I just wanted to make the point that I think it unfair for all the Presidents to be lumped together on 1 day. I don't think Washington and Lincoln's February birthdays for instance, should be diminished with a "Presidents Day" holiday. While you don't really hear much about the men themselves, they do make many appearances on sales fliers and in commercials this month. Really? These men have been reduced to sales pitches? Seriously America, why aren't we honoring the men who have been a positive force in America?
Now please, nobody get their panties in a bunch when you read my next thought.......
Why is Martin Luther King Jr the ONLY American who's birthday is a national holiday??? He deserves it, don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to take ANYTHING away from his accomplishments and his dream, I only mean to say that people who had THAT big of positive impact on America should have their birthdays honored with a national holiday... Like Washington for instance. In the early days of America, he had a HUGE impact on America.....and yet he doesn't have a national holiday, focusing on him and what he did for America. Why? President's Day? I'm sorry, but I don't want to celebrate a day that includes FDR, Wilson, Nixon and Carter just to name a few...I'd rather NOT cheapen the memory of those who should be honored with the images of those who should NOT.
Now please, nobody get their panties in a bunch when you read my next thought.......
Why is Martin Luther King Jr the ONLY American who's birthday is a national holiday??? He deserves it, don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to take ANYTHING away from his accomplishments and his dream, I only mean to say that people who had THAT big of positive impact on America should have their birthdays honored with a national holiday... Like Washington for instance. In the early days of America, he had a HUGE impact on America.....and yet he doesn't have a national holiday, focusing on him and what he did for America. Why? President's Day? I'm sorry, but I don't want to celebrate a day that includes FDR, Wilson, Nixon and Carter just to name a few...I'd rather NOT cheapen the memory of those who should be honored with the images of those who should NOT.
posted Feb 11, 2011 10:51 PM by Angel Christie I’ve been saying for a while now that fluoride is dangerous….it’s in our tap water, it’s in our toothpaste, our mouthwash, it’s used as a food preservative in some instances…it’s fluoride overload! Why are our towns/cities/and govt forcing us to drink, bathe in, and wash dishes etc. with fluoridated water??? It’s insane!!!!! Watch these videos, they only reinforce some things I already knew, on top of learning some new disturbing things. Link for Video: There are 5 parts, the video above is part 1, but there will be links to the other parts after you watch the video...
AND CHECK THIS OUT…… This is exactly how the page looks on the Washington Post. Link for story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122002505_2.html?sid=ST2011020205285 Study finds probable carcinogen in tap water of 31 U.S. cities Network News XPROFILE
By Lyndsey Layton Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 20, 2010; 7:47 PM
A new analysis showing the presence of a probable carcinogen in the tap water of 31 cities across the country has raised questions about possible risks posed to consumers in those communities and how they can reduce their exposure.
The chemical, hexavalent chromium, got public attention in the 2000 film “Erin Brockovich” and has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Although basic water filters such as those made by Brita and PUR do not remove hexavalent chromium, several reverse-osmosis systems designed for home use can take the chemical out of water. Such systems are available for purchase online and at hardware stores.
Bottled water is not necessarily an alternative because it is often drawn from municipal water systems and can still contain hexavalent chromium or other contaminants.
The analysis, released Monday by the Environmental Working Group, is the first nationwide look at hexavalent chromium in drinking water to be made public. The advocacy group sampled tap water from 35 cities and detected hexavalent chromium in 31 of those communities. Of those, 25 had levels that were higher than a health goal proposed last year by the state of California.
Locally, Bethesda and Washington had levels of .19 parts per billion, more than three times the California goal.
The federal government has not set a limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water but is reexamining the chemical to decide whether it should impose such restrictions.
“This definitely raises the issue about a national drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium and why we don’t have one,” said Lynn Goldman, an epidemiologist and former top official at the Environmental Protection Agency who now serves as dean of the School of Public Health at George Washington University.
Goldman said the new study demands deeper investigation. “This is the very first signal that there might be a problem,” she said. “But it’s premature to say we know really what the level (of contamination) is, whether it’s there all the time or just intermittently and what the source is.”
Illinois senators Richard Durbin (D) andMark Kirk (R) planned to meet Tuesday with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to discuss the report, which found hexavalent chromium in Chicago drinking water at about the same levels as in Bethesda and Washington.
Last year, California released a draft of a “public health goal” for a safe level of hexavalent chromium in drinking water: 0.06 parts per billion. If the state sets a limit, it would be the first in the nation.
Hexavalent chromium was a commonly used industrial chemical until the early 1990s. It is still used in some industries, such as chrome plating and the manufacturing of plastics and dyes. The chemical can also leach into groundwater from natural ores.
It has long been known that hexavalent chromium causes cancer in humans if it is inhaled. But in the past several years, researchers have found it causes cancer in animals when it is ingested.
In 2007, the National Toxicology Program documented significant increases in tumors in rats and mice in the oral cavity and small intestine, places where cancer is rarely seen in laboratory animals.
Public awareness about the possible health effects of hexavalent chromium was heightened when residents of Hinkley, Calif., accused Pacific Gas & Electric of leaking the chemical into groundwater for more than 30 years. The company paid $333 million in damages in 1996 and pledged to clean up the contamination. The case was the basis for the movie “Erin Brockovich,” which starred Julia Roberts.
But a recent California study found that cancer levels in Hinkley are not elevated. The California Cancer Registry’s third study on the town, released this month, found that cancer rates remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008.
“People have been left with the impression from lawsuits and the movie that there is an excess of cancer in the community, but there is not,” said John W. Morgan, the epidemiologist conducting the cancer studies.
Still, Morgan said, no one should draw a conclusion from the Hinkley studies that hexavalent chromium poses no health risk. “That’s not a question that our data can answer,” he said.
Other experts, including Goldman, say because Hinkley’s population is so small and exposure among residents to hexavalent chromium so varied, it is not unusual that Hinkley’s cancer rate is comparable to other California towns.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, says the California goal is unrealistic because some water supplies have naturally occurring hexavalent chromium that is higher than .06 parts per billion.
In a written statement, the group’s senior director, Ann Mason, said that “even the most sophisticated analytical methods used by EPA are not able to detect the extremely low levels that California wants to establish.”
In her statement, she said that “given that hexavalent chromium exists naturally in groundwater, it is not surprising that it was found in 31 of the 35 sites selectively targeted, which had previously reported the existence of chromium.”
AND CHECK THIS OUT…… This is exactly how the page looks on the Washington Post. Link for story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122002505_2.html?sid=ST2011020205285 Study finds probable carcinogen in tap water of 31 U.S. cities Network News XPROFILE
By Lyndsey Layton Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 20, 2010; 7:47 PM
A new analysis showing the presence of a probable carcinogen in the tap water of 31 cities across the country has raised questions about possible risks posed to consumers in those communities and how they can reduce their exposure.
The chemical, hexavalent chromium, got public attention in the 2000 film “Erin Brockovich” and has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Although basic water filters such as those made by Brita and PUR do not remove hexavalent chromium, several reverse-osmosis systems designed for home use can take the chemical out of water. Such systems are available for purchase online and at hardware stores.
Bottled water is not necessarily an alternative because it is often drawn from municipal water systems and can still contain hexavalent chromium or other contaminants.
The analysis, released Monday by the Environmental Working Group, is the first nationwide look at hexavalent chromium in drinking water to be made public. The advocacy group sampled tap water from 35 cities and detected hexavalent chromium in 31 of those communities. Of those, 25 had levels that were higher than a health goal proposed last year by the state of California.
Locally, Bethesda and Washington had levels of .19 parts per billion, more than three times the California goal.
The federal government has not set a limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water but is reexamining the chemical to decide whether it should impose such restrictions.
“This definitely raises the issue about a national drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium and why we don’t have one,” said Lynn Goldman, an epidemiologist and former top official at the Environmental Protection Agency who now serves as dean of the School of Public Health at George Washington University.
Goldman said the new study demands deeper investigation. “This is the very first signal that there might be a problem,” she said. “But it’s premature to say we know really what the level (of contamination) is, whether it’s there all the time or just intermittently and what the source is.”
Illinois senators Richard Durbin (D) andMark Kirk (R) planned to meet Tuesday with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to discuss the report, which found hexavalent chromium in Chicago drinking water at about the same levels as in Bethesda and Washington.
Last year, California released a draft of a “public health goal” for a safe level of hexavalent chromium in drinking water: 0.06 parts per billion. If the state sets a limit, it would be the first in the nation.
Hexavalent chromium was a commonly used industrial chemical until the early 1990s. It is still used in some industries, such as chrome plating and the manufacturing of plastics and dyes. The chemical can also leach into groundwater from natural ores.
It has long been known that hexavalent chromium causes cancer in humans if it is inhaled. But in the past several years, researchers have found it causes cancer in animals when it is ingested.
In 2007, the National Toxicology Program documented significant increases in tumors in rats and mice in the oral cavity and small intestine, places where cancer is rarely seen in laboratory animals.
Public awareness about the possible health effects of hexavalent chromium was heightened when residents of Hinkley, Calif., accused Pacific Gas & Electric of leaking the chemical into groundwater for more than 30 years. The company paid $333 million in damages in 1996 and pledged to clean up the contamination. The case was the basis for the movie “Erin Brockovich,” which starred Julia Roberts.
But a recent California study found that cancer levels in Hinkley are not elevated. The California Cancer Registry’s third study on the town, released this month, found that cancer rates remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008.
“People have been left with the impression from lawsuits and the movie that there is an excess of cancer in the community, but there is not,” said John W. Morgan, the epidemiologist conducting the cancer studies.
Still, Morgan said, no one should draw a conclusion from the Hinkley studies that hexavalent chromium poses no health risk. “That’s not a question that our data can answer,” he said.
Other experts, including Goldman, say because Hinkley’s population is so small and exposure among residents to hexavalent chromium so varied, it is not unusual that Hinkley’s cancer rate is comparable to other California towns.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, says the California goal is unrealistic because some water supplies have naturally occurring hexavalent chromium that is higher than .06 parts per billion.
In a written statement, the group’s senior director, Ann Mason, said that “even the most sophisticated analytical methods used by EPA are not able to detect the extremely low levels that California wants to establish.”
In her statement, she said that “given that hexavalent chromium exists naturally in groundwater, it is not surprising that it was found in 31 of the 35 sites selectively targeted, which had previously reported the existence of chromium.”
posted Jan 13, 2011 2:34 PM by Angel Christie
I’m sure if anyone reading this has watched the news recently, they already know that Sarah Palin (amongst others) is being relentlesly attacked for her “Target Map”, showing the areas where Dems need to be voted out of office. I read on Twitter that a lot of people believe that this “Target Map” on Sarah Palins’ site was (amongst other things like talk radio) to blame for Jarod Loughner (the psycho gunman from the Arizona tragedy) turning Tuscon back into the wild west. I wonder if these people that are making these accusations are just listening to Sheriff Dupnik (Sheriff of Tuscon) and all his wildly speculative accusations and assumptions or are they REALLY looking into the facts that are known thus far? I think the first idea would have to be the answer. Not only was it irresponsible for the Sheriff to blatantly disregard his official status and responsibility to NOT politicize this tragedy but to handle said tragedy as a law enforcement professional, he went on to start placing the blame on everyone (on the right) BUT the gunman! His office knew about the instability of this guy yet he never had charges against him….why?
Here is Sarah Palin’s “Target Map” and below that, the Democrat’s version…which we haven’t heard much about…only Sarah Palin’s….msm bias? Sure is! But neither one of these maps was meant to be an assassination chart, only to point out each parties desire for the opposing resident party to be voted out. Also, Loughner was not affiliated with the Tea Party or anything like that, and he was a registered Independent. (see link above map, more links @ bottom of page) So if Loughner wasn’t interested in tv, news, and talk radio, why are those people to blame? HE pulled the trigger, HE was un-stable, HE IS TO BLAME!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/12/mental-illness-stupid/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/arizona-shooting-suspect-stopped-police-morning-rampage/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/10/sheriff-emerges-spokesman-political-climate/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/12/dupniks-department-knew-loughners-obama-skip-politics-gun-control-fight-brewing/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/pima-county-sheriffs-department-releases-loughner-records/
I’m sure if anyone reading this has watched the news recently, they already know that Sarah Palin (amongst others) is being relentlesly attacked for her “Target Map”, showing the areas where Dems need to be voted out of office. I read on Twitter that a lot of people believe that this “Target Map” on Sarah Palins’ site was (amongst other things like talk radio) to blame for Jarod Loughner (the psycho gunman from the Arizona tragedy) turning Tuscon back into the wild west. I wonder if these people that are making these accusations are just listening to Sheriff Dupnik (Sheriff of Tuscon) and all his wildly speculative accusations and assumptions or are they REALLY looking into the facts that are known thus far? I think the first idea would have to be the answer. Not only was it irresponsible for the Sheriff to blatantly disregard his official status and responsibility to NOT politicize this tragedy but to handle said tragedy as a law enforcement professional, he went on to start placing the blame on everyone (on the right) BUT the gunman! His office knew about the instability of this guy yet he never had charges against him….why?
Here is Sarah Palin’s “Target Map” and below that, the Democrat’s version…which we haven’t heard much about…only Sarah Palin’s….msm bias? Sure is! But neither one of these maps was meant to be an assassination chart, only to point out each parties desire for the opposing resident party to be voted out. Also, Loughner was not affiliated with the Tea Party or anything like that, and he was a registered Independent. (see link above map, more links @ bottom of page) So if Loughner wasn’t interested in tv, news, and talk radio, why are those people to blame? HE pulled the trigger, HE was un-stable, HE IS TO BLAME!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/12/mental-illness-stupid/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/arizona-shooting-suspect-stopped-police-morning-rampage/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/10/sheriff-emerges-spokesman-political-climate/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/12/dupniks-department-knew-loughners-obama-skip-politics-gun-control-fight-brewing/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/pima-county-sheriffs-department-releases-loughner-records/
posted Jan 13, 2011 11:52 AM by Angel Christie This is what the article said:
” Though it may be risky to say it, I have to object to the tendency in this country since 9/11 to refer to all members of the military as “heroes”. Some are, of course. And we do want to thank them all for their service. But most are not heroes, and using the word indiscriminately just cheapens it.
A hero is someone who acts selflessly, often at great personal risk or sacrifice, to help others and/or to make the world a better place. Heroes are rare.
Being in the military, or even in combat, does not make a person, a hero. Most people are just trying to survive. Troops know the truth.
Misusing the term can be destructive. After all, heroes cannot do wrong or lose wars. If something goes wrong, then, it must be the fault of the civilian leaders. And it may actually increase the likelihood of more wars. More chances to create heroes.
And, after all, if everyone is a hero, how can anyone really be one?”
MY REBUTTLE:
I would have to politely disagree with you on this one….. I believe that the act of signing your life over to the service of our country, KNOWING that just by signing that piece of paper, it could be your death sentence…is heroic in itself. Wouldn’t you agree that that would be considered personal risk or sacrifice? They are essentially giving up their life in the civilian world to be told what to do and potentially put in harms way for the duration of their enlistment. I do agree, that there are those who sign up for the benefits, college opportunity, training etc….however, they are still aware that the military can put them in whatever field there are people needed, regardless sometimes of the position they requested, which can put them directly in the line of fire on a battlefield…..again, potential death sentence. I do feel that soldiers that go above and beyond and show exemplary heroism on the battlefield (foreign or domestic) should be honored, but all soldiers, police, firemen and the like are heroic in their own right, because they agree to put their life on the line for US every day. I have felt this way since I was a child, way before 9/11.
That said, do you think that every child in America who calls a parent or fireman or police officer their hero cheapens the word? I don’t believe it does…A child’s hero can be the biggest positive influence on that child, hopefully leading to a responsible and kind person as an adult. That doesn’t sound cheap to me.
My Great Grandfathers (maternal/paternal) were in WWI
My maternal Grandfather was in WWII, then went on to become a Fire Chief
One Uncle was a Marine
Another Uncle was in the Army
I have cousins in the Military
My Father was in the Army during Vietnam, and 2 men my father looked after, became Army soldiers as well.
One of my Brothers was in the Navy until retirement, then went on to become a Police Officer and now works for the Government.
My other Brother was also in the Navy for many years, and now works as Fire/EMT.
My sons’ paternal Grandmother was in the Army, then the Police Dept, then became a Detective.
My husband is in the US Air Force and has been away from our family several times, and will probably be called away from us many more times in his career…but he is a Guardian, a Protector, our Hero.
(As an added side note that wasn’t included in the rebuttle, I do think that Heroes have faults, they are not perfect…they ARE human beings, and TRULY heroic acts on the battlefield are rare, that is why you don’t hear about tons of Medals being given out)
Read Article here: http://www.constitutionattacked.com/too-many-heroes/
” Though it may be risky to say it, I have to object to the tendency in this country since 9/11 to refer to all members of the military as “heroes”. Some are, of course. And we do want to thank them all for their service. But most are not heroes, and using the word indiscriminately just cheapens it.
A hero is someone who acts selflessly, often at great personal risk or sacrifice, to help others and/or to make the world a better place. Heroes are rare.
Being in the military, or even in combat, does not make a person, a hero. Most people are just trying to survive. Troops know the truth.
Misusing the term can be destructive. After all, heroes cannot do wrong or lose wars. If something goes wrong, then, it must be the fault of the civilian leaders. And it may actually increase the likelihood of more wars. More chances to create heroes.
And, after all, if everyone is a hero, how can anyone really be one?”
MY REBUTTLE:
I would have to politely disagree with you on this one….. I believe that the act of signing your life over to the service of our country, KNOWING that just by signing that piece of paper, it could be your death sentence…is heroic in itself. Wouldn’t you agree that that would be considered personal risk or sacrifice? They are essentially giving up their life in the civilian world to be told what to do and potentially put in harms way for the duration of their enlistment. I do agree, that there are those who sign up for the benefits, college opportunity, training etc….however, they are still aware that the military can put them in whatever field there are people needed, regardless sometimes of the position they requested, which can put them directly in the line of fire on a battlefield…..again, potential death sentence. I do feel that soldiers that go above and beyond and show exemplary heroism on the battlefield (foreign or domestic) should be honored, but all soldiers, police, firemen and the like are heroic in their own right, because they agree to put their life on the line for US every day. I have felt this way since I was a child, way before 9/11.
That said, do you think that every child in America who calls a parent or fireman or police officer their hero cheapens the word? I don’t believe it does…A child’s hero can be the biggest positive influence on that child, hopefully leading to a responsible and kind person as an adult. That doesn’t sound cheap to me.
My Great Grandfathers (maternal/paternal) were in WWI
My maternal Grandfather was in WWII, then went on to become a Fire Chief
One Uncle was a Marine
Another Uncle was in the Army
I have cousins in the Military
My Father was in the Army during Vietnam, and 2 men my father looked after, became Army soldiers as well.
One of my Brothers was in the Navy until retirement, then went on to become a Police Officer and now works for the Government.
My other Brother was also in the Navy for many years, and now works as Fire/EMT.
My sons’ paternal Grandmother was in the Army, then the Police Dept, then became a Detective.
My husband is in the US Air Force and has been away from our family several times, and will probably be called away from us many more times in his career…but he is a Guardian, a Protector, our Hero.
(As an added side note that wasn’t included in the rebuttle, I do think that Heroes have faults, they are not perfect…they ARE human beings, and TRULY heroic acts on the battlefield are rare, that is why you don’t hear about tons of Medals being given out)
Read Article here: http://www.constitutionattacked.com/too-many-heroes/
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist by Jerry Bowyer, 11.03.08 posted Jun 27, 2010 4:36 PM by Angel Christie
Who needs Molotov when we’ve got Alinski? Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand (nyse: IR – news – people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold’s The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack’s character in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway” captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyone–my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn’t supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
That’s Obama’s world.
He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you’ve got Saul Alinski?
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, “the smallest” businesses will be exempt from fines for not “doing the right thing” in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.
It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.
The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand “accountability” and a “voice” for the taxpayers?
The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers’ multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.
A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern–equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez’s of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that’s their job.
It’s not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers “hoarding” capital. “Hoarding” is a word we’ve heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we’re told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.
Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They’re not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.
So why don’t they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there’s the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?
Will Obama’s be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don’t know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won’t see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won’t see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who “go beyond the pale” in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don’t want to come together and heal the planet.
You’ve heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you’re about to see the bully part.
Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Link to article on Forbes.com here:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html
Who needs Molotov when we’ve got Alinski? Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand (nyse: IR – news – people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold’s The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack’s character in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway” captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyone–my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn’t supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
That’s Obama’s world.
He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you’ve got Saul Alinski?
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, “the smallest” businesses will be exempt from fines for not “doing the right thing” in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.
It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.
The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand “accountability” and a “voice” for the taxpayers?
The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers’ multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.
A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern–equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez’s of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that’s their job.
It’s not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers “hoarding” capital. “Hoarding” is a word we’ve heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we’re told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.
Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They’re not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.
So why don’t they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there’s the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?
Will Obama’s be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don’t know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won’t see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won’t see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who “go beyond the pale” in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don’t want to come together and heal the planet.
You’ve heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you’re about to see the bully part.
Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Link to article on Forbes.com here:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html