Archive for July, 2008

2008 Presidential Choice: Leader or Diletant–McCain or Obama

Posted on July 31, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Links, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Taxes, Video, War |

PRES] McCain: The One

“Where Does the Money Go?” National Debt – Bill Moyers

Sen. McCain Responds to Budget Deficit

Obama and McCain Duel Over the Economy

“…a government must appeal to its citizens in terms of competence, realism, sobriety, and personal character. Rather than whipping up enthusiasm, it must seek to bring calm to agitated souls. In the language of Camus, it must restore a sense of limits. Its rhetoric must endeavor to make limits plausible. The most terrifying limit, of course, is a government’s inability to bring about a resolution of the spiritual crisis, which dicatates the modest amount of political power it can mobilize apart for war, and maybe even in the presence of war. And we, the intellectuals among citizens, must learn to control our own yearnings for a “new world.” as we learn to llve in the one inhabit, affirming our own history and the “real possibilities” it offers.”

~Gerhart Niemeyer

The Wall Street Journal published a very revealing poll comparing Senators McCain and Obama.

WSJ/NBC Poll: Obama Maintains Lead Over McCain

“…the Arizona Republican senator has an 11-percentage-point advantage over Obama when voters were asked which candidate’s background and set of values they identify with more—58% said that candidate was McCain, while 47% said Obama. In contrast, 34% said McCain does not represent their values, while 43% said Obama does not.

Yet when it comes to the issues, however, a solid majority — 60% — said Obama’s approach “is in the mainstream of most Americans’ thinking” while 45% described McCain’s views as mainstream. More than four out of 10 said McCain’s views are “out of step” while just under three in 10 said the same about Obama.

McCain also came out ahead, 46%-41%, when voters were asked who would be the “safer choice” for president. …”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/23/wsjnbc-poll-obama-maintains-lead-over-mccain/

If you believe the poll, Obama is leading by 6 percentage points over McCain with the poll having a possible error of 3 percentage points.

At this point in the campaign I would have thought Obama would have a lead of at least 10% over McCain.

The spread will narrow as election day approaches and while there will be the ususal after convention bounce for both candidates, the Democrats should be worried.

Why the narrow spread today?

The Democratic Party and their Presidential candidate have been a big supporter of huge government subsidies for ethanol and no drilling for oil off the US coasts and ANWR.

The result of such a policy has been rising food and gasoline prices that have impacted all of the American people.

Obama has been a big supporter of subsidies for ethanol production and no drilling.

McCain has been opposed to farm subsidies and now supports drilling offshore, but irrationally opposes drilling in ANWR.

On these two pocket book issues, McCain has the support of the American people.

People must eat and drive to and from work each day.

The Democratic Party wants to signficantly increase both government spending and taxes.

Obama advocates a huge increase in both federal government spending and taxes.

McCain advocates cutting federal government spending and lower taxes.

Once this is clearly understood by the American people, McCain like Reagan in 1979, will win by a landside.

Obama is perceived by the American people to be both inexperienced and unqualified to be President of the United States with an attitude of arrogance and hubris.

While Obama is an excellent reader of prepared speeches, he comes off as stuttering and confused when asked questions on subjects he knows little or nothing about.

While McCain is excellent in answering questions in townhall meetings, he is not very good reading prepared speeches.

The debates should highlight both presidential candidates advantages and disadvantages.

Obama has the profile of a diletant or amateur not ready or up for the position of leader of the free world.

Polls are not votes.

I think the key to who will win the election is the choice of vice-presidential candidate.

Both candidates can pick a vice-president candidate that will take them beyond a tipping-point and into a winning the election if not a landside victory.

Both political parties need to motivate their political base to turnout and vote.

Voter turnout like the last Presidential election will be a decisive in deciding who will be the next President.

If Senator Obama selects either Senator Clinton or former Senator and Vice-President Al Gore, the election will be too close to call.

Hillary Clinton

“Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is the junior United States Senator from New York, and was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election. She is married to Bill Clinton—the 42nd President of the United States—and was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Al Gore

“Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is an American environmental activist, author, public intellectual,^[2] businessperson, former politician, and former journalist. He served as the forty-fifth Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. …”

The primary issues will be energy prices, taxes, out of control federal government spending and deficits, and illegal immigration–all economic issues that directly impact the pocket books of the American people.

The war in Iraq and the very real possibilty of war with Iran will not be a primary issue except in raising one important question–Is this person qualified to be Commander and Chief?

More and higher taxes for more federal government spending will not win.

Remember Congress has an approval rating under 10% for a reason.

If Senator McCain selects a fiscally responsible conservative such as Senator Tom Coburn, Governor Sarah Pallin, or former Governor Mitt Romney, it will be a repeat of the Presidential election of 1980, with Senator McCain the winner.

The last thing the American people want is a repeat of the Carter years with rising unemployment and inflation rates that resulted in a recession from 1980-1982 in President Reagan’s earlier years in office.

Tom Corburn

”Thomas Allen “Tom” Coburn, M.D. (born March 14, 1948) is an American politician and medical doctor. A member of the Republican Party, he currently serves as the junior U.S. Senator from Oklahoma. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#Abortion

Sarah Palin

“Sarah Heath Palin (née Sarah Louise Heath, born February 11, 1964 in Sandpoint, Idaho) is the current Governor of Alaska. She is the youngest governor in Alaskan history (42 years old upon taking office), as well as the first woman to hold the office in the state. In addition to being Alaska’s first female governor, and its youngest, Palin is also the first who was born after Alaska achieved statehood. She is also the first Alaska governor not to be inaugurated in Juneau, instead choosing to hold her inauguration ceremony in Fairbanks. She took office on December 4, 2006. Her Lieutenant Governor is Sean Parnell. Palin is the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. As Governor, she has maintained uncommonly high approval ratings throughout her tenure. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Mitt Romney

”Willard Mitt Romney (born Detroit, Michigan, March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and former Governor of Massachusetts. Romney is also a former candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 United States presidential election.

Romney was CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. After his business career and serving as the CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics, Romney was elected as the 70th Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Romney served one term and did not seek re-election in 2006; his term expired January 4, 2007.^[1]

Background Articles and Videos

It’s 1980 All Over Again

“…Plug today’s generic political factors into any of the many forecasting models pitting Candidate A against Candidate B, and the Democrat wins in a landslide. The end of a two-term presidency with the incumbent’s approval at Watergate levels; widespread economic anxiety among the middle class, not just in general but in two panic-button areas (a real estate plunge and rising pricers for gas and food); and an unpopular war. It feels like 1979 and Jimmy Carter.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&

United States presidential election, 1980

“The United States presidential election of 1980 featured a contest between incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter and his Republican opponent, Ronald Reagan, along with third party candidates, the independent John B. Anderson and Libertarian Ed Clark. Reagan, aided by the Iran hostage crisis and a worsening economy at home, won the election by a wide margin. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1980.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

Recent additions to U.S. public debt

Fiscal year
(begins 10/01) Value % of GDP

2001 $144.6 billion 1.4%

2002 $409.3 billion 3.9%

2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%

2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%

2005 $523.2 billion 4.3%

2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%

2007 $527.9 billion 3.9%

Recent additions to U.S. public debt
Fiscal year (begins 10/01)	Value	% of GDP
2001	$144.6 billion	1.4%
2002	$409.3 billion	3.9%
2003	$589.0 billion	5.5%
2004	$605.0 billion	5.3%
2005	$523.2 billion	4.3%
2006	$536.5 billion	4.1%
2007	$527.9 billion	3.9%

End of
Fiscal Year US Public Debt
USD billions^[18] % of GDP^[19]

1910 2.6

1920 25.9

1930 16.2

1940 43.0 44.2

1950 257.4 80.2

1960 290.2 45.7

1970 389.2 28.0

1980 930.2 26.1

1990 3233 42.0

2000 5674 35.1

2005 7933 37.4

2007 9008 36.8

2008 37.9(est)

End of Fiscal Year	US Public Debt USD billions^[18]	% of GDP^[19]
1910	2.6
1920	25.9
1930	16.2
1940	43.0	44.2
1950	257.4	80.2
1960	290.2	45.7
1970	389.2	28.0
1980	930.2	26.1
1990	3233	42.0
2000	5674	35.1
2005	7933	37.4
2007	9008	36.8
2008		37.9(est)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

National debt by U.S. presidential terms

U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP* End debt/GDP* Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP

Roosevelt/Truman D 1945-1949 117.5% 93.2% 0.05 -24.3%

Truman Harry Truman D 1949-1953 93.2% 71.3% 0.01 -21.9%

Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953-1957 71.3% 60.5% 0.01 -10.8%

Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957-1961 60.5% 55.1% 0.02 -5.4%

Kennedy/Johnson D 1961-1965 55.1% 46.9% 0.03 -8.2%

Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965-1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.05 -8.3%

Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969-1973 38.6% 35.7% 0.07 -2.9%

Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 35.7% 35.8% 0.19 +0.1%

Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 35.8% 32.6% 0.18 -3.2%

Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 32.6% 43.9% 0.65 +11.3%

Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 43.9% 53.1% 1.04 +9.2%

Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993 53.1% 66.2% 1.40 +13.1%

Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 66.2% 65.6% 1.12 -0.6%

Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 65.6% 57.4% 0.42 -8.2%

Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001-2005 57.4% 64.3% 1.15 +6.9%

Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005-2009 projection 64.3% 68.2% projection +3.9% projection

U.S. president	Party	Term years	Start debt/GDP*	End debt/GDP*	Increase debt ($T)	Increase debt/GDP
Roosevelt/Truman	D	1945-1949	117.5%	93.2%	0.05	-24.3%
Truman Harry Truman	D	1949-1953	93.2%	71.3%	0.01	-21.9%
Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower	R	1953-1957	71.3%	60.5%	0.01	-10.8%
Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower	R	1957-1961	60.5%	55.1%	0.02	-5.4%
Kennedy/Johnson	D	1961-1965	55.1%	46.9%	0.03	-8.2%
Johnson Lyndon Johnson	D	1965-1969	46.9%	38.6%	0.05	-8.3%
Nixon1 Richard Nixon	R	1969-1973	38.6%	35.7%	0.07	-2.9%
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford	R	1973-1977	35.7%	35.8%	0.19	+0.1%
Carter Jimmy Carter	D	1977-1981	35.8%	32.6%	0.18	-3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan	R	1981-1985	32.6%	43.9%	0.65	+11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan	R	1985-1989	43.9%	53.1%	1.04	+9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush	R	1989-1993	53.1%	66.2%	1.40	+13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton	D	1993-1997	66.2%	65.6%	1.12	-0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton	D	1997-2001	65.6%	57.4%	0.42	-8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush	R	2001-2005	57.4%	64.3%	1.15	+6.9%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush	R	2005-2009 projection	64.3%	68.2% projection		+3.9% projection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

John McCain: Farm subsidies

Tom Coburn’s Fight Against Pork

Coburn on Stealing from our Children 09 20 07

Tom Coburn – The Dr. of Truth

Senator Tom Coburn talks about his health care plan pt.1

Senator Tom Coburn talks about his health care plan pt.2

Sarah Palin–Perspective

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on Larry Kudlow

Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck

Sarah Palin for Vice President – 2008

Sarah Palin on ACES

Mitt Romney – An Introduction

Mitt Romney on drilling,the economy,and more

Romney: Open Oil Fields in Alaska for Domestic Drilling

Gov. Romney on Immigration & Healthcare

Mitt Romney: Tax policy

Mitt Romney on being Vice President for John McCain

McCain VP Rumors Swirl

‘Celeb’, Mc Cain ad tells it like it is

“New Energy” Ad

Pump¨ TV Ad

CNNC McCain ad: “Celeb

U.S. Troops-hater Obama Thinks He Did Well in Global Campaign

The Winner!

Background Articles and Videos

What is an Empty Suit?

“…An empty suit tends to refer to a non-important person — perhaps someone puffed up with his own importance but really having little effect on the lives of others. It is often used as an insult to disparage others who really don’t deserve the title. The true empty suit, which conjures up the image of a business suit of clothing without a person, really doesn’t know what he or she is doing. He or she is ineffectual, perhaps a phony, and is about as relevant or helpful as a suit hanging on a rack.

To call someone an empty suit implies that you think they are a complete waste of time. Editorials on politicians love to use the term empty suit to describe people seeking presidential office. This or that politician is just “an empty suit,” to quote the words of numerous political critics, and is thus undeserving of our attention. …”

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-empty-suit.htm

Obama and the Affirmative Action Media

By James Lewis

“Sometimes it’s important to state the obvious, as George Orwell urged in another era of big lies and Political Correctness. It’s obvious that the media are in the bag for Obama for one big reason, and one reason only: his race. The media have adopted liberal race bias as it is practiced on hundreds of campuses, in newsrooms all over, and in corporations galore. It’s “affirmative” race discrimination, but it’s still completely arbitrary favoritism based on skin color.

There’s something profoundly wrong with that. It offends our sense of fair play. When governments behave this way it’s a flagrant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Every time normal people get a chance to vote, they vote against it. Even leftwing Supreme Court justices say that affirmative action is only a “temporary” fix for a history of discrimination against blacks.

But that’s a lie. The race industry will never let go; on the contrary, they are including ever-more victim groups. The gender industry came in on top of the civil rights movement, and the sexual minority establishment rode in on the back of feminism. Hispanics and illegals are going to be the next big victim groups. From anti-black discrimination to anti-white discrimination — where’s the progress? …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obama_and_the_affirmative_acti.html

Obama, Paris, Britney, and Brangelina

By Michelle Malkin

“…Looks like the McCain camp was on the same wavelength. The McCain camp and I on the same page for once? Yes, it’s true! They released an ad called “Celeb” mocking Obama as the biggest, emptiest celebrity in the world and taking on Obama’s opposition to offshore drilling:

Celeb

Good stuff. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/30/obama-paris-britney-and-brangelina/

Who compared Obama to Paris Hilton first?

By Michelle Malkin

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/04/who-compared-obama-to-paris-hilton-first/

Charlie Rose – BARACK OBAMA

Ayers’ Weathermen planned “re-education”, genocide

The Great Pretender” – The Platters

Apocalypse Now

“Apocalypse Now is a 1979 Academy Award, Cannes Palme d’Or and Golden Globe winning war film set during the Vietnam War. It tells the tale of Army Captain Benjamin L. Willard who is sent into the jungle to assassinate United States Army Special Forces Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, who has gone AWOL and is believed to be insane. The film has been viewed as a journey into the darkness of the human psyche. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Now

Apocalypse Now

The Horror

Apocalypse Now – Kurtz Dies

Re: Apocalypse Now – theatrical end credits with director’s

T. S. Eliot: The Hollow Men

The Hollow Men

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us — if at all — not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death’s dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind’s singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.

Let me be no nearer
In death’s dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat’s coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer –

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom

III

This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man’s hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Is it like this
In death’s other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.

The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death’s twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.

Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o’clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Thomas Stearns Eliot

Background Articles and Vidoes

The case for Vice President Coburn

By Jeremy Lott

Many new Republican congressmen played at small government conservatism, but Coburn meant it and grew increasingly dismayed by his colleagues’ capitulations to Bill Clinton and big government. He regularly lacerated them for their cowardice and didn’t let it go at just rhetoric.

When it had become clear that Speaker Newt Gingrich would no longer fight for real reforms, Coburn backed a failed coup to install Majority Leader Dick Armey as speaker, marking him as one of the hardest hard-liners.

When the Oklahoman kept his promise to retire after three terms, many of our nation’s lawmakers breathed a sigh of relief and then gasped in utter horror when Coburn ran for a Senate seat in 2004. He won in an upset and became a greater problem than ever before. …”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9341.html

Tom Coburn on John McCain at CPAC

Tom Coburn – The Dr. of Truth

There’s No Defending Pork
A key battleground for the GOP.

By Tom Coburn

“…First, it’s important for conservatives to understand who the Porkbusters are and who they are not. The Porkbusters are not the visionaries behind the “Porkbusters” website — Glenn Reynolds and N.Z. Bear, nor are they conservative activists at issue groups, nor are they members of Congress like Jim DeMint, Jeff Flake, or myself.

Instead the Porkbusters represent what is arguably the only grassroots movement since 1994 to gain traction and build momentum on the core American principle of limited government. The Porkbusters movement is not particularly concerned with the electoral fate of Republicans or Democrats, but they are concerned with the fate of the Republic and their own tax dollars. Quite simply, Porkbusters is a movement comprised of individuals who are just plain sick of their money being wasted, quite often in secret, by self-serving politicians.

Establishment Republicans loathe the Porkbusters because they are effective. They are so effective, in fact, that one powerful politician said of them in 2006, “I’ll just say this about the so-called Porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina.” Recall that in October 2005, the Senate voted to protect the “Bridge to Nowhere” by a vote of 82-15. Today, thanks to unrelenting pressure, both parties are clamoring to out-reform the other. Rather than belittling this movement, the Republican establishment should embrace and learn from it. …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmYzYzJjMTgzOTU2OGVlZDY1MWJhMDQ3YmQ3NzljMWU=

Senator Tom Coburn Needs Your Help Fighting Wasteful Government Spending

“…While Senator Coburn has unapologetically stood up for the American taxpayer, he can only do so much on his own. The Senate’s liberal leadership has devised a scheme to bundle many of the bills he has held up into one package, known on Capitol Hill as the “Coburn omnibus.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said he plans to bring the “Coburn omnibus” to the Senate floor before the August recess. If these bills were debated one at a time, Senator Coburn would likely succeed in demonstrating how frivolous much of this proposed spending is. But bundled together, the Senate leadership may succeed in steamrolling Senator Coburn and other fiscal conservatives. As John Fund of the Wall Street Journal put it, many senators “will be torn between supporting their colleague in his fight against excessive spending or risking losing projects for their state. Mr. Reid’s move is a clever way to force [senators] to choose between their self-proclaimed principles and pork.” And keep in mind, my friends, what it says about the Senate’s priorities if it chooses in the final days of this month to debate more spending rather than to solve our energy crisis. …”

http://samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/senator-tom-coburn-needs-your-help-fighting-wasteful-government-spending/

The Minority Leader

Is Sen. Tom Coburn an extreme social conservative, a libertarian hero, or both?

“…But in the economic realm, Coburn is one of the most outspoken, principled, and, increasingly, influential advocates for smaller government that either house of Congress has seen in years. He has thrown more monkey wrenches into the machine of congressional spending than any national politician. And he has done this without losing an election. …”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120322.html

Tom Coburn

“Thomas Allen “Tom” Coburn, M.D. (born March 14, 1948) is an American politician and medical doctor. A member of the Republican Party, he currently serves as the junior U.S. Senator from Oklahoma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn

Senator Tom Coburn

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/

Coburn on Earmark Reform, Part I

Coburn on Earmark Reform, Part 2

Obama compares Sen. Tom Coburn to a terrorist

Here’s a better analogy for Bill Ayers than Tom Coburn: Eric Rudolph.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/19/heres-a-better-analogy-for-bill-ayers-than-tom-coburn-eric-rudolph/

Charlie Rose – RU-486 PANEL / E. THOMAS / C. DAVIS

Interview with Senator Tom Coburn

http://mefeedia.com/entry/interview-with-senator-tom-coburn/10570670

National Debt Clock

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

National debt by U.S. presidential terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

The long-term economic fiscal crisis; spending and debt

Economic Essentials: Preventing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Collapse Impact On Bond Markets; Fixed Income Strategy

What Do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Do?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae “insolvent

Ron Paul on housing bail out

Ron Paul *THE MOTHER OF ALL BAILOUTS!

Background Articles and Videos

“Only Talk on Oil, Gas Prices” – Paul Bledsoe on Lou Dobbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gqgONTYaf0

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck 06/19/2008 – Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZO8C-zx8H4

Ron Paul to Ben Bernake: “You’re Probably the Biggest Taxer”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp5KtpA4JmU&feature=related

Ron Paul on Kudlow and Company, 07/16/08 Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vEM-FlMtg&feature=related

Ron Paul on Kudlow and Company, 07/16/08 Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD11WJpJvSg&feature=related

INFLATION + MARKET CRISIS? Bernanke Hill Testimony Day 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Cbdk3muMM&feature=related

Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke – 7/16/08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06awZjZTVlQ&feature=related

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck 07/16/2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBEr73zOPk

Larry Kudlow and Kevin Kerr discuss oil prices and Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3ZSsz9C50&feature=related

Forbes: Gramm and McCain still working together

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0J7uSilW4k

Wake Up! Ron Paul Tries To Save Our Liberty! Barr 08!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnXFigSWtss&feature=related

Bob Barr: Taxes & Spending

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaGpmJnWgvg&feature=related

Bob Barr: Government Intervention and the Nanny State

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMYTFovjaDg&feature=related

Bob Barr: Health Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpzSxciOl7o&feature=related

Bob Barr: American Economy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkPMJRDBuo&feature=related

Bob Barr on Bloomberg 05/29/08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_o97bp5Wr0&feature=related

Bob Barr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1pRDqvsInY&feature=related

Milton Friedman explains role of gold in Great Depression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7pnjzCuSv8&feature=related

Milton Friedman (December 26, 2005)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNrMQazZHDc

Milton Friedman and Cato

http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw&feature=related

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 2 of 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDV0YII6lk&feature=related

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 3 of 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhgy0ymD-NI&feature=related

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64mr-cjxZfU&feature=related

Background Articles and Videos

James Brown – Papa’s Got A Brand New Bag

Eco-Socialism

“Eco-socialism, Green socialism or Socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transstatal structures; they advocate the non-violent dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the Commons.^{[1] …”}

^“….Eco-socialists are critical of many past and existing forms of both Green politics and socialism. They are often described as Red Greens – adherents to Green politics with clear anti-capitalist views, often inspired by Marxism (Red Greens should be contrasted with Blue Greens). The term Watermelon is commonly applied, often as an insult, to describe professed Greens who seem to put social justice goals above ecological ones, implying they are “green on the outside but red on the inside”; the term is usually attributed to either Petr Beckmann or, more frequently, Warren T. Brookes,^[2][3][4] both conservative critics of environmentalism, and is apparently common in Australia,^[5][6] New Zealand^[7] and the United States^[8] (a website in New Zealand, The Watermelon, uses the term as a compliment, stating that it is “green on the outside and liberal on the inside”, using the term ‘liberal’ while also citing “socialist political leanings”, reflecting the use of the term ‘liberal’ to describe the Left-wing in many English-speaking countries^[7] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

The Marxist roots of the global warming scare

Wes Vernon

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080616

Fightback The Marxist Voice of Labour and Youth

Capitalism and the Environment

“…Outside the flat-earthers in the White House, there is a consensus that global warming is a big problem – actually the biggest environmental problem the world faces by far. The capitalist powers met at Kyoto and came to an agreement. The USA opted out. But America, with less than 5% of the world’s population, is responsible for a quarter of all carbon emissions. So that makes the Accord pretty much meaningless. But a lot of those countries that agreed to the Kyoto targets to cut the increase in emissions (not cut emissions) have failed to meet them. It is actually quite difficult for a capitalist state to control the activities of tens of thousands of capitalist firms who are responsible for giving off CO2. And everybody agrees that Kyoto will not solve the problem. It is usually described as a ‘first step’, and that first step has never really been taken.

So world socialism really is the only way we can protect the environment, in other words our home, the planet earth.”

http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/219/52/

Watermellon: Green on the outside Liberal on the Inside

http://thewatermelon.org/component/option,com_glossary/func,display/letter,W/Itemid,89/catid,61/page,1/

Joel Kovel

“Joel Kovel (born 27 August 1936) is an American politician, academic, writer and eco-socialist. A practicing psychiatrist and psychoanalyst until the mid-1980s, he has lectured in psychiatry, anthropology, political science and communication studies. He has published many books on his work in psychiatry, psychoanalysis and political activism. He is a member of the Green Party of the US (GPUS). …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Kovel

Dr. Joel Kovel, “Eco-Socialism” Pt. 1 of 3

Dr. Joel Kovel, “Eco-Socialism” Pt. 2 of 3

Dr. Joel Kovel, “Eco-Socialism” Pt. 3 of 3

A Really Inconvenient Truth

A Really Inconvenient Truth (Part 2/7)

A Really Inconvenient Truth (Part 3/7)

A Really Inconvenient Truth (Part 4/7)

A Really Inconvenient Truth (Part 5/7)

A Really Inconvenient Truth (Part 6/7)

A Really Inconvenient Truth (Part 7/7)

Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive

Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis

“…Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% – far more than previously estimated – according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush. …”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

No Drilling, No Vote

Speaker Pelosi won’t let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling.

“…WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There’s a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won’t be hearing it in the House of Representatives — certainly, you won’t find lawmakers voting on it — anytime soon.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? “What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy,” she said yesterday when asked that very question. “What we’re saying is, ‘Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.’ . . . It is the economic life of America’s families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we’re saying is, ‘What can we do that is constructive?’ “

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403506.html

Background Articles and Video

Germany: No to Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_L31-sMQ8c

O’Reilly, Ingraham: Obama Attacks America in Berlin Speech

G.Beck: Obama Picks Hitler’s Victory Column for Berlin Speech

Who Does Obama Think He Is?
A political messiah, who — unlike Reagan and Kennedy — needn’t bother to do anything

“…What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final “tear down this wall” liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin. …”

“…Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGI2ZWI2MzA2MWRkZTIyZmIxZjkzOWE0NjAzMDIwOTA=

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself. …”

Obama on tour in Berlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLqUR73OTw

Barack’s Berlin Blunder | Michelle Malkin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPc4OjLKXpY

Obama on tour in Berlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHTAxHss944

Obama to Deliver Address in Berlin Thursday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hs69Rk1QNM

Obama’s Berlin Transfiguration Speech

“So, what do we make of this speech? The answer is — it doesn’t matter. The speech was ancillary to the event. It carried no news. The German audience was merely a European stage prop. The target audience was (1) the old news media, who will fawn over the sort of positive audience reception there that Bush will never enjoy, and (2) undecided voters back at home. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_berlin_transfiguration.html

Obama, The Global Candidate

By Lee Cary

“…Obama will be packaged as the Global Candidate to whom the world’s poor and oppressed look for signs of hope for the future. His mixed race and varied national backgrounds symbolize his connectivity with peoples across the planet. The adulation felt for him beyond America offers the U.S. a chance for enhanced strength and repaired credibility worldwide. Sure, he’s an American citizen, but he’s also a global citizen, a man of the world. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/obama_the_global_candidate.html

Next stop, Germany: Ich bin ein beginner!

By Michelle Malkin

“…Germany awaits The One. After getting heckled at the Western Wall, a fact you will be hard pressed to find reported in the American media, Barack Obama has arrived in Germany.

Wonderful Tennyson Hayes has once again produced a special Obama poster to commemorate the occasion: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/24/next-stop-germany-ich-bin-ein-beginner/

Obama’s Berlin Moment

By James Lewis

“…The history of Europe is all glorified blood, blood, and more blood. Today, Eurosocialists claim to be all about peace. But in fact socialism has been a classic European imperialist movement — what do you think the Soviet Union was all about? Today Eurosocialism is limited to peaceful imperialism, but not a few decades ago it taught agitators like Pol Pot how to kill, and sent him off to Cambodia to murder three million of his people. As long as the massacres happened far away, European socialists were happy. They still are.

In fact, Eurosocialism still contains all the seeds of classic European imperialism: The endless sense of Europe’s superiority over the rest of the world, the preachiness of how the rest of the world must live, the constant efforts to impose global carbon taxes, poverty taxes, and UN rules on subject nations (like the US) for the greater glory of Germany-France-Spain-Britain — all the classic European imperial powers look at the US with green imperialism envy. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_berlin_moment.html

Victory Column Berlin – future site of Obama speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1-ZS-56sPY

Obama’s Victory Column

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdN4pQwZFaM

Williams on Obama interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFUPIjXte-E

Angela Merkel Is Pissed At Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kEWlqC3bV8

Full Text Of Obama’s Berlin Speech

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/full_text_of_obama.php

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

Global Poverty Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_poverty_act

United Nations Millennium Declaration

http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf

A Conversation with James Cone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw

Gakkel Ridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gakkel_Ridge

Arctic Seafloor Expedition: July 1-Aug. 10, 2007

http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/expedition2/

Mid Ocean Ridges, Volcanoes, and the Arctic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQsbT9j3P44

Underwater Vehicles in the Arctic Ocean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESmtC00mT_s

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

“A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. Such violent eruptions of splintered, fragmented rock–known as pyroclastic deposits — were not thought possible at great ocean depths because of the intense weight and pressure of water and because of the composition of seafloor magma and rock.

Researchers found jagged, glassy rock fragments spread out over a 10 square kilometer (4 square mile) area around a series of small volcanic craters about 4,000 meters (2.5 miles) below the sea surface. The volcanoes lie along the Gakkel Ridge, a remote and mostly unexplored section of the mid-ocean ridge system that runs through the Arctic Ocean.

“These are the first pyroclastic deposits we’ve ever found in such deep water, at oppressive pressures that inhibit the formation of steam, and many people thought this was not possible,” said WHOI geophysicist Rob Reves-Sohn, lead author and chief scientist for the Arctic Gakkel Vents Expedition (AGAVE) of July 2007. “This means that a tremendous blast of CO₂ was released into the water column during the explosive eruption.”

The paper, which was co-authored by 22 investigators from nine institutions in four countries, was published in the June 26 issue of the journal Nature. …”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm

Could Volcanoes Be Melting The Arctic Ice?

“…Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.

The eruptions — as big as the one that buried Pompei — took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.

But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.

What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth’s mantle onto the ocean floor…”

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/could-volcanoes-be-melting-the-arctic-ice

Arctic ice melt may be due to undersea volcanoes

Thomas Lifson

“The Arctic ice that is supposedly melting, stranding those cuddly looking polar bears, just might be affected by a wave of volcanic eruptions on the ocean floor under the Arctic ice cap. AFP reports on the recently-documented volcanoes, but oddly makes no mention of the possible effect on apocalyptic predictions of global warming. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/arctic_ice_melt_mat_be_due_to.html

Artic Volcanoes, Something to think about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlMTrpqZng4

New World Order

“The term “new world order” (Latin: novus ordo mundi) has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association to the failed League of Nations the phrase would bring. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a “new world order.” …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order

Obama Speech: Berlin 24th July [entire speech written down]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ylvniRiCFU

Obama in Berlin New World Order Speech reported by SKY News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBHEPY6QjgU

Barack Obama

“…Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Obama, Sr., a Black Kenyan of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas. His parents met while both were attending the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student.^[3] They separated when he was two years old and later divorced.^[4] Obama’s father returned to Kenya and saw his American-born son only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Eco-socialism

“Eco-socialism, Green socialism or Socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transstatal structures; they advocate the non-violent dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the Commons.^{[1] …”}

^“…Eco-socialists are critical of many past and existing forms of both Green politics and socialism. They are often described as Red Greens – adherents to Green politics with clear anti-capitalist views, often inspired by Marxism (Red Greens should be contrasted with Blue Greens). The term Watermelon is commonly applied, often as an insult, to describe professed Greens who seem to put social justice goals above ecological ones, implying they are “green on the outside but red on the inside”; the term is usually attributed to either Petr Beckmann or, more frequently, Warren T. Brookes,^[2][3][4] both conservative critics of environmentalism, and is apparently common in Australia,^[5][6] New Zealand^[7] and the United States^[8] (a website in New Zealand, The Watermelon, uses the term as a compliment, stating that it is “green on the outside and liberal on the inside”, using the term ‘liberal’ while also citing “socialist political leanings”, reflecting the use of the term ‘liberal’ to describe the Left-wing in many English-speaking countries^[7]). Red Greens are often considered ‘fundies’ or ‘fundamentalist greens’, a term usually associated with Deep Ecology despite the fact that the German Green Party ‘fundi’ faction included eco-socialists, and eco-socialists in other Green Parties, like Derek Wall, have been described in the press as ‘fundies’.^{[9][10 ..."}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

The Platters

"The Platters were a successful vocal group of the early rock and roll era. Their distinctive sound was a bridge between the pre-rock Tin Pan Alley tradition, and the burgeoning new genre. The act went through many personnel changes, with the most successful incarnation comprising lead tenor Tony Williams, David Lynch, Paul Robi, Herb Reed, and Zola Taylor. ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Platters

The Mending Wall - As Recited by Robert Frost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTglCBLomXA

Mending Wall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gBQlp9XwfA

MENDING WALL

Robert Frost

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/frost-mending.html

LOL

Red State Update: Obama's German Crowds There For The Bands?

Background Articles and Videos

The Impressionists BBC (Part 1)

The Impressionists BBC (Part 2)

The Impressionists BBC (Part 3)

Background Articles and Videos

Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’

By Thomas Sowell

“…The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.

The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.

The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is. …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdiOWE0YWQwMTg4YTlhOThmNDdkNTFmNTg1MjBkZDM=

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

“…Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world’s energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 — roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It’s a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit “global warming.”

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

E-Team

Providing Accurate Information on Energy & Environment Issues

Policy Issues: Impacts and Responses

Experts

http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=impacts-and-responses

Gore’s Goal: Former V.P. Lays Down a Green Gauntlet

“…But not everything in the speech was political back-and-forth or lofty plans to overhaul America’s energy habits in a decade. One of the most pressing priorities, Mr. Gore said, was the overhaul of America’s aged and rickety electricity-transmission system, which costs loads of money today and stands in the way of real clean-energy progress:

At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

Texas isn’t waiting for Nobel-winners in Washington to give the signal. The Lone Star State, already the national leader in wind power, approved a $4.9 billion expansion of its transmission system, AP reports. That will make it possible to take wind from the windy, western parts to places people live and work. …”

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/17/gores-goal-former-vp-lays-down-a-green-gauntlet/

Global Warming – what do the numbers show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA

Climate Change – has it been cancelled?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU&feature=related

Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHZOYtAztU&feature=related

Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of Co2 part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9IHKfzDdn8&feature=related

CO2 and Climate Change: 1/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOi1Pnm4m0U

CO2 and Climate Change: 2/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iVAuqGebUI&feature=related

CO2 and Climate Change: 3/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySAGYKsCJyI&feature=related

CO2 and Climate Change: 4/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9HcashWNFs&feature=related

No smoking hot spot

“…But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything. …”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Gore’s Challenge For Renewable Energy; US To Renewable Sources Of Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ipfQR3aGpg

The Global Warming Logic Tree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlXLIXYBB3Y&feature=related

Glenn Beck: Global Warming greatest scam in history

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

Glenn Beck on The NY Times Attacking Al Gore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv9NTKL9ONE

Global Warming: What Is Gore Afraid Of?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zklScbI0tbo&feature=related

Five Ways to Lower Gasoline Prices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EkL8crjNs

Lord Al Gore The Global Warming Fascist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WFDcZxT0s

AAl Gore: just plain nuts l Gore: just plain nuts

http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=2939

Dennis Miller unloads on Al Gore, other greens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruuux4AuHfQ&feature=related

More Scientists don’t see CO2 as temperature driver

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvxGbH8Mqw&feature=related

Global warming is socialism and political movemnt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2J-zHo-ILw&feature=related

Is Al Gore Nuts?

“…Frankly no serious analyst is suggesting that within 10 years, given the state of technology and the best case forecast capacity, that solar can make up more than a small single digit fraction of even electricity needs or that wind can make up more than a meaningful minority share (let alone after doubling the global power demand by replacing liquid fuels in cars with electricity, which Al Gore also suggests), especially given lead times on power plants and transmission lines. …”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9994015-54.html

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?

“…Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore—see here and here for his recent writing on global warming—and Gore thought highly enough of him to respond to one of his essays. Like Gore, Lord Monckton is a prominent figure in the global warming debate who is not a scientist or professional economist. He would seem to be an appropriate and worthy opponent.

But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.

If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?

Is it because there is no scientific consensus on the causes or effects of global warming? Is it because a growing number of experts believe we should invest in adapting to global warming—whether it is due to natural or human causes—rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Whatever the reason, we believe Al Gore should debate his critics. If you agree, please ask Al Gore to accept Dennis Avery’s challenge. …”

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873

Al Gore Goes Full-On Totalitarian (Also, His Meal Ticket Looks to Be Going Away, Quickly)

“…Gore has given an almost pitch-perfect fascist speech. It hits every important element: a concocted existential crisis to mobilize the entire nation, a demand to subsume the will of the individual to the will of the State, a call to cast out dissenters as dangerous, and appeals to speedy action and change.

It also, like fascism, aggregates power to the elites, who stand to profit quite handsomely from the arrangement.

Luckily for us, Gore’s increasingly totalitarian demands are likely to be outpaced by the very science he contorts to suit his purposes. Dr. David Evans, who once served in the Australian Government’s Greenhouse Office, calls the entire notion of anthropogenic global warming a crock that is not the least bit supported by the evidence. (via Gabriel Malor). In fact, the science is pointing away from APG so much that the “alarmists” (to use his word) are ignoring the real data and making up their own. …”

http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/07/17/al-gore-goes-full-on-totalitarian-also-his-meal-ticket-looks-to-be-going-away-quickly/

High Fuel and Electricity Prices — Made in Washington

“…This stagnation has been caused by United States government taxation, regulation, and sponsorship of litigation, which has made the U.S. a very unfavorable place to produce energy. Moreover, the U.S. government has spent vast sums of tax money subsidizing inferior energy technologies for political purposes.

The Wall Street Journal recently estimated that 381 nuclear power plants are in design or construction throughout the world, yet not one nuclear power plant has been constructed in the United States in more than 30 years.

United States hydrocarbon resources are vast. Untapped U.S. oil and gas resources are enormous, and the U.S. also has 25% of the world’s coal. Coal, oil, and gas are interchangeable. For example, coal can be liquefied at costs far below current world oil prices. The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world. …”

“…So, the greatest industrial, technological, and scientific power the world has ever known — created and made possible through institutionalized human freedom — is on the road to being turned into a second-rate nation with diminished human freedom. This is being accomplished by political destruction of America’s energy industries and of many of her other industries by similar means.

If we continue to allow our politicians to debase our currency at moneyfactory.com and to diminish our industrial capabilities through restrictions on energy production, we had best be prepared to endure the logical consequences — gasoline at more than $10 per gallon, $2,000 monthly electricity and gas bills, and, ultimately, energy rationing and technological poverty.

Why not place a mirror in front of your television set during the next political commercial? Then, look at the visage in the mirror and ask, “Do you really prefer to elect politicians who will continue to make the United States uninhabitable for the industries that fuel my car, power my air conditioner, light my lights, power my computer and wide-screen television, and allow my employer to remain in business?”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24318

Dissecting Al Gore’s $5 Trillion Energy Plan

July 18, 2008 11:01 AM ET | James Pethokoukis

“…By my math, using Pickens’s numbers, converting the whole economy to renewable energy in a short period of time might cost $5 trillion—and that is if you assume that government-led projects come in on budget. (Remember, the current U.S. gross domestic product is $12 trillion.) That would be like creating another Japan. Or fighting World War II all over again. The latter analogy is especially apt since the Gore Plan would effectively transform our free-market economy into a command-and-control war economy full of rationing and scarcity. Of course, there are many folks like Gore who view global warming as the moral equivalent of war. But Gore would extend the concept into the economic equivalent of war. Again, all this makes sense if you think we are doomed otherwise. …”

“…This isn’t the first time Gore has made a proposal with jaw-dropping economic consequences. Environmental economist William Nordhaus ran the numbers on Gore’s idea to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus found that while such a plan would indeed reduce the maximum increase in global temperatures to between 1.3 and 1.6 degrees Celsius, it did so “at very high cost” of between $17 trillion and $22 trillion over the long term, as opposed to doing nothing. (Again, just for comparative purposes, the entire global economy is about $50 trillion.) …”

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/7/18/dissecting-al-gores-5-trillion-energy-plan.html

Coal-Fired Power Plants Provide

Largest Share of Electricity Supply

Coal-fired power plants (including utilities, independent

power producers, and end-use CHP) continue to

be the dominant source of electricity generation

through 2030 (Figure 61). Although natural-gas-fired

plants with lower capital costs make up most of the

capacity additions over the next 10 years, more

coal-fired plants are built in the later years as natural

gas fuel costs increase. The natural gas share of

generation falls from 20 percent in 2006 to 14 percent

in 2030, while the coal share increases from 49 percent

to 54 percent.

Federal tax incentives, State renewable energy programs,

and rising fossil fuel prices lead to increases in

renewable and nuclear capacity and generation, as

new plants are built. The generation share from

renewable capacity increases by 32 percent from 2006

to 2030 and represents 13 percent of total electricity

supply in 2030. With capacity additions and improvements

in performance at existing nuclear facilities,

nuclear generation also increases; however, the

nuclear share of total generation falls slightly, from

19 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2030.

Technology choices for new plants and utilization of

existing capacity are affected by relative fuel costs

and changes in environmental policies. For example,

natural-gas-fired plants are projected to supply 21

percent of total electricity supply in 2030 in the low

price case but only 10 percent in the high price case,

but coal-fired plants supply 49 percent of the total in

the low price case and 57 percent in the high price

case. Changes in environmental policies could also

have a significant effect on the fuel shares of total

generation.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf

Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors)

Electric Power Monthly with data for February 2008
Report Released: July 10, 2008
Next Release Date: Mid-August 2008

Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 1994 through February 2008 (Thousand Megawatthours)
Period	Coal[1]	Petroleum Liquids[2]	Petroleum Coke	Natural Gas	Other Gases[3]	Nuclear	Hydroelectric Conventional	Other Renewables[4]	Hydroelectric Pumped Storage	Other[5]	Total
1994	1,690,694	98,440	7,461	460,219	13,319	640,440	260,126	76,535	-3,378	3,667	3,247,522
1995	1,709,426	66,944	7,610	496,058	13,870	673,402	310,833	73,965	-2,725	4,104	3,353,487
1996	1,795,196	73,521	7,890	455,056	14,356	674,729	347,162	75,796	-3,088	3,571	3,444,188
1997	1,845,016	82,773	9,782	479,399	13,351	628,644	356,453	77,183	-4,040	3,612	3,492,172
1998	1,873,516	116,859	11,941	531,257	13,492	673,702	323,336	77,088	-4,467	3,571	3,620,295
1999	1,881,087	107,276	10,785	556,396	14,126	728,254	319,536	79,423	-6,097	4,024	3,694,810
2000	1,966,265	102,160	9,061	601,038	13,955	753,893	275,573	80,906	-5,539	4,794	3,802,105
2001	1,903,956	114,647	10,233	639,129	9,039	768,826	216,961	70,769	-8,823	11,906	3,736,644
2002	1,933,130	78,701	15,867	691,006	11,463	780,064	264,329	79,109	-8,743	13,527	3,858,452
2003	1,973,737	102,734	16,672	649,908	15,600	763,733	275,806	79,487	-8,535	14,045	3,883,185
2004	1,978,620	100,040	20,731	708,854	16,766	788,528	268,417	82,604	-8,488	14,483	3,970,555
2005	2,013,179	100,095	22,427	757,974	16,317	781,986	270,321	87,213	-6,558	12,468	4,055,423
2006
January	169,258	4,251	1,893	43,529	1,326	71,912	27,437	8,442	-533	1,143	328,658
February	158,648	3,270	1,664	47,152	1,260	62,616	24,762	7,369	-447	1,040	307,333
March	161,355	2,434	1,601	54,585	1,421	63,721	24,625	8,210	-435	1,214	318,730
April	141,456	3,054	1,654	55,795	1,352	57,567	28,556	7,849	-587	1,162	297,858
May	157,051	2,920	1,520	65,302	1,440	62,776	30,818	8,019	-444	1,213	330,616
June	169,726	4,079	1,708	80,787	1,326	68,391	29,757	7,775	-423	1,134	364,260
July	187,860	5,142	1,882	107,862	1,374	72,186	25,439	8,098	-638	1,215	410,421
August	189,488	6,595	1,793	106,289	1,474	72,016	21,728	7,881	-695	1,193	407,763
September	161,630	3,057	1,603	72,402	1,299	66,642	17,201	7,702	-629	1,146	332,055
October	161,434	3,370	1,537	70,351	1,358	57,509	17,055	8,279	-507	1,181	321,567
November	159,472	3,366	1,393	53,161	1,216	61,392	20,272	8,290	-553	1,149	309,159
December	173,547	3,117	1,460	55,829	1,215	70,490	21,596	8,509	-667	1,188	336,283
Total	1,990,926	44,655	19,709	813,044	16,060	787,219	289,246	96,423	-6,558	13,977	4,064,702
2007
January	175,919	4,438	1,547	59,653	1,322	74,006	26,405	8,512	-572	1,138	352,369
February	163,590	7,710	1,250	58,087	1,173	65,225	18,648	8,119	-447	1,061	324,415
March	159,904	4,081	1,252	56,363	1,419	64,305	24,272	8,890	-458	1,172	321,198
April	146,516	3,872	1,184	60,729	1,337	57,301	23,854	8,739	-374	1,151	304,309
May	157,841	3,540	1,343	66,469	1,341	65,025	25,930	8,557	-547	1,202	330,701
June	173,990	4,238	1,524	81,185	1,361	68,923	22,860	8,382	-523	1,142	363,084
July	185,433	4,268	1,325	97,046	1,366	72,729	22,623	8,118	-595	1,190	393,503
August	190,681	5,877	1,450	120,761	1,339	72,751	20,002	8,631	-651	1,213	422,053
September	169,839	3,648	1,256	87,741	1,266	67,582	14,667	8,618	-756	1,119	354,981
October	162,642	3,551	1,163	78,321	1,164	61,690	14,826	8,867	-786	1,171	332,609
November	159,525	1,969	1,073	60,159	1,168	64,969	15,727	8,607	-685	1,049	313,561
December	174,691	2,765	1,385	66,696	1,160	71,983	18,498	8,948	-601	1,206	346,731
Total	2,020,572	49,956	15,752	893,211	15,414	806,487	248,312	102,988	-6,994	13,815	4,159,514
2008
January	182,579	3,136	1,313	72,090	1,249	70,686	22,358	9,647	-754	962	363,268
February	167,000	2,427	1,200	59,902	1,126	64,936	20,234	8,679	-375	778	325,906
Total	349,579	5,563	2,513	131,992	2,376	135,623	42,593	18,326	-1,129	1,740	689,175
Year-to-Date
2006	327,906	7,521	3,557	90,680	2,586	134,527	52,198	15,811	-979	2,183	635,991
2007	339,509	12,148	2,797	117,741	2,495	139,231	45,053	16,631	-1,019	2,199	676,784
2008	349,579	5,563	2,513	131,992	2,376	135,623	42,593	18,326	-1,129	1,740	689,175
Rolling 12 Months Ending in February
2007	2,002,529	49,282	18,949	840,104	15,970	791,922	282,101	97,243	-6,597	13,993	4,105,495
2008	2,030,642	43,371	15,468	907,463	15,294	802,879	245,852	104,684	-7,104	13,356	4,171,904
[1] Anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, lignite, waste coal, and coal synfuel. [2] Distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, jet fuel, kerosene, and waste oil. [3] Blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. [4] Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind. [5] Non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuel, and miscellaneous technologies. Notes: Beginning with 2001 data, non-biogenic municipal solid waste and tire-derived fuels are reclassified as non-renewable energy sources and included in “Other”. Biogenic municipal solid waste is included in “Other Renewables.” See Glossary for definitions. Values for 2007 and 2008 are preliminary. Values for January through July 2007 are revised. Values for 2006 and prior years are final. – See Technical Notes for a discussion of the sample design for the Form EIA-923 and predecessor forms. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Sources: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report;” Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-920 “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;” and predecessor forms. Beginning with 2008 data, the Form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report,” replaced the following: Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report;” Form EIA-920, “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;” Form EIA-423, “Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report;” and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC Form 423, “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants.”

Ice age to warming – and back?

“…While policymakers have worried long and hard about global warming, which might raise Earth’s temperature 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C by century’s end, a growing body of evidence suggests natural forces could just as easily plunge Earth’s average temperatures downward. In the past, the planet’s climate has changed 10 degrees in as little as 10 years. …”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.html

Last glacial period

“The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended between 10,000 and 15,000 BP. During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the last ice age, though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age has not yet come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

Charlie Rose – Alternative Energy / Internet Technology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ngECk1FQk

Ice Age

“An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth‘s surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist). More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, ice age is used to refer to colder periods with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the most recent ice age peaked about 11,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Why were there four long, generally cool periods during which continent-sized glaciers advanced and retreated?

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_4_cool_periods.html

Geology: Glaciers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gce9SqEy7BE

300 year history of renewable energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIXuXlfKyrc

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJG6pqh3q28&feature=related

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF0uOotKhrc

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYRWb3zBYY

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aJtWPPjGTc

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFeRFeo_01Q

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su_h1aXSSo0

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82vPk6eVUhY

Are We on the Brink of a ‘New Little Ice Age?’

“…It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.”

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007-08 and Uranium Requirements

9 June 2008

WORLD**	2608	16	439	371,989	36	29,958	93	101,395	218	192,975	64,615
	NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2007		REACTORS OPERABLE May 2008		REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION May 2008		REACTORS PLANNED May 2008		REACTORS PROPOSED May 2008		URANIUM REQUIRED 2008
	billion kWh	% e	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	tonnes U
Argentina	6.7	6.2	2	935	1	692	1	740	1	740	123
Armenia	2.35	43.5	1	376	0	0	0	0	1	1000	51
Bangladesh	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	0
Belarus	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	0	0	0
Belgium	46	54	7	5728	0	0	0	0	0	0	1011
Brazil	11.7	2.8	2	1901	0	0	1	1245	4	4000	303
Bulgaria	13.7	32	2	1906	0	0	2	1900	0	0	261
Canada*	88.2	14.7	18	12652	2	1500	3	3300	4	4400	1665
China	59.3	1.9	11	8587	7	6700	24	26320	76	62600	1396
Czech Republic	24.6	30.3	6	3472	0	0	0	0	2	1900	619
Egypt	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1000	0
Finland	22.5	29	4	2696	1	1600	0	0	1	1000	1051
France	420.1	77	59	63473	1	1630	0	0	1	1600	10527
Germany	133.2	26	17	20339	0	0	0	0	0	0	3332
Hungary	13.9	37	4	1826	0	0	0	0	2	2000	271
India	15.8	2.5	17	3779	6	2976	10	8560	9	4800	978
Indonesia	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	2	2000	0
Iran	0	0	0	0	1	915	2	1900	1	300	143
Israel	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1200	0
Japan	267	27.5	55	47577	2	2285	11	14945	1	1100	7569
Kazakhstan	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	300	0
Korea DPR (North)	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	950	0	0	0
Korea RO (South)	136.6	35.3	20	17533	3	3000	5	6600	0	0	3109
Lithuania	9.1	64.4	1	1185	0	0	0	0	2	3200	225
Mexico	9.95	4.6	2	1310	0	0	0	0	2	2000	246
Netherlands	4.0	4.1	1	485	0	0	0	0	0	0	98
Pakistan	2.3	2.34	2	400	1	300	2	600	2	2000	65
Romania	7.1	13	2	1310	0	0	2	1310	1	655	174
Russia	148	16	31	21743	7	4920	10	11960	25	22280	3365
Slovakia	14.2	54	5	2064	2	840	0	0	0	0	313
Slovenia	5.4	42	1	696	0	0	0	0	1	1000	141
South Africa	12.6	5.5	2	1842	0	0	1	165	24	4000	303
Spain	52.7	17.4	8	7442	0	0	0	0	0	0	1398
Sweden	64.3	46	10	9016	0	0	0	0	0	0	1418
Switzerland	26.5	43	5	3220	0	0	0	0	3	4000	537
Thailand	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	4000	0
Turkey	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	4500	0
Ukraine	87.2	48	15	13168	0	0	2	1900	20	27000	1974
United Kingdom	57.5	15	19	11035	0	0	0	0	0	0	2199
USA	806.6	19.4	104	99049	0	0	12	15000	20	26000	18918
Vietnam	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	0
	billion kWh	% e	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	tonnes U
	NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2007		REACTORS OPERATING		REACTORS BUILDING		ON ORDER or PLANNED		PROPOSED		URANIUM REQUIRED

Sources:
Reactor data: WNA to 30/05/08.
IAEA- for nuclear electricity production & percentage of electricity (% e) 5/08.
WNA: Global Nuclear Fuel Market (reference scenario) – for U.

Operating = Connected to the grid;
Building/Construction = first concrete for reactor poured, or major refurbishment under way;
Planned = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years, or construction well advanced but suspended indefinitely;
Proposed = clear intention or proposal but still without firm commitment. Planned and Proposed are generally gross MWe;
TWh = Terawatt-hours (billion kilowatt-hours), MWe = Megawatt net (electrical as distinct from thermal), kWh = kilowatt-hour.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

How To Build 6,000 Nuclear Plants by 2050

“We asked nuclear engineer James Muckerheide how many nuclear plants would be needed to bring the world’s population up to a decent standard of living, and how to do it. Here are his answers.

In 1997-1998, I made an estimate of how many nuclear plants would be needed in the world by 2050. It reflects an economy that is directed to provide the energy necessary to meet basic human needs, especially for the developing regions.

The initiative required is not unlike what the U.S. government did to build the nation: for example, to bring electric power to rural areas; to provide transportation by building roads and highways and canals, and the intercontinental railroads, and airlines; to develop water supplies and irrigation systems; to provide telephone service, medical and hospital services; and many other programs that were essential to develop an advanced society, and to lift regions out of poverty.

However, we need to do more to meet those needs, both within the United States and for the developing world, to bring those people into the economic mainstream, instead of leaving them to be just cheap sources of our labor and raw materials.

The Role of Nuclear Energy

My projections simply envisioned nuclear energy growing from supplying 6% of world energy needs today to one third of the energy demand in 2050, which was taken to grow by about a factor of 3 from 2000. But, of course, that begs the question: Can fossil fuels continue to provide energy at or slightly above present levels, to produce about one third of the energy demand in 2050? And is it likely that hydro, wind energy, and other alternatives can provide the other third, which is also the equivalent of 100% of today’s total energy use?

So, nuclear power in 2050 would be roughly 18 times its current use. This requires fewer than the number of plants I projected in 1997, and is equivalent to about 5,100 1,000-megawatt-electric (MWe) plants. …”

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html

Consructing a lot of nuclear powere plants is not material constrained

“…One of the common arguments that some in the environmental movement have against nuclear power is “we cannot make enough reactors” and if we do then the price will go up. I will show that historically the world build at a reasonable fast rate (28/year). Currently there are more and more nuclear reactors on order and are being completed at about 8 per year. The material used is a fraction of what is available and will not be a major impact on material prices. The alternatives of coal, wind and hydro also are highly intensive in steel and concrete. The main thing that impacts a nuclear reactors construction cost is length of time to build and interest rates. People do not understand how much steel and concrete is made each year in the world and how many buildings and things are built.

Building 1,000 one gigwatt nuclear plants per year would use less than 10% of the worlds annual concrete and steel. Modern nuclear reactors need less than 40 metric tons of steel and 190 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt of average capacity. 1,000 one gigawatt nuclear plants per year would need 40 million metric tons of steel and 190 million cubic meters of concrete. World supplies in 2006 are 1.24-billion tons of steel per year & 2.283 billion tons of coal per year. …”

http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/constructing-lot-of-nuclear-power.html

Economics of new nuclear power plants

“…Construction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a power plant does not yield profits during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in four years or less (42 months for CANDU ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months from first concrete to operation for an EPR and 45 months for an ESBWR)^[9] as opposed to over a decade for some previous plants. However, despite Japanese success with ABWRs, the first EPR (in Finland) is significantly behind schedule.

In some countries in the past (notably the U.S.), changes in licensing, inspection and certification of nuclear power plants added delays and construction costs to their construction. However, the regulatory processes for siting, licensing, and constructing have been standardized since their introduction, streamlining the construction of newer and safer designs.

In the U.S. many new regulations were put in place in the years before and again immediately after the Three Mile Island accident‘s partial meltdown, resulting in delaying plants’ operation by many years. The NRC has new regulations in place now, and the next plants will have NRC Final Design Approval before the customer buys them, and a Combined Construction and Operating License will be issued before construction starts, guaranteeing that if the plant is built as designed then it will be allowed to operate — thus avoiding lengthy hearings after completion.

The smallest nuclear power plant that can be built is often larger than other power plants, making it possible for a utility to build the other plants in smaller increments, or in areas of low power consumption. (However, several new designs are being targeted at smaller markets, such as PBMR, IRIS, and SSTAR).

In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are significantly diminished because of streamlined government licensing and certification procedures. In France, one model of reactor was type-certified, using a safety engineering process similar to the process used to certify aircraft models for safety. That is, rather than licensing individual reactors, the regulatory agency certified a particular design and its construction process to produce safe reactors. U.S. law permits type-licensing of reactors, a process which is being used on the AP1000 and the ESBWR.^[10]

To encourage development of nuclear power, under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has offered interested parties the opportunity to introduce France’s model for licensing and to subsidize 25% to 50% of the construction cost overruns due to delays for the first six new plants. Several applications were made, two sites have been chosen to receive new plants, and other projects are pending (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program). …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/com_reactors.pdf

Gas Prices and Energy Markets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VnoTiF1Y40

Solar panels future, energy generation and global warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUqmurcUeEs

Robert Bryce Believes Energy Independence is a Pipe Dream

http://fora.tv/2008/03/18/Robert_Bryce_Believes_Energy_Independence_is_a_Pipe_Dream

LOL

Red State Update: Al Gore’s Electric Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItDuvjOY0B4

Red State Update: Gas Prices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYS9CI3rFrQ

Background Articles and Videos

Obama: Higher Oil Prices Are Good? What???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gehaf7_TBAs

Democrats Vote Against Drilling for U.S. Oil – TREASON?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9gr1N8Y-nk

Liberals (Democrats) Want High Gas Prices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNP8tf78pXc

Newt Gingrich – We Must Drill for Oil NOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9O1QzKgIuk

73% of Americans Support Offshore Drilling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aanSprhrhTk&feature=related

Glenn Beck’s Real Story – Energy Independence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZ_4EXeyaA

Energy Information Administration – United States Energy Profile

United States Energy Profile


Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Energy Data Series

Download Full Series: 1980-2007 (xls)

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Petroleum (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Total Oil Production Production of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas plant liquids, and other liquids, and refinery processing gain (loss). Negative value indicates refinery processing loss.	9460.94	9278.01	8993.41	9057.78	8957.01	8999.90	8797.29	8700.20	8321.92	8330.46	8487.28
Crude Oil Production Includes lease condensate.	6451.59	6251.83	5881.46	5821.60	5801.40	5745.55	5680.70	5418.85	5178.39	5102.07	5102.45
Consumption Consumption of petroleum products and direct combustion of crude oil.	18620.30	18917.14	19519.33	19701.07	19648.71	19761.30	20033.51	20731.15	20802.16	20687.41	20697.53
Net Exports/Imports(-) Net Exports = Exports – Imports. Negative numbers are Net Imports. Note: Data range begins with the year 1990.	-9159.36	-9639.13	-10525.92	-10643.30	-10691.70	-10761.40	-11236.22	-12030.95	-12480.24	-12356.95	-12210.25
Refinery Capacity Crude oil distillation capacity as of January 1. Sources: U.S. data from EIA; Other countries from Oil & Gas Journal.	15452	15711	16261	16512	16595	16785	16757	16894	17125	17339	17397
Proved Reserves As of January 1. Sources: U.S. data from EIA; Other countries from Oil & Gas Journal. (Billion Barrels)	22.017	22.546	21.034	21.765	22.045	22.446	22.677	21.891	21.371	21.757	21.757

Natural Gas (Billion Cubic Feet)
Production Dry natural gas.	18902.0	19024.0	18832.2	19182.0	19616.0	18928.0	19099.0	18591.0	18074.0	18531.0	NA
Consumption Dry natural gas.	22737.0	22246.0	22405.0	23333.0	22239.0	23007.0	22277.0	22389.0	22241.0	21821.0	NA
Net Exports/Imports(-) Net Exports=Exports-Imports; Net Imports=Imports-Exports. Negative numbers are Net Imports. Data begins with 1990.	- 2837.0	- 2993.0	- 3423.0	- 3538.0	- 3604.0	- 3499.0	- 3264.0	- 3405.0	- 3612.0	NA	NA
Proved Reserves As of January 1. Sources: U.S. data from EIA; Other countries from Oil & Gas Journal.	166,474.0	167,223.0	164,041.0	167,406.0	177,427.0	183,460.0	186,946.0	189,044.0	192,513.0	204,385.0	204,385.0
	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Coal (Million Short Tons)
Production Production of primary coal (includes anthracite, bituminous, lignite, and for Estonia, oil shale).	1089.9	1117.5	1100.4	1073.6	1127.7	1094.3	1071.8	1112.1	1131.5	1161.4	NA
Consumption Consumption of primary coal (includes anthracite, bituminous, lignite, and for Estonia, oil shale) and net imports of metallurgical coke.	1029.5	1037.1	1038.6	1084.1	1060.1	1066.4	1094.9	1107.3	1125.5	1114.2	NA
Net Exports/Imports(-) Net Exports=Exports-Imports; Net Imports=Imports-Exports. Includes primary coal and metallurgical coke. (Trillion Btu)	1959.5	1806.5	1240.2	1149.4	741.3	549.4	440.5	433.4	467.5	296.7	NA
Electricity (Billion Kilowatthours)
Net Generation Conventional thermal electricity, hydroelectric power, nuclear electric power, and geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste electric power generation.	3496.2	3624.8	3700.9	3807.6	3745.5	3867.2	3891.7	3979.0	4062.0	4059.9	NA
Net Consumption Net generation+electricty imports-electricity exports-electricity distribution losses.	3301.8	3425.1	3483.7	3592.4	3557.1	3631.7	3662.0	3715.9	3815.7	NA	NA
Installed Capacity (GWe) One billion watts or one thousand megawatts of electric capacity, as of January 1.	759.3	756.3	766.4	792.2	828.6	884.9	927.9	942.2	956.7	NA	NA
Total Primary Energy (Quadrillion Btu)
Production Production of petroleum (crude oil and natural gas plant liquids), dry natural gas, and coal, and net generation of hydroelectric, nuclear, and geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste electric power.	72.6	73.0	71.9	71.5	71.9	70.9	70.3	70.4	69.6	NA	NA
Consumption Consumption of petroleum, dry natural gas, and coal, and net hydroelectric, nuclear, and geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste electricity. Also includes net electricty imports.	94.8	95.2	96.8	99.0	96.3	97.9	98.2	100.4	100.7	NA	NA
Energy Intensity (Btu per (2000) U.S. Dollars) Total primary energy consumption per dollar of gross domestic product using purchasing power parities.	10888.1	10497.9	10223.2	10082.0	9739.1	9738.2	9533.9	9375.5	9113.5	NA	NA
Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Million Metric Tons of CO₂)
Total Emissions from the consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and coal and the flaring of natural gas. from Consumption of Fossil Fuels	5544.3	5581.4	5653.2	5823.5	5723.1	5763.1	5812.8	5935.5	5957.0	NA	NA

– = Not applicable; NA = Not available; F = Forecast value

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_time_series.cfm?fips=US

Last Update: June 16, 2008 Next Update: July 15, 2008 (Petroleum), As available (Other fuels)	Print this page

Data		2006					2007
	28 year history	United States	North America	OECD	World	Rank	United States
Petroleum (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Total Oil Production Production of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas plant liquids, and other liquids, and refinery processing gain (loss). Negative value indicates refinery processing loss.		8,330.46	15,326	21,586	84,591	3	8,487.28
Crude Oil Production Includes lease condensate.		5,102.07	10,883	16,013	73,539	3	5,102.45
Consumption Consumption of petroleum products and direct combustion of crude oil.		20,687.41	24,957	49,336	84,622	1	20,697.53

Net Exports/Imports(-) Net Exports = Total Oil Production – Consumption. Negative numbers are Net Imports.		-12,356.95	-9,631	-27,750	–	1	-12,210.25

Refinery Capacity Crude oil distillation capacity as of January 1. Sources: U.S. data from EIA; Other countries from Oil & Gas Journal.		17,339	21,040	45,582	85,345	1	17,397
Proved Reserves As of January 1. Sources: U.S. data from EIA; Other countries from Oil & Gas Journal. (Billion Barrels)		21.757	213	230	1,293	11	21.757

		2005					2006
	27 year history	United States	North America		World	Rank	United States
Natural Gas (Billion Cubic Feet)
Production Dry natural gas.		18,074	26,161		101,528	2	18,531
Consumption Dry natural gas.		22,241	27,406		103,700	1	21,821
Net Exports/Imports(-) Net Exports = Exports – Imports. Negative numbers are Net Imports. Note: Data range begins with the year 1990.		- 3,612	-552		–	1	NA
Proved Reserves As of January 1. Sources: U.S. data from EIA; Other countries from Oil & Gas Journal.		192,513	263,963		6,046,062	6	204,385

Coal (Million Short Tons)
Production Production of primary coal (includes anthracite, bituminous, lignite, and for Estonia, oil shale).		1,131.498	1,215		6,490	2	1,161.444
Consumption Consumption of primary coal (includes anthracite, bituminous, lignite, and for Estonia, oil shale) and net imports of metallurgical coke.		1125.476	1,212		6,483	2	1,114.176
Net Exports/Imports(-) Net Exports = Exports – Imports. Negative numbers are Net Imports. Includes primary coal and metallurgical coke. (Trillion Btu)		467.524	393		–	8	296.713

Electricity (Billion Kilowatthours)
Net Generation Conventional thermal electricity, hydroelectric power, nuclear electric power, and geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste electric power generation.		4061.98	4,895		17,351	1	4059.91
Net Consumption Net generation+electricty imports-electricity exports-electricity distribution losses.		3815.67	4,540		15,747	1	NA
Installed Capacity (GWe) One billion watts or one thousand megawatts of electric capacity, as of January 1.		956.673	1,129		3,872	1	NA

Total Primary Energy (Quadrillion Btu)
Production Production of petroleum (crude oil and natural gas plant liquids), dry natural gas, and coal, and net generation of hydroelectric, nuclear, and geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste electric power.		69.640	99		460	1	NA
Consumption Consumption of petroleum, dry natural gas, and coal, and net hydroelectric, nuclear, and geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste electricity. Also includes net electricty imports.		100.691	122		463	1	NA
Energy Intensity Consumption per dollar of gross domestic product using purchasing power parities. (Btu per 2000 U.S. Dollars)		9,113	–		–	–	NA

Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Million Metric Tons of CO₂)
Total from Consumption of Fossil Fuels Emissions from the consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and coal and the flaring of natural gas.		5,956.98	6,988		28,193	1	NA

Top World Oil Producers, 2006 (thousand barrels per day)
Rank	Country	Production
1	Saudi Arabia	10,665
2	Russia	9,677
3	United States	8,330
4	Iran	4,148
5	China	3,845
6	Mexico	3,707
7	Canada	3,288
8	United Arab Emirates	2,945
9	Venezuela	2,803
10	Norway	2,786
11	Kuwait	2,675
12	Nigeria	2,443
13	Brazil	2,166
14	Algeria	2,122
15	Iraq	2,008

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm

Short-Term Energy Outlook

“…Highlights

The spot price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil increased from $122 per barrel on June 4 to $145 per barrel on July 3. Global supply uncertainties, combined with significant demand growth in China, the Middle East, and Latin America are expected to continue to pressure oil markets. WTI prices, which averaged $72 per barrel in 2007, are projected to average $127 per barrel in 2008 and $133 per barrel in 2009.
Regular-grade gasoline is expected to average $3.84 per gallon in 2008, more than $1 per gallon above the 2007 average price. The U.S. average regular-grade gasoline price, about $4.10 per gallon on June 30, is projected to remain over $4 per gallon until the fourth quarter of 2009. Retail diesel fuel prices, which averaged $2.88 in 2007, are projected to average $4.35 per gallon in 2008 and $4.48 per gallon in 2009.
World oil consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum is projected to grow by almost 900,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2008 and by an additional 1.4 million bbl/d in 2009, while U.S. consumption is expected to decline by about 400,000 bbl/d in 2008. Adjusting for increased ethanol use, U.S. petroleum consumption is projected to fall by 530,000 bbl/d in 2008.
The Henry Hub natural gas spot price averaged $7.17 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in 2007 and is expected to average $11.86 per Mcf in 2008 and $11.62 per Mcf in 2009.
Rapidly increasing delivered fuel costs for power generation, particularly for natural gas, are pushing up electricity prices. Residential electricity prices are projected to increase by an annual average of about 5.2 percent in 2008 and 9.8 percent in 2009 compared with an increase of 2.2 percent in 2007.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

Pickens Plan

http://www.pickensplan.com/

Drill For Oil You Hypocritical Democrats. DRILL DRILL!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJcnhUG-28&feature=related

Bill O’Reilly’s “Drill for Oil or Prepare for a World War”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoIn8sPd01Q&feature=related

Obama on Iraq; Pull Out, Stay, Pull Out, Stay Longer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4XY1SB7FFU

Side-By-Side: Obama Then About Iraq Withdrawal And Now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prWPubIFHpI&feature=related

Barack Obama on Iraq, Opposition from the Start

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

Barack Obama: Withdrawing from Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eipN1iX9v9s&feature=related

2002 Barack Obama Interview: Against Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

Sen Barack Obama pt.1: Gen Petraeus Iraq Surge Hearing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8fv7CWekXQ

Sen Barack Obama pt.2: Gen Petraeus Iraq Surge Hearing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv33OFJa8K8&feature=related

Barack Obama: Pre-war Iraq assessment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYwte0TSaso

Amid Controversy, Obama Reaffirms Iraq Withdrawal Plan

By Al Pessin
Pentagon
14 July 2008

“…Senator Obama was eager to reassure his core supporters on one of his signature issues.

“I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out,” he said. “I would bring our troops home at a pace of one-to-two brigades per month. And at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.” http://voanews.com/english/2008-07-14-voa71.cfm

Going Through Withdrawal
It speaks volumes about Obama that his plan comes before going to Iraq.

By Pete Hegseth

“…Sen. Obama’s piece once again perpetuates the fallacious notion that the Iraqi government “has not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” This assertion — backed up by wishful thinking — runs directly counter to reports from the ground; reports which Sen. Obama will himself receive in just one week.

Obama has said repeatedly (here & here) that if congressional benchmarks are met, the hasty withdrawal he desired could be slowed. Not so now, however. Even though the Iraqi government has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks set before it by Congress — and is stamping out Sunni terrorism and Shia militia activity within its borders — this still does not constitute political accommodation, according to Sen. Obama. It seems that nothing short of a Whole Foods in every village will stop the perpetuation of this falsehood.

Underlying the Left’s persistent pessimism on Iraq is the idea, as Sen. Obama says, that our mission in Iraq should be to “end the war.” As president, this would be his first directive. This was also the prerogative of Sen. Obama — and many of his Senate colleagues — in January 2007 when the surge was proposed. Surge proponents wanted to succeed in Iraq, while Sen. Obama & Co. wanted to “end the war.” Where would we be today if “ending the war” had been the mission then? And where will we be tomorrow if it becomes the mission now? …” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjdmN2M3ZTQ3M2Q1NGY3ZTQ4NmQ4YmQ0YmIwMjY5MGQ=

Obama to ‘refine’ Iraq plan

“…The original Obama plan, still on his website, promises: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

In a separate six-page Iraq plan, he says in a section headed “All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009”: “The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to begin immediately to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, began backing off during remarks Wednesday on CNN’s “Situation Room,” telling guest host John Roberts that Obama has actually advocated “a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks and advice on the commanders on the ground.” …”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html

Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline

“…Sen. Barack Obama left open the possibility of slowing his promised, 16-month withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, saying he would consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region to ensure a withdrawal would keep troops safe and Iraq stable.

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I’ve said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe,” Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota. “And my guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/03/obama_softens_on_iraq_withdraw.html

Corn Prices and the Global Food Economy – Paul Roberts

“…Paul Roberts discusses how biofuels have driven corn prices up, in turn, causing a “ripple effect” throughout the global economy. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ws3iGja4LA&feature=user

Paul Roberts: The End of Food

“…More than 1.1 billion people worldwide are at risk of obesity-related illness, while roughly as many people are starving. Meanwhile, global food production faces dangers, including some chemicals, destructive farming techniques and contamination. Roberts takes a close look at food production, transport and consumption on a global scale, uncovering disturbing trends about the system we all entrust to handle our food. Will people take heed and work to improve the health of our food supply and distribution chain, before it is too late for millions of people around the world? – The Commonwealth Club of California …”

http://fora.tv/2008/06/18/Paul_Roberts_The_End_of_Food

How Ethanol is a really bad idea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBg8CY4bEqI&feature=related

Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II&feature=related

Ethanol Scam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYxD9VIH4L8&feature=related

Congressional Democrats Vote For Dependence on Foreign Oil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9nY9Oxgfqo

Newt Gingrich calls the Left Murderers opposes US victory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtIwM8FK56A

Response to Obama, 1: The Destructive Effects of Segregation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTOzfHKKjII&feature=user

Response to Obama, 2: Why have things gone wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-YpfLwS6fo&feature=related

Response to Obama, 3: Bad Culture and Bad Government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MwMqUjNzlU&feature=related

Response to Obama, 4: What’s wrong with Obama’s Leftist View

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8IAfkDBjr0&feature=user

Response to Obama, 5: Tax Rates and Job Creation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUxOk-G3VS0

Response to Obama, 6: The Difficulty of Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg6YMLkJN-0&feature=user

Response to Obama, 7: Liberals and the fall of Detroit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNM6HHJTUMM&feature=user

Response to Obama, 8: The Importance of Culture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dohoGx7QeVw&feature=user

How Does McCain Beat Obama in November?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1hPCXYOGvI

How Does Obama Beat McCain in November?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddVTS7nk43c&feature=related

Robert Bryce Believes Energy Independence is a Pipe Dream

http://fora.tv/2008/03/18/Robert_Bryce_Believes_Energy_Independence_is_a_Pipe_Dream

LOL

John McCain wants to LOWER Gas prices…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW8W_KS52FI

Alternative Energy Sources…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTJAI1oushw&feature=related

Background Articles and Videos

The Impressionists BBC (Part 1)

The Impressionists BBC (Part 2)

The Impressionists BBC (Part 3)

Unqualified Green Radical Socialist

Michelle and Barrack Obama

Hit By

The New Yorker

The Messiah–The Anointed One– not amused

Michelle Obama

Political Satire Or Tasteless Cartoon?

What Do You Think About New Yorker Mag Cover?

The New Yorker’s Editor Ties To Explain Racist Cover

NEW YORKER: OSAMA, FIST BUMP, TURBAN & GUN

Outrage Over Magazine Cover

Controversial Barack Obama New Yorker Cover 7/14/2008

“…This is the cover for the ‘New Yorker Magazine’ that goes on sale Monday 7/14/2008.

The cover depicts Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama in Muslim garb ‘fist-bumping’ his wife Michelle. Mrs. Obama is wearing an afro and hoisting an automatic rifle across her shoulders.

Notice that the American flag is burning in the fireplace on the bottom right. A portrait of Osama Bin Laden is hanging on the top right. Is this promoting fear or irresponsible journanlism? Is it par for the course since the New Yorker is known for its over the top satire? …”

The New Yorker magazine bus runs over Michelle and Barrack Obama on its cover.

Then the Clinton hit man, aka, bus driver/writer, backed up the bus and runs them over again in the article.

When confronted by the Secret Service the Clinton driver/writer said, “The Right Wing Conspiracy made me do it.”

Witnesses at the crime scene said it was just another pump and dump (PAD) drive by mainstream media hit.

Happens all the time, just read the New York Times or watch MSNBC aka the Obama gang.

Michelle Obama in the cover looks remarkly like radical socialist and community activist, Angela Davis.

Angela Davis on Buchanan/Braden

Looks like the Democratic Party is running scared as “maverick” McCain pulls dead even with Obama in the polls.

When Senator Clinton was asked to comment, she said, I told you Obama cannot win, doesn’t anybody listen to me anymore?

“Obama CAN’T Win” – Clintons Playing The Race Card, Again??

Candidate Clinton to Richardson: ‘Barack Obama Can’t Win’

Sounds lke Senator Clinton has been told in no uncertain terms that she will not be on the Democratic Party ticket as Vice-President in November and to pay her own bills.

Thanks to the pump and dump drive by mainstream media and the Obama cult, who have been cheering Obama on, Barrack Obama (BO) has been resurrected from the dead, The Messiah–The Anointed One has arisen.

CNN: Obama supporters becoming cult-like

Barack Obama’s Hidden Agenda, More Taxes, Socialism….

The magic messiah mantra for the Barack Obama cult of The Anointed One can be heard on television nightly or on your nearest green radical socialist blog:

Hail Obama–HO–HO-HO-Barack Obama–BO–BO–BO

With friends like these who needs enemies.

The Democratic Party convention could be interesting with all those woman teacher, National Education Association members/delegates and Hillary supporters, confronting Obama’s cult.

On to Denver for a rocky mountain high.

LOL

Red State Update: Obama New Yorker Cover

“Only an idiot would get mad about satire.”

John Denver – Rocky Mountain High

Background Articles and Videos

New Yorker Obama Cover Sparks Uproar

“Barack Obama’s campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

An American flag burns in their fireplace.

The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/politics/politico/main4257077.shtml

The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right’s Dirty Work?

By Don Hazen

“…Unfortunately the impact of this image will extend far beyond the reading audience of the New Yorker; cable news and the right-wing media noise machine will amplify the derogatory image to millions more. And the New Yorker of course will reap enormous publicity, clearly translating to increased sales and notoriety for the brand, and for corporate owner Conde Nast — one of the largest and most powerful media companies in America.

But the publicity could very well backfire. Editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt’s attempt at satire seems so arrogant and indulgent in its insensitive and out of touch with political and media dynamics of tabloid TV and blogs, that it just might make a lot of people angry, including some subscribers. The cover turns the magazine into a potential Molotov cocktail, to be gleefully tossed by Fox News and the conservative blogs, into the already combustible tinderbox of race and muslim stereotypes just below the surface of America’s public discourse. …”

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355/?ses=36a558c081bbc97d556b62402f986f33

Making It

How Chicago shaped Obama

by Ryan Lizza

“…Their job was not to respond to September 11th. They were more worried about making sure that they had a district that they could run in for reëlection.”

Obama’s response to the event was published on September 19th in the Hyde Park Herald:

“… We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.” …”

“…Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. When he was a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago’s churches, because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an agnostic when he started, and the work led him to become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel. In Springfield, rather than challenge the Old Guard Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with them. “You have the power to make a United States senator,” he told Emil Jones in 2003. In his downtime, he played poker with lobbyists and Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious senator and, when he arrived, made a point of not defining himself as an opponent of the Iraq war. …”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

Bill Vs. Barack

by Ryan Lizza

“…That is what offended Bill Clinton. “Hillary’s opponent, in his entire campaign, every two or three weeks has said for months and months and months, beginning in Nevada, that really there wasn’t much difference in how America did when I was President and how America’s done under President Bush,” he said in Lock Haven. “Now, if you believe that, you should probably vote for him, but you get a very bad grade in history.” In the closing days of the campaign, Obama gave at least three speeches criticizing the former President, who, ever vigilant of his legacy, defended himself at every stop. Few paid attention; Barack and Bill were like two boxers trying to have a fight but both getting pelted by a mysterious third force—the saturation gaffe coverage. …”

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/05/05/080505ta_talk_lizza

Ryan Lizza

“Ryan Lizza, is the chief Political correspondent for The New Yorker magazine.^[1] He was previously Senior Editor of The New Republic until 2007. Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News referred to Lizza as “required reading” for those interested in the American political scene.^[2] Lizza has appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews as a panelist.

Lizza graduated from the University of California, Berkeley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Lizza

OBAMA: O’BAMA TO IRELAND?

“…The New York Daily News is out of the gate with a story on the sure-to-be controversial New Yorker cover depicting Obama in Muslim garb fist-pounding an Afro’d AK-47 donning Michelle in the Oval Office, which happens to have a picture of bin Laden on the wall and an American flag in the fire place. The Daily News’ cover: “Not so funny.”

“The magazine’s editor described the cartoon, called ‘The Politics of Fear,’ as satire. The Obama campaign called it ‘tasteless and offensive.’” The McCain camp agreed. New Yorker editor David Remnick seemed shocked by the backlash. ‘Our cover … combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are,’ he said in a statement. ‘The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall – all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover,’ Remnick said. The magazine does not explain the cover. Inside are lengthy stories that look at how Chicago politics shaped the candidate and at allegations that he flip-flops on major issues.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/14/1197844.aspx

The Incredibly Thin Skin of Barack Obama (updated)

Rick Moran

“…A long, yet unsatisfyingly incomplete article in the current issue of The New Yorker about Barack Obama’s Chicago roots, lauding him for many things that might be considered non-laudable, was a passing curiosity in the blogosphere yesterday. We here at AT blogged about it, pointing out that Mr. Lizza had actually uncovered some things that weren’t too flattering about the candidate.

But the piece went from a passing curiosity to a full blown campaign typhoon when the cover of the issue was released. It showed Obama in a turban doing the fist bump with his wife who is dressed up as some kind of revolutionary. An American flag burns in the fireplace of the Oval Ofice:

One look at this and the Obama campaign hit the roof. Despite the fact that The New Yorker was lampooning conservatives by portraying some on the right’s overheated descriptions of Obama, spokesman Bill Burton for the Obama campaign said

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”Well, I don’t agree. I find it pretty rich even if they are poking fun at conservatives. But what should trouble anyone is how thin Obama’s skin truly is if he can’t take a little satire from his friends on the left! …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/the_incredibly_thin_skin_of_ba.html

The New Yorker investigates Chicago influences on Obama

Ed Lasky

“…Ryan Lizza writes a New Yorker article entitled “Making it: How Chicago shaped Obama.“ If you ask me, Barack Obama does not come off well here. Calculating politicians, ready to find scapegoats and godfather to pull levers for him and shower money unto him. But more importantly, 15 pages later, I find no evidence that Obama accomplished anything other than helping out on Project Vote. My guess is that he allied himself with ACORN on that one, but we don’t see any information on that …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/the_new_yorker_investigates_ch.html

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

“…The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. The candidates had been tied at 43% for the past two days.

When “leaners” are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%. For most of the past month-and-a-half, Obama has led McCain by approximately five percentage points (see recent daily results). …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

GLBT History Month 2007 – Angela Davis

“…Former member of the Black Panther Party and The Communist Party USA, Angela Davis is a bold and fearless crusader of racial and gender equality. For more information, visit: http://www.glbtHistoryMonth.com …”

Campus Unrest in late 1960s & early 1970s at UCLA

TRIBUTE TO ANGELA DAVIS

Angela Davis

“Angela Yvonne Davis (born, January 26, 1944 in Birmingham, Alabama) is an American Socialist organizer, feminist, revolutionary, LGBT activist, and university professor who was associated with the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Davis was also a prominent member and political candidate of the Communist Party USA. She first achieved nationwide notoriety when a weapon registered in her name was linked to the murder of Judge Harold Haley during an attempted Black Panther prison break; she fled underground, and was the subject of an intense manhunt. She was eventually captured, arrested, tried, and then acquitted in one of the most famous trials in recent U.S. history. She is currently Professor of History of Consciousness at the University of California and Presidential Chair at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She works for racial and gender equality and for prison abolition, and is a popular public speaker, nationally and internationally. Davis is a founder of the anti-prison grassroots organization Critical Resistance. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis

Angela Davis: How Does Change Happen ?

“…From radical rebel to university professor, Angela Davis has dedicated her life to social activism. In this talk, Angela Davis reflects on her successes and shares her insights on the strategies for change that have made — and will make — history. Sponsored by the Women’s Resources and Research Center at UC Davis [1/2007] [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 12069] …”

Socialist-Marxist-Communist, Say Hello to Michelle Obama

National Education Association

“…The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest labor union in the United States, representing public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become teachers. The NEA has 3.2 million members and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It employs over 550 staff and had a budget of more than $307 million for the 2006–2007 fiscal year. …”

Socialist-Marxist-Communist, Say Hello to Michelle Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association

Barack Obama’s Hidden Agenda, More Taxes, Socialism….

Obama’s Far-Left Loons Angry at ABC’s Charles Gibson

Does Barack Obama belong to a cult?

Grow a pair, Obama

By Michelle Malkin

“…Barry,

So, you found this satirical New Yorker cover art “tasteless and offensive.”

Welcome to public life.

Guess what? In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one.

Here’s a reminder of the crap Condi Rice has had to deal with over the years:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pair-obama/

Obama and The New Yorker Byron York

“…On the record, the McCain campaign adds: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.” But privately, some McCain types admit they find the cover funny. And how bad can it be for your campaign when a national magazine, in an effort to take a shot at Fox News and talk radio, portrays your opponent like this? Some of Obama’s supporters are likely to go over the top in their defensive outrage, sending subtle reinforcements to viewers who already believe that McCain is stronger than Obama on the issue of terrorism. Maybe it’s funny, and maybe it’s tasteless and offensive — maybe all three — but it will be noticed. …”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjI5MWE3ZDJhZGE4MmZiMTcwOGEyYmNjOTI3YzNhYWI=

New Yorker controversy over Obama cartoon – 15 Jul 08

Charlie Rose – REMNICK & GOPNIK / THE NATION PANEL / RICH…

Charlie Rose – David Remnick / Arielle Dombasle

“Segment 1: David Remnick, editor of “The New Yorker”, discusses his profile of Bill Clinton.

Segment 2: A conversation with actress and singer Arielle Dombasle. …”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9PW8jCQZUM]

David Carr and David Remnick at NYU, Part1

David Carr and David Remnick at NYU, Part 2

David Carr and David Remnick at NYU, Part 3

David Carr and David Remnick at NYU, Part 5

David Carr and David Remnick at NYU, Part 6

LOL

Mainstream media is causing Recession…

Background Articles and Videos

McCain and Obama: Comparing Their Economic Platforms

“…After an extended primary season, the 2008 presidential campaign is finally under way and the candidates are presenting—at least in some areas—starkly different economic policy proposals. Sen. John McCain is a career-long free trader, consistently voting against trade barriers and subsidies. Sen. Barack Obama, although possessing a shorter voting record, puts greater restrictions on his support for free trade and favors a time-out on new trade agreements and extensive review—and possible renegotiation—of existing ones. On fiscal policy, Sen. McCain wants lower taxes while Sen. Obama proposes to shift the tax burden to wealthier Americans. According to the National Taxpayers Union, Sen. McCain has endorsed $68 billion of additional government spending per year and Sen. Obama has called for nearly $344 billion of bigger government. How would these policies strengthen the U.S. economy or damage it? If Obama is elected, would Congress simply rubber-stamp his proposals? If McCain wins, would Congress approve his agenda? Please join us as our panel discusses the McCain and Obama tax, spending, and trade plans. …”

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4962

The Power of Choice – Milton Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBB7l-SfoK4&feature=related

Milton Friedman – Greed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related

Milton Friedman Interview: Spending Money

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crAt0YlxhLA&feature=related

Milton Friedman (December 26, 2005)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNrMQazZHDc

Milton Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

McCain and Obama Campaign on Economic Agenda

Presidential Hopefuls Face-Off on Economic Proposals

“…The centerpiece of McCain’s economic plan is cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. The Republican proposes to lower corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent, and to retain the Bush tax cuts he twice voted against.

“When you raise taxes in a bad economy, you eliminate jobs. I’m not going to let that happen,” McCain said. …”

“…On the issue of energy, McCain advocates more offshore drilling for oil and the development of more nuclear energy. “We will build at least 45 new nuclear plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them,” McCain said.

Obama opposes both oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore oil drilling, but he favors the continuing development of alternative energy sources.

The candidates disagree on which alternative energy sources should be pursued. …”

“…The differences between the candidates’ energy policies is clear-cut, according to Mathias: “McCain is nukes, Obama is more ethanol-focused.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5326069&page=1

Countdown: McCain and Obama’s Economic Plans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhljhCPxlLY

Taxes, Spending and the Next President

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_aXQjCY9_Y

Ben Stein explaining how Obama will screw the US Economy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPvk7Ixiotg&feature=related

Response to Obama, 5: Tax Rates and Job Creation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUxOk-G3VS0&feature=related

Obama and McCain differ on drilling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1smrLDacA4

Charlie Rose – An Appreciation of Milton Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pbHo_fQCFg

Charlie Rose: June 1, 1999 interview with Milton Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi9fq_7X6Js

Free To Choose

http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/freetochoose/

Charlie Rose September 15 1995: Interview with Thomas Sowell, 29 minutes into video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFWuR_JxANE

Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell

http://fora.tv/2008/02/21/Uncommon_Knowledge_Thomas_Sowell

Background Articles and Videos

Rush Limbaugh on Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama’s Nuts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rko68mQqzk

J.Jackson’s Obama-rage – O’Reilly & Guests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlJksJH7NgE

Jesse Jackson Nuts To Obama!!! Cut & Cover Politics – Watch Your Barack! No Balls? Testicles?

“…For those who are wondering what he said, it was reported to be “I want to cut his nuts off.”

This is obviously a non-answer to the reporter’s question about the type of comment said against Barack Obama about the cutting for removal of his nuts. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-24ONaYCIzY

Sharpton: Obama Is ‘Courageous And Bold’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzaMxSL3as8

Jesse Jackson Gets Very Personal in Criticizing Obama (updated)

Rick Moran

“…No, it’s really not that much of a story as I point out here. But it reveals the fear that Jackson and other racialists like Al Sharpton feel with regard to Obama and the threat he poses to their little civil rights empires. …”

“…Obama’s support for faith based programs plus his call for African Americans taking more responsibility for their own lives would side step the usual civil rights middlemen represented by Jackson and Sharpton. Hence, their racial extortion racket would collapse, putting them out of business.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/jesse_jackson_gets_very_person.html

Conservatives for Obama?

“…What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year — whether conservative, liberals or whatever — are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades.
Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well. …”

“… Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays down the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers “the politics of fear.”
Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, “When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off.” Too many voters still have not learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama’s actions.
Back in the days of “The Lone Ranger” program, someone would ask, “Who is that masked man?” People need to start asking that question about Barack Obama. …”

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell070808.php3

Shelby Steele – “Racial Masking” in American Popular Culture

“…A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win

Shelby Steele examines the challenges that Barack Obama must overcome in his bid to become President of the United States in A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win. Having to cater to both black voters and white voters in what binds Obama, and his dilemma is that he achieved visibility more as a racial icon than as an individual. In his analysis, Shelby Steele discusses his own mixed race background, and he empathizes with Obama’s inner conflicts even as he critiques him. He also identifies the two ‘masks’ that blacks wear in order to seek success and power in the American mainstream: bargaining and challenging, and he argues that Obama is too constrained by divisive racial politics to find his own true political voice – and proposes a way for him to break those bonds and find his own voice. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuRTSQ6iWps

Shelby Steele – Race and the Obama Campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eumK6YL3jvc&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nydmeu09CA&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama pt2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVykmq3nQYc&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama pt3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqy-2jtETf8&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama pt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vtQXUE6IU&feature=related

Cocky ignorance

By Thomas Sowell

“…Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Senator Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of “the first black President” paramount, even if that means a President with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?
The media have been crucial to Barack Obama’s whole candidacy. His only achievements of national significance in his entire career have been media achievements and rhetorical achievements.
Perhaps his greatest achievement has been running as a candidate with an image wholly incompatible with what he has actually been doing for decades. This man who is now supposedly going to “unite” us has for years worked hand in glove, and contributed both his own money and the taxpayers’ money, to people who have sought to divide us in the most crude demagogic ways.
With all his expressed concern about the war in Iraq, he has not set foot in Iraq for more than two years— including the very years when progress has been made against the terrorists there. …”

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell061108.php3

Charlie Rose September 15 1995

Interview with Thomas Sowell starting at 29 minutes

“…Martha Stewart, Lifestyle Authority/Author//Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute/Columnist/Author, The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFWuR_JxANE

Thomas Sowell Translates Political Rhetoric

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaouMZGICcc&feature=related

Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBd1qX2POvs&feature=related

End of the Reverend
It’s an old story.

“…For whatever reason, Jackson went “nuts” on Obama — perhaps because he believes that Obama is talking down to black people, because he’s jealous that he’s yesterday and Obama is today and maybe (let’s hope not) tomorrow. Jackson showed a nasty streak to add to the irresponsible, divisive, hyperbolic nature we’ve known about for years. Watch the video, added to the words, see the shoulder jerk and the head movement; it’s hard to miss.

It’s important, of course, that we not judge Obama purely by his enemies. Jackson may be angry or jealous, but that doesn’t make Barack Obama a responsible leader or anything but a big-government liberal. He will continue to try to muddle the issues — as he has, somewhat successfully, on such issues of life and death as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and the Iraq war — but just go to the National Journal Senate vote ratings to see how liberal his record is. He’s not who National Review readers want for president. …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBmM2RhNWZlNDc2Y2U2YzA0MDE4YWYxNmZmMjM4YmI=

Jesse Jackson disses Obama on race; castration abomination; Update: Apology accepted

By Michelle Malkin

“…But, you know, it’s us meanie conservatives who are responsible for all the race-based smears.

Uh-huh. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/09/jesse-jackson-disses-obama-on-race/

Battle of the Bulge

“The Ardennes Offensive (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945) was a major German offensive on the Western Front and was launched towards the end of World War II. The offensive was called Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein (Operation The Guard on the Rhine) by the German armed forces (Wehrmacht). It was officially named the Battle of the Ardennes by the U.S. Army, but it is known to the general public simply as the Battle of the Bulge. The “bulge” was the initial incursion the Germans put into the Allies’ line of advance, as seen in maps presented in contemporary newspapers.^[3]^[4]…”

“…For the U.S. Army, the battle incorporated more troops and engaged more enemy troops than any conflict before that time. The German objectives ultimately were unrealized. In the wake of the defeat, many experienced German units were left severely depleted of men and equipment, as German survivors retreated to the defenses of the Siegfried Line. The Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest of the battles that U.S. forces experienced in World War II; the 19,000 American dead were unsurpassed by those of any other engagement^[2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

Is Obama Arrogant? Analysis By Karl Rove

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqZP8Ww59D4

Karl Rove: “Yes I Do Think Barack Obama is Arrogant”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3gukJRxxo

Chuck Todd on Sen. Obama’s presidential arrogance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nqLWm60FwQ

Obama’s presidential seal gone after one use

“…Pegged to Obama’s rostrum at Friday’s meeting was his campaign’s version of the presidential seal – a bald eagle clutching an olive branch and arrows in its talons, but instead of a shield covering the center of the eagle’s body, Obama’s had the campaign’s trademark “O.” Rather of the words “Seal of the President of the United States” around the circumference, “Obama for America” and “www.barackobama.com” lined the top and bottom.

The Latin “Vero Possumus” was arched between the eagle’s wings, meaning “Yes we can,” an Obama slogan and rally chant.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/23/obama%E2%80%99s-presidential-seal-gone-after-one-use/

Obama Caught Being Smug & Arrogant About Rezko – Gate Home

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdzbZF7o8m4

castration

“…In the Autumn, lots of stallions will be gelded (castrated). They are, as a gelding, a lot better to handle and to keep together with mares.
Young stallions up to 2,5 yrs old are quite often castrated in a standing position. Older ones we lay on our operation table.
Dangerous ones too. The stallions can scratch behind their ears with their hindlegs, so I am an easy target.
When all is done, the gelding will not behave testosteron-regulated anymore, and can go out in the field with other horses, without fighting each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3G0lT1-cQA

Shania Twain – Any Man Of Mine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIqff16x1LE

Messiah

“Messiah (Hebrew: מָׁשִיַח, Standard Mašíaḥ Tiberian Māšîªḥ; Aramaic: משיחא, Aramaic/Syriac: ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ, Məšîḥā; Arabic: المسيح‎, al-Masīḥ) Literally, Messiah means “The Anointed (One)”, typically someone anointed with holy anointing oil. Figuratively, anointing is done to signify being chosen for a task; so, Messiah means “The Chosen (One)”, particularly someone divinely chosen.

In Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, Messiah refers to a future King of Israel from the Davidic line, who will rule the people of united tribes of Israel^[1] and herald the Messianic Age^[2]. In Standard Hebrew, The Messiah is often referred to as מלך המשיח, Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ (in the Tiberian vocalization pronounced Méleḵ haMMāšîªḥ), literally meaning “the Anointed King.”

Christians believe that prophecies in the Hebrew Bible refer to a spiritual savior, and believe Jesus to be that Messiah (Christ). In the (Greek) Septuagint version of the Old Testament, khristos was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיַח (Mašíaḥ,) (messiah), meaning “anointed.” ^{[3] …”}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

Teleprompter

“A teleprompter (also known as an autocue) is a display device that prompts the person speaking with an electronic visual text of a speech or script. Using a teleprompter is similar to the practice of using cue cards. The screen is in front of the lens of the camera, and the words on the screen are reflected to the eyes of the speaker using a one-way mirror.

(Note that this is only true in principle — when the space between the lens and the mirror is covered in a shroud, an ordinary glass pane will work as a one way mirror).

As the speaker does not need to look down to consult written notes, he or she appears to have memorized the speech or be speaking spontaneously, and will look directly into the camera lens. Cue cards, on the other hand, will always be placed away from the lens axis, making the speaker look at a point beside the camera, which leaves a “distracted” impression. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprompter

LOL

Barack the magic negro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvXz2xaLNMQ&feature=related

Al Sharpton & Jessie Jackson Justice Brothers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJ-ovHorjo

Gayo (In Spanish-2008)

“…A Pair of Nuts” classic Gayo video in spanish. Check out nutscomedy.com for live tour info. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbYXLJRkcMI

Red State Update: Obama’s Iraq Flip-Flop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EweUnFQyg

Red State Update: Preacher Problems w/ McCain & Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hijbwyX6Bek

Barack Obama can’t STOP lying…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STgixh2avNo

Barack Obama plays the RACE CARD…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5qaxjRLAss&feature=user

Barack Obama says there are 57 states…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZawCHXWr4I

Red State Update: Obama’s Balls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tPW7ev6FoY

George Carlin On Voting–R.I.P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_LJFWOw2Q&NR=1

Background Articles and Videos

U.S. Helps Remove Uranium From Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin

The 550 Tons of Yellowcake

By Randall Hoven

“…The recent AP story was not news with respect to the existence of this stockpile in Iraq to those who follow such things closely. But I’m sure many readers had never been aware of this large stockpile of yellowcake in Iraq at all. This new AP story, and perhaps my article, helped get that information out. As Investor’s Business Daily more recently put it , “Seems to us this should be big news,” but “the mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years.”

Also, this new story reminded even those aware of its existence of what a huge and dangerous stockpile it was. First, it took 37 military flights to ship it from Baghdad to Diego Garcia. Even when not processed into nuclear weapons, it was dangerous in its own right, being radioactive. It could also be used in other methods of spreading radiation short of full nuclear bombs. The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it. It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents. That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowcake.html

About that 500 tons of yellow cake…

By Rick Moran

“…What were 500 tons of yellow cake uranium still doing at the nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq when American tanks rolled into Bagdhad?

The fact that the material was under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than a decade opens an entirely different line of questioning: Is the entire group of United Nations bureaucrats running the IAEA legally insane? …”

“…The question of whether or not Saddam wanted to purchase yellow cake uranium to augment his existing supply sitting in the Al—Tuwaitha facility, when viewed in the context of this White House—CIA conflict, becomes not a question of the CIA analyzing Saddam’s intentions but rather a question of the CIA attacking the Administration’s intentions. The rationale for war given by the President goes far beyond any disputed effort by Saddam to buy uranium. But the only way to attack the President’s motives is by concentrating solely and exclusively on the lack of WMD. And since it’s been widely reported that most western governments believed Saddam had a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons prior to the invasion, the only possible line of attack by the President’s opponents at CIA was the single reference to uranium found in the State of the Union address given by Bush in 2002. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/about_that_500_tons_of_yellow.html

Hillary Clinton Iraq War Full Speech 10/10/02 Part 1

Hillary Clinton Iraq War Full Speech 10/10/02 Part 2

Yellowcake

“Yellowcakes (also called urania) are uranium concentrates obtained from leach solutions. They represent an intermediate step in the processing of uranium ores. Yellowcake concentrates are prepared by various extraction and refining methods, depending on the types of ores. Typically yellowcakes are obtained through the milling and chemical processing of uranium ore forming a coarse powder which is insoluble in water and contains about 80% uranium oxide and which melts at approximately 2878°C. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake

Yellowcake explained

“What is it?

Yellowcake is the refined form of uranium ore, a type of rock mined from the Earth’s crust.

How is it made?

After the ore has been mined, it is crushed and soaked in an acid solution to leach out the radioactive element, uranium. Once this pulverized ore is dried and filtered, what’s left is a coarse powder that is often yellow but can also be other colours depending on the remaining impurities. At this stage, it is called yellowcake and contains 80 per cent to 90 per cent pure uranium. It is then packaged in steel drums.

What is it used for?

When further processed, yellowcake becomes enriched uranium and can be used in the manufacture of nuclear fuel. The vast majority of that fuel is used in nuclear power plants to produce electricity. It can also be used in nuclear weapons. …”

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/07/f-yellowcake.html

AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq

By BRIAN MURPHY

“The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What’s now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine. …”

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUzCIe4JyTofL4u4RnaUn-75BV2QD91NRH480

US removes Saddam’s yellowcake uranium — from first Gulf War

“…It does prove that he had a nuclear program — before the first Gulf War. For those of us who recall the issue of yellowcake in Iraq, this is the same stash that the IAEA had sealed during its inspections immediately after that war. The seals remained on the compound, which means that Saddam never used it again. In fact, that’s why we suspected him of attempting to purchase more from Niger, because he couldn’t get his hands on this yellowcake without triggering a new war.

This doesn’t have anything to do with continuing efforts by Saddam to produce nuclear weapons. After the rejection by Niger, no one has produced any evidence that Saddam got fissile material from anywhere else, although evidence has arisen that he kept his nuclear technology on standby for reinstatement as soon as the sanctions got lifted. He continued to work with chemical and possibly biological weapons for several years, according to captured IIS documents, but the nuclear progam appears to have been shut down effectively.

The real news is that the yellowcake has finally been removed from Iraq, along with the temptation to use it. It now sits in the hands of the Canadians, who will put it to peaceful uses, removing one major security headache from the Maliki government and the US military. We can now help clean up the Tuwaitha area and close another dark chapter from the Saddam Hussein era.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/07/us-removes-saddams-yellowcake-uranium-from-first-gulf-war/

Iraq’s Yellowcake

“Here’s a story you may have missed over the long holiday weekend: 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium worth tens of millions of dollars were shipped out of Iraq to Canada. The material was transported in 37 military flights in 3,500 secure barrels, according to the Associated Press.

There hasn’t been much of a fuss about this material because it had been discovered already by United Nations inspectors after the first Gulf War. But it took a second American war in Iraq to move the material out of the Middle East. For all the talk about America‘s failure to discover Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, this is a big deal. We’ve reported on claims by top Israeli officials speaking on the record that Iraq smuggled its chemical weapons to Syria before America invaded in 2003.

The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. Saddam Hussein had already invaded Kuwait, launched missiles into Israeli cities, and harbored a terrorist group, the PKK, hostile to America’s NATO ally, Turkey. To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam and the same corrupt United Nations that failed to stop the genocide in Darfur and was guilty of the oil-for-food scandal would have been too big a risk. …”

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/iraqs-yellowcake/81328/

Iraq removes uranium left over from Saddam era

”Iraq’s government has removed 550 tonnes of natural uranium left over from Saddam Hussein’s era and sold it to a Canadian company, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The uranium, called yellowcake, had been stored in a compound at Tuwaitha, south of Baghdad, which was once the centre of Saddam’s nuclear weapons programme.

A U.S. embassy spokeswoman confirmed the U.S. military helped safely ship the uranium out of the country.

“The Iraqi government decided to get rid of the uranium, which amounted to 550 tonnes, because of its potentially harmful affects on Iraq and the region and because it causes pollution,” Dabbagh said on Iraqiya state television late on Sunday.

The Tuwaitha nuclear complex was dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. But tonnes of nuclear material remained there under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), until the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when it was left unguarded and looted by Iraqi civilians. …”

http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKL0768496820080707

Iraq’s Yellowcake and the Left

“…There’s a simple answer for this that’s not satisfying, but one of the reasons that Republicans aren’t standing up and shouting from the mountaintops is that the White House isn’t, and the White House happens to be leading the Republican Party. The White House doesn’t — you know, when there were chemicals and other weapons of mass destruction found, they didn’t want a big deal made of it, and back then (now, this was just a rumor) one of the explanations was that we didn’t want to announce it, the White House didn’t want to make a big deal out of it because some of the weapons of mass destruction had been spirited out of there by the Russians, and we were trying to normalize or improve our diplomatic relations with the Russians. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I think these 550 tons of yellowcake are from the Gulf War One back in the early nineties. Now, that’s still big news, and the stuff’s outta there. It’s either in Canada or it’s on its way to Canada, but it proves that Saddam was trying to nuke up. You’re exactly right. Now, yellowcake by itself is worthless, you need centrifuges, but he was trying to buy those, too. …”

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070708/content/01125113.guest.html

David Kay – Iraq weapons inspector discusses WMD’s

“…David Kay is a former UN weapons inspector. Here, he answers questions and discusses Iraq’s nuclear and WMD programs, and determines that Iraq was a gathering threat. …”

General Georges Sada on Iraqi WMD’s

Saddam’s WMD based on captured Iraqi documents

Saddam’s WMDs : the truth

Saddam’s WMDs Part 2 : the truth

There were no WMD’s Pt1 (False Iraqi WMD’s)

There were no WMD’s Pt2 ( National Intelligence Estimate)

There were no WMD’s Pt3 (Brit.Intelligence+ Iraqi defector )

Terrorism & Naziism: Liberals & George Soros lies about WMDs

Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq, Revisited

“…National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar discusses flaws in intelligence analysis on Iraqi WMD in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. …”

Iraq’s Yellow Cake Recipe Is The Envy Of Betty Crocker

“… The fact is not whether the WMD’s existed prior to 1991 (and may not work), or that the yellow cake posed no harm at the time it was seized is insignificant. Does anyone in their right mind believe that Saddam was going to use any of these materials for peaceful means? Would anyone like a hostile nation such as a Iran or Syria getting hands on this “harmless” yellow cake? And if the WMDs, such as the mustard and sarin nerve gas (that Saddam was not suppose to possess!) were no big deal, why did they need to be destroyed? Why not just place them on display in the front foyer of the New York Times? Oh, that’s right….according to the New York Times, WMDs don’t exist! …”

http://arendezvouswithdestiny.blogspot.com/2008/07/iraqs-yellow-cake-recipe-is-envy-of.html

Beck: 650,000 Iraqi Deaths Study Fake, Paid By George Soros

LOL

Cookie Monster

The real Computer Monster

Where’s the fence?

Where’s The Fence?(tm) National TV Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90SDkhwnEIo

Ilegal Immigration Amnesty is ALIVE – despite 80% of America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOtk3bl-qV4&feature=related

CNN LOU DOBBS – BARACK OBAMA YOU OWE ME & AMERICA AN APOLOGY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjB_5S8ESg&feature=related

Obama – Texas Debate Immigration Reform Statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Byw4hG7PQE

Democrats Attack Border Fence, Mexican Invasion Intensifies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRm__sZAdU&feature=related

McCain vs. McCain: Immigration Reform

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUYTUbJy71k

Virtual Border Fence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l4eHfHjNXQ

Border Fence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of67SW_r2VU

Jackie Mason ’08 Vlog 12 How Hard Is It To Build A Fence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbZloTsP9NA&feature=related

Lou Dobbs – Border Fence Victory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzkrbYKlLKQ

Lou Dobbs – Deporting Criminal Aliens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQxDAwGCDW8&feature=related

No to McCain-Kennedy, Yes to Border Security – Newt Gingrich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WaZgF1rEYU

House guts border fence

By Michelle Malkin

“…Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I’ve warned several times that the border fence expansion was gesture politics. (See here, here, here, and here.) We’ve watched Democrats and Republicans undermine the Secure Fence Act repeatedly since it was passed. Open-borders zealots joined with Big Business types to stall and protest construction. It ain’t a fence. It’s a FINO: Fence in Name Only. Here’s more confirmation of the fence farce via the Washington Times: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/18/house-guts-border-fence/

LOL: The Voice of the American People

Illegal Immigrants!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DHMxeXOgR8&feature=related

Illegal Immigrant problem solved…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWIz6l8V9Dw

Background Articles and Videos

Duty, Honor, Country

“…General MacArthur’s speech ranks with President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as the most moving and greatest public speeches ever given. The entire text of the speech appears below, but first listen to the tape recording of General MacArthur’s actual speech and then read the text of the speech to get the full impact of the spoken words. MacArthur was 82 years old when he gave the speech. He spoke without notes for 34 minutes from the “poop deck” in front of the 2,000+ cadets.

This speech by one of our country’s greatest military leaders (see below for a short list of the incredible accomplishments of the MacArthur family) is timeless and as important today as it was in 1962. Many Americans have devoted their lives to following the ideals of “duty, honor and country,” and too many have made the ultimate sacrifice so that the United States may enjoy freedom and prosperity. …”

http://www.keytlaw.com/Greatwords/macarthur.htm

Hillary and Obama: Is America Ready for a Non-White or Female President?”

By Darrell M. West, Brown University

“…In this report, I look at the changing attitudes of Americans on issues of race, gender, and religion, and how these shifts may affect the presidential candidates.

Historical Attitudes

Since the 1930s, the Gallup polling organization has asked Americans the question, “if your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be (Jewish, Catholic, Female, Black, atheist, gay, or Mormon), would you vote for that person?” This is a way to track general views about candidates of various backgrounds regardless of the specific individual.

Table 1 Voter Willingness to Support Candidates of Various Social Backgrounds

1930s 1950s 1970s 1990s

Jewish 46% - - 92%

Catholic 60% - - 94%

Female 33% - - 92%

Black - 37% - 95%

Atheist - 18% - 49%

Gay - - 26% 59%

Mormon - - 75% 79%

Table 1 reveals that in the 1930s, Americans were not very open to presidential candidates from non-white male backgrounds. At that time, only 46 percent of Americans indicated they would vote for a Jewish American, 60 percent said they would support a Catholic for president, and only 33 percent claimed they would support a woman for president.

In the 1950s, only 37 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black for president and 18 percent indicated they would support an atheist. And in the 1970s, 26 percent said they would vote for a gay for president and 75 percent indicated they would vote for a Mormon.

By the 1990s, though, these views had liberalized on most groups. The numbers saying they would vote for a Jew, Catholic, woman, or black rose to the low to mid-90s. However, only 49 percent said they would vote for an atheist, 59 percent admitted they would vote for a gay presidential candidate, and 79 percent indicated they would support a Mormon candidate.

These changes suggest America is more open to candidates of diverse backgrounds, as long as they are not atheist, gay, or Mormon. Voters openly admit to unwillingness to vote for individuals from these backgrounds, unlike the situation for women or black candidates.

Of course, these views do not mean there is no prejudice against female and/or African-American candidates. Voters may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but refuse to do so in the privacy of the ballot box. Or they may harbor private attitudes that make them unreceptive to a candidate with an unconventional background even if in the abstract, they are willing to say that they would vote for a woman or black. …”

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/WestReport207.html

Clinton v. Obama: Who is Black Enough?

by Lisa Richards

“Apparently Hillary Clinton thinks she is a better African-American candidate than Barack Obama. After all, she is married to the first black President of the United States. But Hillary Clinton has become the unfair victim of a black man conspiring to become the first authentic black president: a man who has the utter gall to think he can compete against a white woman.

That’s right, Barack Obama, a real black man, is running against the wife of the first black president. What utter nerve; what unmitigated gall from an upstart who thinks he can take on the first American Eurocrat and actually beat her in the primaries.

If Barack Obama thought he could take on the pantsuited Hillary he has another thing coming. Hillary Clinton tried to put Obama in his place and it backfired enormously. Obama, who spoke about Martin Luther King’s march on Washington in the context of his own campaign for president, was scolded by Hillary who said that if it not for Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream and the Civil Rights Act would never have happened. …”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24454

Obama ‘Church’ of Black Lib Theology Attacks Clinton, Whites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

Barack Obama

Obama: Enough With “Black Enough”

“…Speaking before the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Las Vegas, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) directly addressed the charge that he is “not black enough.”

He joked about the issue at first, poking fun at a stereotype of blacks. “I apologize for being a little bit late,” he said, “but you guys keep asking if I’m black enough, so I figured I would stroll in.”

But he turned serious about such questions. “We should ask ourselves why that is,” he said. “It is not because of my physical appearance presumably. It’s not because of my track record… I think in part we’re still locked in this notion if you appeal to white folks, there must be something wrong.” …”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/10/obama_enough_with_black_enough.html

YouTube Debate: Is Obama Black Enough? Hillary Woman Enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utf4-LPhUz0

Rev Jesse Jackson on Obamarama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7yRdP4ODrQ&feature=related

Redefining ‘black’

Obama’s candidacy spotlights the divide between native black culture and African immigrants.

By Louis Chude-Sokei

“ALTHOUGH NOT quite able to pass for white, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been able to pass for African American. He is biracial, but not white; black, but not African American; American but not African. What has entranced the country more than his somewhat vague policies is Obama’s challenge to conventional racial and cultural categories.

Among African Americans, discussions about his racial identity typically vacillate between the ideologically charged options of “black” versus “not black enough” or between “black” and “black, but not like us.”

But there is a third side to Obama — and also to the politics of racial passing in America. …”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-chude-sokei18feb18,0,7298828.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Dems face the bitter harvest of identity politics

Thomas Lifson

“Let the navel-gazing begin! Democrats now scramble to avoid the looming feminist backlash from Hillary supporters, disappointed that their identity politics candidate was passed over by the superdelegates (pledged delegates from caucus and primary elections did not decide the contest) in favor of the identity politics (as in 90% black support) candidate from the other big member of its coalition. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/dems_face_the_bitter_harvest_o.html

Peggy Noonan interview: Obama/Mccain/Clinton/Scott Mcclellan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvE7qot0aMg

Ann Coulter on Barack Obama’s, and Jeremy Wright’s Racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaK__aHdoZ4&feature=related

The Closet Racist Obama And The ‘Typical White Person’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33O41yEBtw4&feature=related

Obama’s Dimestore ‘Mein Kampf’

by Ann Coulter

“…When his mother expresses concern about Obama’s high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother’s hand and told her not to worry.

This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”

First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama’s entire presidential campaign. But moreover — he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: “Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.” Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?

The man is stark bonkersville. …”

“…In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad’s 1902 classic, “Heart of Darkness”: “I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate.”

By contrast, Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke” to Obama. One line in particular “stayed with me,” he says. “He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”

Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright — Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25831

The McCain v. Obama Nightmare – Ann Coulter * UNEDITED *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX-0iNVYs2o

Ann Coulter slaps down Barack Obama on his faith comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdDsXV4788k&feature=related

Shelby Steele – “Racial Masking” in American Popular Culture

“…A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuRTSQ6iWps

Shelby Steele – Race and the Obama Campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eumK6YL3jvc&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nydmeu09CA&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama pt2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVykmq3nQYc&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama pt3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqy-2jtETf8&feature=related

Interview with Shelby Steele on Barack Obama pt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vtQXUE6IU&feature=related

Charlie Rose: October 2, 1998: Interview with Shelby Steele

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lucelsgGw

The Religion Of Racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8292_Eqi94&feature=related

Obama The Racialist Socialist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pRcTY4XPMY&feature=related

Glenn Beck – The Obama Socialist Agenda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc

Karl Rove: Obama’s Superior campaign donations are misleading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2xW4wmE7k8

IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA WON’T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Obama gets Cheers – Hillary Gets Booed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhcVp__bZtg

Barack Hussein Obama Exposed: Lies, Gaffes & Backtracks 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-WZut0iYM&feature=iv

Obama never called for an invasion of Pakistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKvc6aj08g4

Obama’s Approach to Terrorism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcbcF6MLB2k

Gingrich: I’m deeply worried

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw&feature=related

Conservative George Will on Obama and the elections

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5fX47Qi6N0&feature=related

John McCain Speech: America’s Energy Security

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkqwhrVUBmY&feature=user

McCain POW Cellmate Speaks Out on McCain’s Heroism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfyGdG9llSE&feature=related

Missing, Presumed Dead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaTNN09ocgM

Vietnam Veterans Against McCain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g&feature=related

John McCain in “Missing, Presumed Dead”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0

United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs

“…The 2004 documentary Missing, Presumed Dead: The Search for America’s POWs, narrated by Ed Asner, included a number of segments showing the committee in hearings and criticism of the committee’s actions.^[40] It includes one scene where a former Korean War POW is giving testimony in hearings and, in not untypical congressional practice, only one senator, Smith, was present. The witness asked, “Where are all the other senators?”^[40] and an embarrassed Kerry eventually rushed in. While the documentary repeats previous allegations about McCain’s behavior as a POW, in his own interview in it Smith simply states, “John McCain, and John Kerry, both were not pursuing this with the same approach that I was.”^[40]

All three of the main figures on the committee would run for president. Smith ran a brief campaign for the 2000 race; in his announcement speech, he said, “Our nation’s POWs and MIAs sacrificed their own freedom to protect our freedom and were never heard from again. Their ultimate fate is still unknown. I have traveled to every corner of the world on behalf of the POW/MIA families searching for answers — trying to end their uncertainty. I have had to bang on the doors of our own Government to open up intelligence files. Never again will these families have to beg our government and foreign governments for answers about their loved ones. Never again.”^[41] Smith’s candidacy failed to gain traction, and he switched parties twice during 1999 before dropping out and endorsing Republican George W. Bush.^[42] Four years later, again a Republican, Smith would break party lines and endorse Kerry during the latter’s 2004 presidential campaign.^[43] During that campaign Kerry’s role in the committee was greatly overshadowed by his Vietnam Veterans Against the War participation during the war^[10] and by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack against him during the campaign. McCain would run in both 2000 and 2008; during the infamous South Carolina primary in 2000, allegations that he had abandoned POW/MIAs were part of the smear campaign against him.^[44] ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Select_Committee_on_POW/MIA_Affairs

Vietnam Vets Attack John McCain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGh-vq0O5gw&feature=related

John Kerry Slams John McCain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtPnkRWCHho

Swift Boat Documentaires! 1 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWSFDSXHS4Y&feature=related

Swift Boat Documentaries 2 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG23D694fQQ&feature=related

Swift Boat Documentaries 3 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-lgCHTjd4I&feature=related

Swift Boat Documentaries 4 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfAnyis0L4c&feature=related

Swift Boat Documentaries 5 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es0JB-FPjR4&feature=related

Swift Vets ad against Kerry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg&feature=related

John Kerry: Reporting for Duty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vYU-tW37Dc&feature=related

They Served

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6xbwETTBxs&feature=related

Swiftboat Veterans Ad on John Kerry – Any Questions (2004)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zk9YmED48&feature=related

Swiftboat Veterans Ad on John Kerry – Friends (2004)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRQwYFs3BxI&feature=related

Swiftboat Veterans Ad on John Kerry – Sellout (2004)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phqOuEhg9yE&feature=related

Swift Vets ad of Kerry renouncing his medals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag_F7BbWP7E&feature=related

LOL–Voice of the American People

Barack Obama plays the RACE CARD…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5qaxjRLAss&feature=related

Barack Obama can’t STOP lying…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STgixh2avNo&feature=related

Barack Obama says there are 57 states…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZawCHXWr4I&feature=related

John McCain wants to LOWER Gas prices…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW8W_KS52FI&feature=related

Background Articles and Videos

The Impressionists BBC (Part 1)

The Impressionists BBC (Part 2)

The Impressionists BBC (Part 3)

Recent additions to U.S. public debt
Fiscal year (begins 10/01)	Value	% of GDP
2001	$144.6 billion	1.4%
2002	$409.3 billion	3.9%
2003	$589.0 billion	5.5%
2004	$605.0 billion	5.3%
2005	$523.2 billion	4.3%
2006	$536.5 billion	4.1%
2007	$527.9 billion	3.9%

End of Fiscal Year	US Public Debt USD billions^[18]	% of GDP^[19]
1910	2.6
1920	25.9
1930	16.2
1940	43.0	44.2
1950	257.4	80.2
1960	290.2	45.7
1970	389.2	28.0
1980	930.2	26.1
1990	3233	42.0
2000	5674	35.1
2005	7933	37.4
2007	9008	36.8
2008		37.9(est)

U.S. president	Party	Term years	Start debt/GDP*	End debt/GDP*	Increase debt ($T)	Increase debt/GDP
Roosevelt/Truman	D	1945-1949	117.5%	93.2%	0.05	-24.3%
Truman Harry Truman	D	1949-1953	93.2%	71.3%	0.01	-21.9%
Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower	R	1953-1957	71.3%	60.5%	0.01	-10.8%
Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower	R	1957-1961	60.5%	55.1%	0.02	-5.4%
Kennedy/Johnson	D	1961-1965	55.1%	46.9%	0.03	-8.2%
Johnson Lyndon Johnson	D	1965-1969	46.9%	38.6%	0.05	-8.3%
Nixon1 Richard Nixon	R	1969-1973	38.6%	35.7%	0.07	-2.9%
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford	R	1973-1977	35.7%	35.8%	0.19	+0.1%
Carter Jimmy Carter	D	1977-1981	35.8%	32.6%	0.18	-3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan	R	1981-1985	32.6%	43.9%	0.65	+11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan	R	1985-1989	43.9%	53.1%	1.04	+9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush	R	1989-1993	53.1%	66.2%	1.40	+13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton	D	1993-1997	66.2%	65.6%	1.12	-0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton	D	1997-2001	65.6%	57.4%	0.42	-8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush	R	2001-2005	57.4%	64.3%	1.15	+6.9%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush	R	2005-2009 projection	64.3%	68.2% projection		+3.9% projection

Background Articles and Videos

United States public debt

The United States total public debt, commonly called the national debt, or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. debt instruments. Debt held by the public is all federal debt held by states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments, but does not include intragovernmental debt obligations or debt held for Social Security. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities.^[1]

As of April 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.5 trillion^[2], about $31,100 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.^[3] If, in addition, unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. promises are added, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion.^[4] In 2007 the public debt was 36.8 percent of GDP ranking 26th in the world.^[5] As of 2007, the total debt was 65% of GDP.

It is important to differentiate between public debt and external debt. The former is the amount owed by the government to its creditors, whether they are nationals or foreigners. The latter is the debt of all sectors of the economy (public and private), owed to foreigners. In the U.S., foreign ownership of the public debt is a significant part of the nation’s external debt (see also below). The Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the United States Department of the Treasury, calculates the amount of money owed by the national government on a daily basis.

^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

The annual US budget deficit declined from $318 billion in 2005 to $162 billion in 2007, but is estimated to increase to $410 billion in 2008.^[10] Annual deficits add to the debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects an annual budget surplus by 2012. However, this estimate is based on current law, which assumes sizable tax reductions will expire in 2010.^[11] When the U.S. Government has a surplus, it may pay down its outstanding debt by paying back the principal of the outstanding bonds redeemed for payment while not issuing new bonds. The U.S. Government could also purchase its own outstanding securities on the open market if it was searching for a way to use a surplus to reduce outstanding debt that was not due for redemption in a given year. ^[12] ^[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

The below table shows the annual federal spending, gross federal debt, and gross domestic product for average presidential parties, specific presidential terms, and specific fiscal years.^[3]

Fiscal Year Budget of President Party of President Federal Spending Federal Debt Gross Domestic Product Inflation Adjustor

Billions Adjusted Increase Billions Adjusted Increase Billions Adjusted Increase

1978-2005 Democratic 9.9% 4.2% 12.6%

1978-2005 Republican 12.1% 36.4% 10.7%

1978-1981 Carter Democratic $678 $1,219 17.2% $994 $1,787 -0.4% $3,055 $5,492 9.4%

1982-1985 Reagan Republican $946 $1,396 14.5% $1,817 $2,680 49.9% $4,142 $6,108 11.2%

1986-1989 Reagan Republican $1,144 $1,499 7.4% $2,867 $3,757 40.2% $5,401 $7,077 15.9%

1990-1993 Bush Republican $1,410 $1,615 7.8% $4,351 $4,987 32.7% $6,576 $7,536 6.5%

1994-1997 Clinton Democratic $1,601 $1,684 4.3% $5,369 $5,647 13.2% $8,182 $8,606 14.2%

1998-2001 Clinton Democratic $1,863 $1,821 8.1% $5,769 $5,638 -0.2% $10,058 $9,829 14.2%

2002-2005 Bush Republican $2,472 $2,165 18.9% $7,905 $6,923 22.8% $12,238 $10,717 9.0%

1977 Ford Republican $409 $1,040 $706 $1,795 $1,974 $5,019 0.39

1978 Carter Democratic $459 $1,093 5.1% $776 $1,850 3.1% $2,217 $5,285 5.3% 0.42

1979 Carter Democratic $504 $1,107 1.3% $829 $1,821 -1.5% $2,501 $5,494 4.0% 0.46

1980 Carter Democratic $591 $1,175 6.1% $909 $1,808 -0.8% $2,727 $5,422 -1.3% 0.50

1981 Carter Democratic $678 $1,219 3.8% $994 $1,787 -1.1% $3,055 $5,492 1.3% 0.56

1982 Reagan Republican $746 $1,252 2.6% $1,137 $1,908 6.8% $3,228 $5,417 -1.4% 0.60

1983 Reagan Republican $808 $1,294 3.4% $1,371 $2,195 15.0% $3,441 $5,510 1.7% 0.62

1984 Reagan Republican $852 $1,300 0.4% $1,564 $2,386 8.7% $3,840 $5,858 6.3% 0.66

1985 Reagan Republican $946 $1,396 7.4% $1,817 $2,680 12.3% $4,142 $6,108 4.3% 0.68

1986 Reagan Republican $990 $1,426 2.1% $2,120 $3,052 13.9% $4,412 $6,352 4.0% 0.69

1987 Reagan Republican $1,004 $1,406 -1.4% $2,345 $3,283 7.6% $4,647 $6,506 2.4% 0.71

1988 Reagan Republican $1,065 $1,447 2.9% $2,601 $3,534 7.7% $5,009 $6,806 4.6% 0.74

1989 Reagan Republican $1,144 $1,499 3.6% $2,867 $3,757 6.3% $5,401 $7,077 4.0% 0.76

1990 Bush Republican $1,253 $1,590 6.1% $3,206 $4,067 8.3% $5,735 $7,277 2.8% 0.79

1991 Bush Republican $1,324 $1,610 1.3% $3,598 $4,374 7.5% $5,935 $7,215 -0.8% 0.82

1992 Bush Republican $1,382 $1,624 0.9% $4,001 $4,703 7.5% $6,240 $7,334 1.7% 0.85

1993 Bush Republican $1,410 $1,615 -0.5% $4,351 $4,987 6.0% $6,576 $7,536 2.8% 0.87

1994 Clinton Democratic $1,462 $1,642 1.7% $4,643 $5,216 4.6% $6,961 $7,820 3.8% 0.89

1995 Clinton Democratic $1,516 $1,662 1.2% $4,920 $5,395 3.4% $7,326 $8,033 2.7% 0.91

1996 Clinton Democratic $1,561 $1,673 0.7% $5,181 $5,554 3.0% $7,694 $8,248 2.7% 0.93

1997 Clinton Democratic $1,601 $1,684 0.7% $5,369 $5,647 1.7% $8,182 $8,606 4.3% 0.95

1998 Clinton Democratic $1,653 $1,721 2.2% $5,478 $5,704 1.0% $8,628 $8,985 4.4% 0.96

1999 Clinton Democratic $1,702 $1,746 1.5% $5,605 $5,750 0.8% $9,125 $9,361 4.2% 0.97

2000 Clinton Democratic $1,789 $1,789 2.5% $5,628 $5,628 -2.1% $9,710 $9,710 3.7% 1.00

2001 Clinton Democratic $1,863 $1,821 1.8% $5,769 $5,638 0.2% $10,058 $9,829 1.2% 1.02

2002 Bush Republican $2,011 $1,929 6.0% $6,198 $5,945 5.5% $10,377 $9,954 1.3% 1.04

2003 Bush Republican $2,160 $2,018 4.6% $6,760 $6,316 6.2% $10,809 $10,099 1.4% 1.07

2004 Bush Republican $2,293 $2,082 3.2% $7,354 $6,677 5.7% $11,500 $10,441 3.4% 1.10

2005 Bush Republican $2,472 $2,165 4.0% $7,905 $6,923 3.7% $12,238 $10,717 2.6% 1.14

2006 Bush Republican $2,655 $2,249 3.9% $8,451 $7,158 3.4% $13,016 $11,024 2.9% 1.18

2007 Bush Republican $2,730 $2,263 0.6% $8,951 $7,419 3.6% $13,668 $11,329 2.8% 1.21

Fiscal Year	Budget of President	Party of President	Federal Spending	Federal Debt	Gross Domestic Product	Inflation Adjustor
Billions	Adjusted	Increase	Billions	Adjusted	Increase	Billions	Adjusted	Increase
1978-2005		Democratic			9.9%			4.2%			12.6%
1978-2005		Republican			12.1%			36.4%			10.7%
1978-1981	Carter	Democratic	$678	$1,219	17.2%	$994	$1,787	-0.4%	$3,055	$5,492	9.4%
1982-1985	Reagan	Republican	$946	$1,396	14.5%	$1,817	$2,680	49.9%	$4,142	$6,108	11.2%
1986-1989	Reagan	Republican	$1,144	$1,499	7.4%	$2,867	$3,757	40.2%	$5,401	$7,077	15.9%
1990-1993	Bush	Republican	$1,410	$1,615	7.8%	$4,351	$4,987	32.7%	$6,576	$7,536	6.5%
1994-1997	Clinton	Democratic	$1,601	$1,684	4.3%	$5,369	$5,647	13.2%	$8,182	$8,606	14.2%
1998-2001	Clinton	Democratic	$1,863	$1,821	8.1%	$5,769	$5,638	-0.2%	$10,058	$9,829	14.2%
2002-2005	Bush	Republican	$2,472	$2,165	18.9%	$7,905	$6,923	22.8%	$12,238	$10,717	9.0%
1977	Ford	Republican	$409	$1,040		$706	$1,795		$1,974	$5,019		0.39
1978	Carter	Democratic	$459	$1,093	5.1%	$776	$1,850	3.1%	$2,217	$5,285	5.3%	0.42
1979	Carter	Democratic	$504	$1,107	1.3%	$829	$1,821	-1.5%	$2,501	$5,494	4.0%	0.46
1980	Carter	Democratic	$591	$1,175	6.1%	$909	$1,808	-0.8%	$2,727	$5,422	-1.3%	0.50
1981	Carter	Democratic	$678	$1,219	3.8%	$994	$1,787	-1.1%	$3,055	$5,492	1.3%	0.56
1982	Reagan	Republican	$746	$1,252	2.6%	$1,137	$1,908	6.8%	$3,228	$5,417	-1.4%	0.60
1983	Reagan	Republican	$808	$1,294	3.4%	$1,371	$2,195	15.0%	$3,441	$5,510	1.7%	0.62
1984	Reagan	Republican	$852	$1,300	0.4%	$1,564	$2,386	8.7%	$3,840	$5,858	6.3%	0.66
1985	Reagan	Republican	$946	$1,396	7.4%	$1,817	$2,680	12.3%	$4,142	$6,108	4.3%	0.68
1986	Reagan	Republican	$990	$1,426	2.1%	$2,120	$3,052	13.9%	$4,412	$6,352	4.0%	0.69
1987	Reagan	Republican	$1,004	$1,406	-1.4%	$2,345	$3,283	7.6%	$4,647	$6,506	2.4%	0.71
1988	Reagan	Republican	$1,065	$1,447	2.9%	$2,601	$3,534	7.7%	$5,009	$6,806	4.6%	0.74
1989	Reagan	Republican	$1,144	$1,499	3.6%	$2,867	$3,757	6.3%	$5,401	$7,077	4.0%	0.76
1990	Bush	Republican	$1,253	$1,590	6.1%	$3,206	$4,067	8.3%	$5,735	$7,277	2.8%	0.79
1991	Bush	Republican	$1,324	$1,610	1.3%	$3,598	$4,374	7.5%	$5,935	$7,215	-0.8%	0.82
1992	Bush	Republican	$1,382	$1,624	0.9%	$4,001	$4,703	7.5%	$6,240	$7,334	1.7%	0.85
1993	Bush	Republican	$1,410	$1,615	-0.5%	$4,351	$4,987	6.0%	$6,576	$7,536	2.8%	0.87
1994	Clinton	Democratic	$1,462	$1,642	1.7%	$4,643	$5,216	4.6%	$6,961	$7,820	3.8%	0.89
1995	Clinton	Democratic	$1,516	$1,662	1.2%	$4,920	$5,395	3.4%	$7,326	$8,033	2.7%	0.91
1996	Clinton	Democratic	$1,561	$1,673	0.7%	$5,181	$5,554	3.0%	$7,694	$8,248	2.7%	0.93
1997	Clinton	Democratic	$1,601	$1,684	0.7%	$5,369	$5,647	1.7%	$8,182	$8,606	4.3%	0.95
1998	Clinton	Democratic	$1,653	$1,721	2.2%	$5,478	$5,704	1.0%	$8,628	$8,985	4.4%	0.96
1999	Clinton	Democratic	$1,702	$1,746	1.5%	$5,605	$5,750	0.8%	$9,125	$9,361	4.2%	0.97
2000	Clinton	Democratic	$1,789	$1,789	2.5%	$5,628	$5,628	-2.1%	$9,710	$9,710	3.7%	1.00
2001	Clinton	Democratic	$1,863	$1,821	1.8%	$5,769	$5,638	0.2%	$10,058	$9,829	1.2%	1.02
2002	Bush	Republican	$2,011	$1,929	6.0%	$6,198	$5,945	5.5%	$10,377	$9,954	1.3%	1.04
2003	Bush	Republican	$2,160	$2,018	4.6%	$6,760	$6,316	6.2%	$10,809	$10,099	1.4%	1.07
2004	Bush	Republican	$2,293	$2,082	3.2%	$7,354	$6,677	5.7%	$11,500	$10,441	3.4%	1.10
2005	Bush	Republican	$2,472	$2,165	4.0%	$7,905	$6,923	3.7%	$12,238	$10,717	2.6%	1.14
2006	Bush	Republican	$2,655	$2,249	3.9%	$8,451	$7,158	3.4%	$13,016	$11,024	2.9%	1.18
2007	Bush	Republican	$2,730	$2,263	0.6%	$8,951	$7,419	3.6%	$13,668	$11,329	2.8%	1.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Background Articles and Videos

Charlie Rose – Economist Milton Friedman.

Obama’s Truly Radical Capital Gains Tax Agenda

“…MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

The Senator then proceeded to bash evil rich (sorry for the redundancy) people, so the moderator asked the question again:

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

This exchange is particularly revealing since Senator Obama actually admitted that a tax rate increase might lose revenue, but he held firm to his position that the capital gains rate should be increased from 15 percent to 28 percent. This reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with an economics professor from an Ivy League university. He told me that he once asked his left-wing colleagues whether they would support lower tax rates if they knew that tax revenues would rise. Most of them, he said, shared Obama’s viewpoint that punishing success was more important to the statist ideology than increasing revenue for government.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/17/obamas-truly-radical-capital-gains-tax-agenda/

An Old Newness

By Thomas Sowell

“…There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. …”

“…Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police. …”

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/29/an_old_newness?page=full&comments=true

Obama vs McCain – Candidates on Taxes

Barack Obama: Taxes Galore!

McCain vs Obama on taxes

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html

Barack Obama: Global Poverty Act = World tax = Socialism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PePbtEABzGk&feature=related

Barack Obama’s plan on GLOBAL WARMING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcpGRO-j_Ik

Obama In Las Vegas June 1st (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE_XH5yMlk4

Obama In Las Vegas June 1st (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5NHDmYLp8g

Kudlow on Obama and his love of taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrFW4ZLXwV8

Ben Stein explaining how Obama will screw the US Economy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPvk7Ixiotg

OBAMAnomics — CHANGE: $0.04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhSbJcNzhLg

European Levels of Taxation: Barack Obama’s Tax Plan

by Rea S. Hederman, Jr. and Patrick Tyrrell

“…Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.) has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income as business income or capital gains and the migration of capital from the United States to abroad.

Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.

High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government. …”

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm1973.cfm

MONSIEUR OBAMA’S TAX RATES

“…Americans should be so lucky: Theirs is the only industrialized country that taxes its people even if they live overseas. That hasn’t been a big problem as long as U.S. tax rates have been relatively low. But with Barack Obama promising to lift rates to French-like levels, this taxman-cometh policy could turn Americans into the world’s foremost fiscal prisoners.

And make no mistake, taxes under a President Obama could be truly à la française. The top marginal tax rate, including federal, state and local levies, could approach 60% for self-employed New Yorkers and Californians. Not even France’s taxes are that high now that President Nicolas Sarkozy has capped the total that high-earning Frenchmen like Mr. Ducasse can pay in income, social and wealth taxes at 50% of earnings. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121451667614808563.html

Obama’s Global Tax Bill Coming Soon

Lee Cary

“…The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) is coming up for a Senate vote sometime after the July 4 recess, according the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Once Harry Reid and the Democrat leadership put it on the calendar, we could have as little as a week to prepare for the vote.

The bill is sponsored in the Senate by Barack Obama. Read about it here.

If passed, it will cost taxpayers $845,000,000,000 over the next 13 years, in addition to our current foreign aid expenditures.

And the best part is that it will be administered in conjunction with…brace yourselves…the United Nations. The same one of “Food-for-Oil” fame. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_global_tax_bill_coming.html

Obama’s Global Tax

By Lee Cary

“…Senator Barack Obama’s sponsorship of Senate Bill 2433 aligns with the emerging core theme of his general election campaign. The change he promises will bring much-needed relief, not just to America’s victims of economic injustice, but to victims worldwide.

On December 7, 2007, Obama introduced the Senate version of the Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433). On February 13, the bill cleared the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on which Obama and 6 (Biden, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Lugar, Menendez) of the bill’s 9 co-sponsors serve. The House version of the bill (H.R.1302) passed by a unanimous voice vote last September 25.

Here’s an abstract of the proposed legislation:

“To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the [U.N.] Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/the_global_candidate_proposes.html

Obama Tax Policies Penalize, McCain’s Reward

by Terry Easton

“…When you compare the Republican’s tax position of enlightened free-market capitalism versus the Democrat’s heavy socialist agenda, the differences become obvious – especially to anyone who pays taxes. Obama’s tax plans will hit the middle class American where it hurts the worst: in his wallet.

Let’s take income taxes first.

McCain calls for no changes to today’s low rates. Obama will revert to the pre-Bush tax cut regime. Bottom line: if you’re single, making $30,000, McCain will tax you $4,500. Obama will extract $8,400 from your wallet – almost double the take! Single making $50,000: McCain’s tax is $12,500; Obama’s is $14,000. Single making $75,000: McCain’s tax is $18,750. Obama will bite you for $23,250.

And it’s no better if you’re married. Married making $60,000: McCain’s tax is only $9,000. Obama will hit you for $16,000. Married making $75,000: McCain’s tax is $18,750, Obama’s $21,000. Married making $125,000: McCain’s tax is $31,250. Obama’s hit – $38,750. Ouch, Obama!

So much for Obama’s plan to tax the “filthy rich”. Now we know just what that means: everyone in the middle class.

Well, you say, what about capital gain taxes?

Again, McCain says he’ll make no changes. The maximum rate will stay at 15%. Obama is all for change. He’ll roll back this tax cut to the pre-Bush rate of 28%, again almost doubling your taxes overnight. This plan is especially cruel to older folks who have planned to sell their bigger homes and count on using this income (after their homeowner’s exclusion) to help fund their retirement. Ouch again, Obama.

Then there is the dividend tax.

OK, you’ve been religiously saving over the decades and buying up blue-chip stocks whose dividends you now count on to carry you through your golden years. Or, you have your savings invested in an IRA or retirement plan, mutual fund or life insurance annuity. McCain’s dividend tax won’t change from the maximum rate of 15%. Obama will once again repeal the Bush tax cuts, bumping this tax rate up to 39.6%, an increase of – hold your wallets – over 160%. The impact on the middle class, much less our barely-growing economy – are obvious. Really ouch, Obama! …”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27025&page=1&cp=1#hec301759

The Supply-Side Solution
If tax-cut strategies don’t work, why are they so popular abroad?

by STEPHEN MOORE

“…In any case, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% and 5% income earners has consistently risen from 1980 through 2007, even as tax rates declined. Today the highest income tax rate is half what it was in the 1970s. Yet the share of taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners is twice (39%) today what it was then (19%).

Regardless of what one believes about the distributional effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, there’s no expunging the reality that the economic growth rate surged after each of these changes–just as they did in the 1960s after President Kennedy’s tax rate cuts. Robert Rubin and others reply that the economy boomed in the 1990s too, after Bill Clinton raised taxes. But supply-siders never argued that only tax cuts matter. Trade matters. Sound money matters. Regulations matter. In the 1990s, monetary, trade and spending policies were all leaning in a pro-growth direction, possibly offsetting the negative impact of the Clinton tax rate hikes.

What the critics have no plausible answer for is this: If the supply-side tax rate reduction model is truly so abhorrent, why are so many nations around the world latching on to it? What explains the Irish Miracle? Why are Germany, France and the U.K. slashing their corporate tax rates? Why are there 18 countries with flat taxes? Are their leaders deranged, or been bamboozled by crackpots? Perhaps a better explanation is that they know intuitively what a new National Bureau of Economic Research study has found: Nations with low tax rates on business have statistically significant higher rates of new business formation, investment and income. …”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010844

A Plan For Privatizing Social Security

by Peter J. Ferrara

“…In this study, Peter Ferrara offers a proposal based on the following key elements:

Current workers could be free to choose either the private option or Social Security. For those who choose the private plan, workers and employers will each pay 5 percent of wages, instead of the current Social Security payroll tax of 6.2 percent for each, into private investment accounts, resulting in an eventual payroll tax cut of 20 percent. Besides supporting retirement benefits, the accounts would finance private life and disability insurance, thus replacing Social Security survivors and disability benefits.

Workers who opt out of the current Social Security system would receive recognition bonds from the federal government that would pay them a proportion of future Social Security benefits equal to the proportion of lifetime taxes they had already paid.

Benefits promised to current retirees would be paid in full, with no reduction of any kind.

The biggest objection to privatizing Social Security has been the transition to a privatized system. But the projections of the fiscal impact of the plan offered in this study show that the transition can be financed without new taxes and without cutting benefits for today’s recipients.

Indeed, the yearly transition deficit would be offset after about 14 years. After that, the privatization reform actually starts producing a surplus for the federal government. About 20 years after the reform is begun, that surplus would be large enough in 1996 dollars to eliminate completely a federal deficit as large as today’s. …”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp8es.html

Your Tax Bill:
How McCain,
Obama Differ

Capital-Gains Rates Are Likely
To Rise, No Matter Who Wins;
Far Apart on Estate Taxes

“…Sen. Obama is calling for higher taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year. That includes increased taxes not only on ordinary income such as salary but also on capital gains and most corporate dividends. The Illinois senator also is calling for higher Social Security taxes on many upper-income workers.

Sen. John McCain has staked out a strong antitax stance. That includes extending President Bush’s income-tax cuts and enacting new breaks, such as raising the exemption for dependents. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121374794468982701.html

Barack Obama on Minimum Wage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRcC3Iz2JSk

Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

Milton Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

BARACK OBAMA Pastor ANTI-AMERICAN Rev Jeremiah Wright Racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw&feature=related

LOL: Red State Update: Obama’s Preacher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrIKrK1Xso

The revelation of Rev. Wright

“…Obama cannot be expected to answer for the outrages of everyone with whom he has associated, but his 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is another matter, profoundly different than John McCain’s association with intemperate pastors who have endorsed him. Wright is a man to whom Obama himself has directed our attention, naming a book after a Wright sermon and, until recently, presenting the man as something of a father figure.

Wright, of course, is anything but unifying and post-ideological. He views the United States as unrepentantly racist and evil. It is, in his view, an imperialist force for evil in the world and a fundamentally unjust place in which little racial progress has been made.

Wright has made it clear that these views are part and parcel of his theology and definition of church. It is evident that the congregation at Trinity Church is quite familiar and enthusiastic about his claims that America brought Sept. 11 upon itself and has deliberately addicted blacks to drugs and infected them with AIDS. Those in the pews appear to be more than comfortable with his suggestion that our country is damned in the eyes of God.

It is inconceivable that anyone could sit in his church for any appreciable length of time or have more than a passing acquaintance with him without knowing that racial pandering and a rather bleak view of contemporary America is central to Wright’s ministry. …”

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=761961

Glenn Beck: Obama – Black Liberation Theology 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cA0GEV1ibY&feature=related

Glenn Beck: Obama – Black Liberation Theology 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQuzyvHOl30&feature=related

John McCain vs. Barack Obama on Gas Taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BKLr4eUWKY

Karl Rove: “Yes I Do Think Barack Obama is Arrogant”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3gukJRxxo

Bush wants offshore oil and gas drilling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zN5kC_KFXk

Drill For Oil You Hypocritical Democrats. DRILL DRILL!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJcnhUG-28

The Energy Crisis Is Real – 1979 Jimmy Carter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqE0Yl12FY&feature=related

New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

“…Washington, DC, October 4, 2007 – New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows.

Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2005 (updated October 2007)

	Number of Returns	AGI ($ millions)	Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)	Group’s Share of Total AGI	Group’s Share of Income Taxes	Income Split Point
All Taxpayers	132,611,637	$7,507,958	$934,703	100.00%	100.00%	-
Top 1%	1,326,116	$1,591,711	$368,132	21.20%	39.38%	above $364,657
Top 5%	6,630,582	$2,683,934	$557,759	35.75%	59.67%	above $145,283
Top 10%	13,261,164	$3,487,010	$657,085	46.44%	70.30%	above $103,912
Top 25%	33,152,909	$5,069,455	$803,772	67.52%	85.99%	above $62,068
Top 50%	66,305,819	$6,544,824	$906,028	87.17%	96.93%	above $30,881
Bottom 50%	66,305,818	963,134	28,675	12.83%	3.07%	below $30,881

Source: IRS …”

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

“…For Tax Year 2005

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$364,657

39.38

Top 5%

$145,283

59.67

Top 10%

$103,912

70.30

Top 25%

$62,068

85.99

Top 50%

$30,881

96.93

Bottom 50%

<$30,881

3.07

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

June 25, 2008

Hard Numbers on Obama’s Redistribution Plan

by Scott A. Hodge

Fiscal Fact No. 132

“…Table 1 presents the share of total federal taxes currently borne by each income group compared to the changes that would occur under the Obama plan. A couple of figures jump out. First, the table illustrates how few taxes are paid by Americans at the bottom end of the income scale and, thus, how difficult it is to give them tax relief.

According to Tax Policy Center tables, there are roughly 72 million tax units in the bottom two quintiles, representing 48 percent of all tax units. Under current policies, these people pay just 4.8 percent of all federal taxes. Those in the lowest quintile would receive $22 billion in various tax credits under the Obama plan, which would reduce their overall federal tax liability by an average of $567. However, since these 39 million people currently pay an average of only $489 in federal taxes, they would see their federal tax liability fall below zero, meaning they would get money back from the government in excess of any taxes paid. For those in the second quintile, the Obama plan would cut their current average tax liability of $2,995 by 30 percent, or $892.

At the other end of the scale, the Obama plan would boost the average tax bill for the top 1 percent of taxpayers by $115,974, from $559,181 to $675,155. The overall tax burden on the top 1 percent would climb from 25.7 percent of all federal taxes to 31.3 percent. Thus, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would shoulder a greater burden of all federal taxes than the bottom 80 percent combined. Again, these figures do not include Obama’s proposed increase in payroll taxes on high earners.

Table 1
Impact of Obama Plan on Federal Taxes Paid by Income Quintile

	Tax Units*		Share of Federal Taxes
Cash Income Percentile*	Number (thousands)	Percent of Total	Current Share of Total	Change Under Obama’s Proposal	New Shares Under Obama’s Proposal
Lowest Quintile	39,102	26.0%	0.8%	-0.90%	-0.12%
Second Quintile	32,942	21.9%	4.0%	-1.16%	2.84%
Middle Quintile	30,075	20.0%	10.7%	-1.18%	9.53%
Fourth Quintile	25,152	16.7%	17.9%	-1.15%	16.75%
Top Quintile	22,287	14.8%	66.5%	4.39%	70.88%
All	150,241	100.0%	100.0%	0%	100%

Addendum
80-90	11,264	7.5%	14.1%	-0.88%	13.23%
90-95	5,439	3.6%	10.4%	-0.52%	9.88%
95-99	4,454	3.0%	16.3%	0.16%	16.48%
Top 1 Percent	1,131	0.8%	25.7%	5.63%	31.29%
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/Excel/T08-0114.xls.
* Quintiles have equal numbers of people but unequal numbers of tax units

While many Americans may cheer this outcome as just or equitable, this sort of direct redistribution raises some important questions that should be part of a larger national discussion:

What is the long-term effect on the economy of so few households shouldering such a large share of the tax burden?
What are the consequences for our democratic system when a majority of Americans are disconnected from the full cost of government? Will that majority demand more from the government because they bear little of the cost?
Should the tax system be used as a means of redistributing income or simply as a neutral mechanism for raising money for government services? Can a tax system premised on redistribution also be compatible with economic growth?
The Obama plan assumes little behavioral change from such a large tax hike on high-income workers. Is this realistic or will the higher rates encourage tax minimization strategies and reduced work effort, which will lead to lower tax revenues?

The Tax Policy Center has done the public a service by putting hard numbers on the candidates’ tax plans and bringing a dose of reality to the political rhetoric. While it is easy for the press and voters to consider only “What’s in it for me?,” there are larger issues raised by these findings that deserve more public discussion.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html

NYU scholar named as Obama’s director of economic policy

“…Furman has a wealth of experience in this capacity. He held the same position during the Kerry-Edwards campaign and had previously served as special assistant to the president for economic policy during the Clinton administration. In addition, he has been a visiting lecturer at both Columbia and Yale universities.
“…”I think the whole debate between raising taxes and cutting taxes is false,” he added. “The true debate is who are you cutting taxes for.” …”

It seems clear that the economy will play a large role in determining the next president. News Corporation CEO and politically conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch told Reuters last month that he predicts there will be a Democratic landslide in November, citing the failing economy and an apparent recession.

Murdoch is not alone. Many on both sides are predicting that a dark economic outlook leading up to the election will only help the Democrats. …”

http://media.www.nyunews.com/media/storage/paper869/news/2008/06/30/University/Nyu-Scholar.Named.As.Obamas.Director.Of.Economic.Policy-3386670.shtml

PRESS CONFERENCE: Obama’s economic plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V85_zDs7Ik8

The McCain Economic “Team”
Intellectual diversity, for better and for worse.
by Andrew Ferguson

“…McCain came to the House of Representatives in 1983. He was a standard-issue Republican of the day–an adherent of the newly minted Republican orthodoxy of Reaganism, which made rapid economic growth, rather than a balanced federal budget, the chief goal of fiscal policy. He supported deep cuts in the marginal tax rate on income and capital gains. At the same time (like Reagan himself) he maintained a mostly theoretical advocacy of a balanced budget, pushing such hopeless nostrums as a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a presidential line-item veto. When he bucked the party’s leadership, it was on the side of a smaller government and lower taxes. After Congress approved Reagan’s plan for a government-run catastrophic-care insurance program, financed by a tax increase on wealthy seniors, McCain led the successful effort to repeal the new tax a year later, in 1989. Like many Republican senators, he voted against President George H.W. Bush’s 1990 budget because it contained multiple tax increases that violated Bush’s famous read-my-lips campaign pledge. Three years later, he joined in his party’s unanimous rejection of President Clinton’s 1993 proposed increase in marginal tax rates on capital gains and income.

By the time McCain announced for president in 1999, he had built a consistent roll call of conservative votes on fiscal issues–a record that was, however, largely indistinguishable from those of his Republican colleagues. In an interview at the time, he said that “tax reform–i.e., a flat tax,” would be one of his signal issues during his coming presidential …”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/751tryie.asp?pg=2

McCain’s econ brain

Economic conservatives take heart: Phil Gramm is influencing the candidate’s platform.

By Shawn Tully, editor-at-large

“…But economic conservatives should take heart. McCain’s chief economic adviser – and perhaps his closest political friend – is the ultimate pure play in free market faith, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm. If McCain follows Gramm’s counsel, and most of his current positions are vintage Gramm indeed, his policies as president would represent not just a sharp departure from the Bush years, but an assault on government growth that Republicans have boasted about, but failed to achieve, for decades. …”

“…What about taxes? McCain now advocates extending the Bush tax cuts that he twice voted against. For Gramm, McCain’s strength is that, unlike Bush, he will be a relentless hawk on spending. “McCain’s main objection when Congress passed the tax cuts was that we didn’t have spending controls,” says Gramm. “If we’d had them, we could cut taxes again and not make do with some temporary stimulus.”

McCain pledges to balance the budget by 2012, not by increasing taxes, but by vetoing all pork barrel spending, and curbing outlays for Social Security and Medicare. That would accomplish the seemingly impossible, reducing federal spending as a portion of GDP, a holy grail for conservatives. Could Gramm be the Treasury Secretary who spearheads the McCain plan? He says he’d be reluctant to return to public life, but doesn’t rule it out. Indeed, he says that he and McCain talk every day. Gramm even quotes Rudyard Kipling to salute his friend’s grit in political combat.

McCain is a hero to Gramm but not to free-marketers. Conservatives are hoping that by embracing their hero, McCain will become one himself. …”

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/18/news/newsmakers/tully_gramm.fortune/index.htm

Taxation in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

Taxation history of the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States

Archive for July, 2008

Data

Raymond T. Pronk

Email Subscription

Pages

RSS Links

Categories

Search

Search

Blog Stats

Calendar

Archives

Top World Oil Consumers, 2006 (thousand barrels per day)
Rank	Country	Consumption
1	United States	20,687
2	China	7,201
3	Japan	5,159
4	Russia	2,811
5	Germany	2,665
6	India	2,572
7	Canada	2,264
8	Brazil	2,217
9	Korea, South	2,174
10	Saudi Arabia	2,139
11	Mexico	1,997
12	France	1,961
13	United Kingdom	1,830
14	Italy	1,732
15	Iran	1,686

Top World Oil Net Importers, 2006 (thousand barrels per day)
Rank	Country	Imports
1	United States	12,357
2	Japan	5,031
3	China	3,356
4	Germany	2,514
5	Korea, South	2,156
6	France	1,890
7	India	1,718
8	Italy	1,568
9	Spain	1,562
10	Taiwan	940
11	Netherlands	935
12	Singapore	825
13	Turkey	625
14	Thailand	594
15	Belgium	583

Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2006 (thousand barrels per day)
Rank	Country	Exports
1	Saudi Arabia	8,525
2	Russia	6,866
3	United Arab Emirates	2,564
4	Norway	2,551
5	Iran	2,462
6	Kuwait	2,340
7	Venezuela	2,183
8	Nigeria	2,131
9	Algeria	1,842
10	Mexico	1,710
11	Libya	1,530
12	Iraq	1,438
13	Angola	1,379
14	Kazakhstan	1,145
15	Qatar	1,032

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$364,657	39.38
Top 5%	$145,283	59.67
Top 10%	$103,912	70.30
Top 25%	$62,068	85.99
Top 50%	$30,881	96.93
Bottom 50%	<$30,881	3.07
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jun				Aug »
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Archive for July, 2008

PRES] McCain: The One

“Where Does the Money Go?” National Debt – Bill Moyers

Sen. McCain Responds to Budget Deficit

Obama and McCain Duel Over the Economy

~Gerhart Niemeyer

WSJ/NBC Poll: Obama Maintains Lead Over McCain

Hillary Clinton

Al Gore

Tom Corburn

Sarah Palin

Mitt Romney

Background Articles and Videos

It’s 1980 All Over Again

United States presidential election, 1980

Recent additions to U.S. public debt Fiscal year (begins 10/01) Value % of GDP 2001 $144.6 billion 1.4% 2002 $409.3 billion 3.9% 2003 $589.0 billion 5.5% 2004 $605.0 billion 5.3% 2005 $523.2 billion 4.3% 2006 $536.5 billion 4.1% 2007 $527.9 billion 3.9%

Recent additions to U.S. public debt

End of Fiscal Year US Public Debt USD billions[18] % of GDP[19] 1910 2.6 1920 25.9 1930 16.2 1940 43.0 44.2 1950 257.4 80.2 1960 290.2 45.7 1970 389.2 28.0 1980 930.2 26.1 1990 3233 42.0 2000 5674 35.1 2005 7933 37.4 2007 9008 36.8 2008 37.9(est)

National debt by U.S. presidential terms

John McCain: Farm subsidies

Tom Coburn’s Fight Against Pork

Coburn on Stealing from our Children 09 20 07

Tom Coburn – The Dr. of Truth

Senator Tom Coburn talks about his health care plan pt.1

Senator Tom Coburn talks about his health care plan pt.2

Sarah Palin–Perspective

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on Larry Kudlow

Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck

Sarah Palin for Vice President – 2008

Sarah Palin on ACES

Mitt Romney – An Introduction

Mitt Romney on drilling,the economy,and more

Romney: Open Oil Fields in Alaska for Domestic Drilling

Gov. Romney on Immigration & Healthcare

Mitt Romney: Tax policy

Mitt Romney on being Vice President for John McCain

McCain VP Rumors Swirl

‘Celeb’, Mc Cain ad tells it like it is

“New Energy” Ad

Pump¨ TV Ad

CNNC McCain ad: “Celeb

U.S. Troops-hater Obama Thinks He Did Well in Global Campaign

The Winner!

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The One

Celeb

~Barrack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

~Barack Obama, The Senator’s Humble Beginning: Rising Star Barack Obama Is Resolutely Down to Earth

~Sophocles, Oedipus Rex

Troops

T S Eliot

The Hollow Men

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour

By Dana Milbank

Obama’s Symbolic Importance

Updated 10:59 a.m. 7/30/08 By Jonathan Weisman

The Dream Ticket

Glenn Beck on a Clinton-Obama ticket in ’08

Obama Lies Again!! – Blames Hispanic Hate Crime on Lou Dobbs

Lou Dobbs Demands that Barack Obama Apologize to Him

~Gerhart Niemeyer

~Lao-Tzu

Background Articles and Videos

What is an Empty Suit?

Obama and the Affirmative Action Media

By James Lewis

Obama, Paris, Britney, and Brangelina

By Michelle Malkin

Celeb

Who compared Obama to Paris Hilton first?

By Michelle Malkin

Charlie Rose – BARACK OBAMA

Ayers’ Weathermen planned “re-education”, genocide

The Great Pretender” – The Platters

Apocalypse Now

Apocalypse Now

The Horror

Apocalypse Now – Kurtz Dies

Re: Apocalypse Now – theatrical end credits with director’s

Recent additions to U.S. public debt

Fiscal year
(begins 10/01) Value % of GDP

2001 $144.6 billion 1.4%

2002 $409.3 billion 3.9%

2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%

2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%

2005 $523.2 billion 4.3%

2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%

2007 $527.9 billion 3.9%

End of
Fiscal Year US Public Debt
USD billions^[18] % of GDP^[19]

1910 2.6

1920 25.9

1930 16.2

1940 43.0 44.2

1950 257.4 80.2

1960 290.2 45.7

1970 389.2 28.0

1980 930.2 26.1

1990 3233 42.0

2000 5674 35.1

2005 7933 37.4

2007 9008 36.8

2008 37.9(est)

Updated 10:59 a.m. 7/30/08
By Jonathan Weisman