits and near unsustainable national debt. Over 50% of the people now disapprove of Barack Obama's handling of these problems. So why weigh in on hot-button issues that can only polarize people without solving anything?...

Arizona recently passed a bill designed to enforce existing immigration law and stop the enormous influx of illegal aliens into the state. Various groups, including the federal government, quickly made plans to sue the state. Yet various polls indicated that 70% of Americans agreed with the Arizona law, and dozens of states were planning similar legislation. Nonetheless, the president also jumped into that acrimony — well before the law went into effect. Obama and his attorney general alleged that Arizonans were promoting stereotyping, even though police were forbidden to question the immigration status of those who had not come into prior contact with law enforcement.

Most recently, Obama pontificated about the proposed mosque next to Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, in what his supporters might call a "teachable moment." The issue is not a legal one. Both sides recognize the legal right of Muslims to build mosques anywhere that local zoning ordinances permit them. Instead, the controversy pertains to common decency, and the nature of the funding and proponents of the project. No matter: The president instead lectured his mostly Muslim audience that America respects the rights of all religions — again, not the issue in question. A day later, in embarrassment, he backtracked a bit.

Where to start with all these teachable moments? All these controversies involve issues addressed at the state and local level, with presidential action unnecessary. In such contentious matters, why intervene when Obama cannot do much other than polarize millions? We have learned that President Obama has a bad habit of impugning the motives of those with whom he disagrees... Arizonans were not to be seen as desperate citizens trying to enforce federal law, but instead derided as bigots who harass minorities when they go out to get ice cream. And in the mosque case, the president disingenuously implied that opponents of a Ground Zero mosque wanted to deny the legal right of Muslims to build religious centers... Again, why does Obama go off message to sermonize about these seemingly minor things that so energize his opposition and make life difficult for his fellow Democrats?

First, off-the-cuff pontificating on extraneous issues is a lot easier than dealing with a bad economy, two wars and heightening tensions abroad. Sermonizing is a lot different than rounding up votes in Congress, fending off reporters at press conferences or dealing with aggressors overseas — and it can also turn our attention away from near-10% unemployment and a heavily indebted government.

Second, Obama has spent most of his life around academics, lawyers, journalists and organizers. That insular culture tends to pontificate and lecture others far more than do action-oriented businesspeople, soldiers, doctors and farmers — the doers who are few and far between in this administration.

Third, as an Ivy League-trained lawyer and former Chicago community organizer, Obama embraces an overarching race/class/gender critique of the U.S.; the story of America is not so much about an exceptionally independent and prosperous people, a unique Constitution or a vibrant national past in promoting global freedom, but about how the majority oppressed various groups.

Clearly, these local instances of purported grievances have excited the president — and almost automatically prompt his customary but unproven declarations that the majority or establishment in each case is biased or unfair. Obama should remember that successful presidents build bridges to solve national and international problems. They leave polarizing local controversies to divisive community organizers and partisan activists.

Victor Davis Hanson, Nationally Syndicated Columnist August 20, 2010 To receive 'There is a Difference' send an email to elephantpride@aol.com with 'Subscribe' and your 'First & Last Name' as the Subject.