Will Sharia Law Replace Our Constitution

"All The News That's Fit To Print"

Blog Archive

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

America Has Moved To Communism

Is America A Communist Nation?

By Don White

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. In it they use words like proletariat (the exploited working class) and the bourgeoisie (the ruling class, maybe even middle class or capitalists).

In theory the proletariat will hate this exploitation so much that the workers will rise up against the upper crust and overthrow the system of capitalism. The dictatorship of the working class will briefly rule over the landed few and communism would emerge.

_____________

In his Manifesto Marx described the following ten steps as necessary steps to be taken to destroy a free enterprise society. Pay attention to the ten items and how our own American society has changed so much that it has already embraced many of the ten conditions foreign to the principles on which the American republic was founded. This change in America didn’t happen on its own.

It happened as a direct result of efforts of socialist activists—some of it in the name of racial equality such as Barney Frank’s and Charlie Rangle’s successful efforts to lower bank lending standards so that all poor people, including poor blacks, could buy a house. This became possible because of the lowering of loan standards not only by the Fed, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but local banks and other lending institutions. These same low loan standards are now coming back to haunt all Americans in what we call in September 2008 the Wall Street real estate credit meltdown. It is so serious that it has economists saying the “sky is falling in” with a total collapse of our economy and way of life if Congress fails to bail out Wall Street. It is serious, but the sky is not falling.

Here are the ten points of Communism that, like it or not, America has unwittingly adopted:

1) Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover adopted zoning ordinances. Before that time landowners could carry on any activity they wanted in an unrestricted manner. The Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921 and private owners of property had to gain permission from government relative to the use of their property. At the same time, federally owned lands began competing for rents with the private sector, as those lands were for the first time leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury instead of the lands being sold to individuals. The excuse was that government wanted to preserve these lands for the eventual use of the masses. In some states like Utah, for example, the Federal Government owns about two-thirds of the land. This is far in excess of that needed for parks.

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Gradually, this became the law of the land starting with the Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, brought the Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, called the Income Tax. Many Americans believe that these laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day. Ocala, Florida’s Wesley Snipes, the actor, thought so, and now he’s spending three years behind bars.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transferring property after death and gift before death. If elected, Barak Obama will change our current law which eliminated inheritance tax and begin anew in confiscating the property of the so-called “rich” which is all of us today. It has been estimated that if all of his taxes are inacted he will bankrupt the country, thus accelerating and legitimizing U.S. communism.


4) CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)

5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.

6) Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.) Obama would further federalize all radio stations and put conservative talk show hosts out of business. If this isn’t communism, I don’t know what is.

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.) Please blog on with current examples of government taking over factories and other instruments of production. There are many examples out there.

8) Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.")

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books. Obama wants free education from cradle through college.

(Research source: Encyclopedia Britannica.)


Sarah Palin Will Do Great!

I responded to a typical elitist article, cutting and critical of Sarah Palin. It was written by Ruth Marcus and appeared in the liberal Washington Post this morning. There is nothing like the envy and malice that one less successful woman has for a truly successful woman. I want you to read my comments before clicking onto the Marcus article.

Ruth Marcus, you didn't need to write more than the first paragraph before we caught the vindictive side of you. We who will vote for Sarah Palin and John McCain don't worry too much about a candidate's library unless it's full of Mein Kampf, Karl Marx, and Frederich Engles. We worry about her mind, her heart, and her desire to serve. Where is your mind?

Sarah's library is one that most working mothers aspire to--she reads things that will help her family. Family means much to Sarah Palin as it does to most Americans. What a pity that those of you who write these silly anti-Palin articles can't see how much more important it is to teach our children true principles than it is to graduate from Harvard and Yale, than it is to have traveled to St. Petersburg, Moscow, Rome, and Paris.

In the long run her credentials to become president or vice president are just as valid to the masses of common folk in America as John McCain's vast knowledge and understanding of history. If she were thrust into the presidency the important thing is that she would make sound judgments about the people (experts) around whom she would surround herself. Isn’t that, really, all that the inexperienced Barak Obama can offer?

Not all great presidents have been Harvard- or Naval Academy- trained, or much more than that of the common man. Take Harry Truman, for example, a haberdasher who operated a men's clothing shop. He was a common man and—like Sarah Palin—an honest person who ran for office. That’s rare today, play it up. Don’t denigrate it. When he ran the Republicans did not try to smear his character and education as you, my dear, are attempting to do to Sarah Palin. Are we living in such different times? Are we that much poorer in spirit than our fathers and mothers?

Think it over—start being fair and balanced. Quit hating and finding fault, for the fault is in you. Truman was respected and treated well by both sides of the isle for his soundness of judgment and not for his vast historical library. Has American society retrogressed so much that political writers must stoop so low as to criticize without knowing what a great human being they are dragging through the mud? The trouble with you elitists who write for the liberal papers is that you assume all Americans are just like you. They aren't. Get real! You’re out of touch. True Americans are kind and considerate. And you, madam, are not the fount of all knowledge and understanding. Sarah Palin will do just fine in any setting. She may surprise many by the way she is able to help clean up the mess that the preceding group of pseudo-intellectuals have caused, both on the financial front and in foreign policy.

Have an intellectually challenging day!

Don White

http://PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com

To read the Marcus story:McCain vs. Palin

Monday, September 29, 2008

Obama: Communist Sympathizer?




What Obama Has In Common With

Putin, Hu Jintao, Raul Castro,

Hugo Chavez, and Kim il Sung

What are the links that logically take us to the conclusion that Barak Obama acts, talks, and looks like a practicing communist?


I would first suggest the reader refer to the Accuracy in Media blog and an article by Cliff Kincaid published August 7, 2008. In a great measure this column is a review of Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-cover-up-continues/

Obama has been asked before and is now in denial about his communist activities and connections.


John McCain should ask that question again in the next debate before millions of TV viewers. Obama will again deny it, making it easier for us to make our case because a presidential debate denial opens up a Pandora’s box of imponderables and places to take this. Guess what? NY Times reporters may start asking the same logical question.


But listen to Kincaid: “In a surprising admission that could become a major scandal in the presidential race, Barack Obama’s 40-page so-called “rebuttal” to Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation, acknowledges for the first time that the senator once had a personal relationship with identified Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis, a key high-level operative in a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii.


“But the 40-page report, advertised and sold to the media as a refutation of Corsi’s “lies,” doesn’t identify Davis as a hard-core communist and it dishonestly edits an article about Davis to eliminate references to his admitted involvement in CPUSA activities and make the black revolutionary writer and “poet” look like a civil rights activist.”


Selective Editing

The Obama report admits that “Frank” was in fact Frank Marshall Davis—something AIM confirmed back in February. But in trying to rebut Corsi’s charge that Davis was a significant negative influence over Obama, the Obama report on page 10 quotes “an article on Davis” that describes him as being involved in the “labor movement” with other “African-American intellectuals” and committed to racial integration and harmony. No title or name of the author of the article is given. The article is simply identified as being from the Western Journal of Black Studies (WJBS).


Questia is an online library of books and journals and a source for the following. The article, “Frank Marshall Davis: A Forgotten Voice in the Chicago Black Renaissance,” was written by Dr. Kathryn Takara, an Obama supporter who has been critical of Accuracy in Media’s attempt to document Davis’s involvement in the CPUSA and his mentorship of Obama.


Takara is a radical poet herself, having written poems in honor of Communist Party member Angela Davis and convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. She was recently quoted in an Associated Press article that portrayed Davis as a positive influence on Obama and ignored his CPUSA membership. So much for the AP’s once ballyhooed fairness and honesty reporting doctrine. I should know of its former credibility, I was an AP newsman many years ago.

The pro-Davis quotes in the Takara article in the WJBS, which are cited in the Obama report, are actually preceded by Davis’s own incriminating words, in which he says: “From now on I knew I would be described as a Communist. . .”


In yet another part of the article the Obama report ignores, Takara writes that “Davis joined the League of American Writers, a national united front

organization for the Communist Party mobilized by the alarming rise of power of Hitler and Mussolini.”


In fact, Davis signed a statement by the League of American Writers in June

1941 opposing war against Nazi Germany at a time of the Hitler-Stalin pact. This was a reflection of the CPUSA line. Davis went from anti-war to pro-war after the Nazis attacked Stalin.


So here we have it: another official acknowledgement by an Obama (and Davis) supporter that Davis was involved in a CPUSA front. But the Obama report doesn’t admit anything of the kind. In fact, Davis’s entire record of involvement in the CPUSA and its fronts is completely covered-up.


All of which raises the question that we have asked on numerous occasions: why are Obama and his followers in the media ignoring his documented relationship with a CPUSA member? And why did Obama only refer to Davis as “Frank” in his book?


I shall answer this question in a second blog.

Seventeen Reasons Obama Is Dangerous

By galljdaj, 09-08-08, 09:30 PM

Seventeen Real questions! (From Zimbabwe Star)

1) How Obama won his first election (to the Illinois State Senate) by having his lawyers knock all his opponents — including the black, female incumbent — off the ballot on technicalities, so he could run unopposed.

2) How Obama voted to deny medical care to babies born alive after abortion — a bill too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case)

3) A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: How he used his clout as a U.S. Senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses

4) How Obama’s wife Michele’s salary nearly tripled in 2005 — the same year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate and he began earmarking funds for her employer.

5) How Obama’s friendship with the hate-spewing Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident — but a carefully thought out personal and political decision.

6) Why Obama thought his association with '60s-era terror-bomber Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago’s Hyde Park politics

7) How state Senator Obama was paid more than $100,000 for legal work — then helped his client’s company get $320,000 in taxpayer grants. How, at a time when he says he was short of work and short of cash, Obama obtained $112,000, plus campaign contributions, from someone he later made into a government grantee through his public office.

8) Inside Obama’s 17-year relationship and irregular land deal with developer Tony Rezko, whose livelihood depended on sapping the taxpayer for subsidies “I’ve never done any favors for him," says Obama about Rezko. But he has — lots of them, as Freddoso shows. Why Rezko’s conviction for corrupting public officials might become the Whitewater scandal of Obama’s campaign.

9) How Obama speaks of the days when his family was making $240,000 per year as if he had been suffering poverty — while, just last March, he voted to raise your taxes if you make over $32,500 per year. Then at the Oxford, Mississippi debate he claimed he would not raise taxes on anyone making up to $250,000.

10) The Chicago Machine politician who “made a U.S. senator” out of Obama by giving him plum committee assignments and high-profile legislation in its late stages (often removing the original sponsors), and helping him spread money around through earmarks and “targeted” grants.

11) How Obama avoided taking unpopular stands in the state Senate by voting “present” about 130 times — or simply by absenting himself from tough votes altogether.

12) Obama’s little-known vow to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 — and why it would mean the end of every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, and the end of all restrictions on government abortion funding.

13) A “new politics”? How, in less than four years as a U.S. senator, Obama has voted for some of the worst special-interest legislation to move through the chamber.

14) How Obama opposes school choice through vouchers or tax credits — while sending his own children to an elite private school.

15) How Obama wants — and has voted — to abolish secret-ballot elections in the workplace when employees determine whether to unionize, allowing unions to intimidate and harass workers who don’t support them.

16) Why Obama’s foreign policy would take its cues from Jimmy Carter’s “Post-partisan”?

17) Why the respected National Journal named Obama the most liberal member of the United States Senate in 2007 — beating out Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton... and the previous title-holder John Kerry.

Obama's Lies Revealed

In cooperation with Human Events, this blog is printing links to stories you will want to read before voting in November.

Obama: Let's expose the lies

Dear Conservative Friend,

They say the truth hurts. In Barack Obama's case, it is simply devastating.

Not surprisingly the Big Media have kept the American public blind to the truth about Obama, including...


  • This is not old news. It is dated yesterday, Sunday September 28, 2008 and comes from a reliable source, the Chicago Sun Times.
" The implications of Rezko's cooperation are innumerable. Rezko's lawyers could not be reached for comment Friday.

"But a source with knowledge of the investigation into the governor and into his wife, Patti Blagojevich's real estate dealings, say the probe is going "at top speed."

Remember, it was Obama who bought a lot adjacent to Rezeko's for several hundred thousand dollars less than Rezeko, himself, paid. Or did Rezeko finance Obama's lot, too? This is the kind of information the attorney general is trying to pry out of Rezeko and it could affect the presidential candidate Barak Obama, though he lamely claims Rezeko is no longer his friend. Course not...

Obama Was Taught By Terrorist William Ayers

The following is information about a man who has been reported on national news as an avowed terrorist who bombed public buildings and got away with it on a technicality. This column will be criticized for running this information at this time in the presidential campaign, but you can never be too late to reveal the truth.

November 4th is election day, and one of the candidates is so far to the left it should scare the average American. Unfortunately, Barak Obama supporters--the youth and left wing movie star cult--could give a $^**# that Obama supports people who are traitors to this country. Their sole goal is to bury conservatives in America and bring on socialism, and even communism to our land of the free. Yet it is the conservatives who have fought and bled for our freedoms. It is the liberals like Bill Clinton and his ilk who run away from serving in the military. Read and pass the word along.
___________________________________________________

TRUTH IS SPREADING ABOUT
OBAMA'S TIES TO TERRORIST!

Dear Fellow American,

Barack Obama has had a long association with his friend William Ayers, who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list for nearly a DOZEN terrorist attacks.

NOBODY in the mainstream media has wanted to talk about this fact -- until WE started FORCING them to.

We are beginning to have success in spreading the word about Obama's ties to this ayers_mugshotTERRORIST -- thanks to supporters like YOU!

Just this week, the Wall Street Journal's Stanley Kurtz ran a HUGE exposé on the long relationship between Obama and Ayers, entitled "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools" -- giving details about what they did together, and revealing to the nation what we've been saying all along

The truth is finally starting to get out about Obama's terrorist ties -- but we need YOUR help to FORCE the media to deal with that truth and NOT LET UP or "sweep it under the rug!"

HELP US REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA -- SELECT HERE!

William Charles Ayers and Barack Obama have been friends for decades.

This is a man who has admitted to BOMBING THE PENTAGON -- and has never expressed one ounce of regret for his actions. Ayers is a terrorist -- and Obama is his friend and political student.
Obama has tried to dismiss Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) archives, housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago, make it VERY clear that Ayers and Obama were partners in the CAC in the 1990s. But that's not all -- there is clear evidence that Obama and Ayers were friends all the way back in 1986.

Obama and Ayers served together in 1995 on the CAC, overseeing the distribution of about $50 million to area schools through radical left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN). As the Journal reports, Ayers "called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism."

That same year -- 1995 -- Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a gathering at Ayers's own home!

THE WORD IS FINALLY GETTING OUT about Obama's connections to this radical left-wing terrorist -- but we need YOUR help to FORCE the media to deal with that truth and NOT LET UP or "sweep it under the rug!"

HELP US REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA -- SELECT HERE!

What does the association between Ayers and Obama say about Obama's political views and perspective?

ayers_mugshotAyers was an anti-American, traitorous radical who will stop at nothing to push his hateful communist agenda. (Yes he called himself a "radical, Leftist, communist"!)

In the 1960s and '70s, he was a leader in the notorious underground terrorist group, the "Weathermen." The Weathermen declared war on the United States government, and they bombed over 30 establishments (leading to multiple fatalities, including police officers).

Ayers is unapologetic about his terrorist activities. In fact, he even said he didn't do enough bombing!

Incredibly, on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted by The New York Times as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs … I feel we didn't do enough."

WHAT??? How could a man like Barack Obama associate with such a dangerous radical? And even defend him?

Obama and Ayers not only worked hand-in-hand at the CAC; they worked together at the "Woods Fund," and had a number of forums to fight legislation together. And guess what "nonprofit organizations" benefited from funds directed to them by Obama and Ayers? How about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, for starters?

And now Obama, Ayers' friend, could be sitting in the White House next year -- unless WE tell the American people the TRUTH about them!

We can't do that without YOUR help -- and with barely ONE MONTH left before the most important election of our lifetime, TIME IS RUNNING OUT to get the truth out there NOW.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain Delivered The Knockout Punch!

Bravo For John McCain!
by Don White

Oxford, Mississippi--If you saw the debate last night you saw John McCain deliver the knockout punch.

You also saw Barak Obama display his ineptitude about foreign affairs and his lies about not increasing taxes on people making $250,000 and below. Come on, Barak, no one believes you won't increase taxes on people making that much money. Who do you think you're kidding?

The fundamental difference between conservatives and Democrats is that the latter believe higher taxes are the answer. Obama would increase taxes on American businesses--companies that pay on average 35 percent taxes, the second highest in the world. McCain made an excellent point when he said what would stop companies from taking their business to Ireland, which has the lowest business taxes at eleven percent? Nothing. And that means if Obama is elected you will see further job losses--just the opposite from what this economy needs at this time.

McCain is right on. Why not lower business taxes, a move that will create more new jobs? Why not build 45 nuclear power plants during the next 20 years, a move that he said would create 700,000 new jobs. Obama is against both of these moves, including more drilling. He has no imagination and would be a terrible president if elected. His spending proposals would bankrupt America.

But just as important, the older guy, McCain, had new ideas while the younger, inexperienced guy, Obama, showed what we've known all along--he just spouts the same worn out, discredited Democratic rhetoric that we need to tax businesses in America and lower taxes for the poor or middle class, whoever that is because he wouldn't answer McCain's question on that or on who was rich in America. Democrats' mantra is tax the rich, spend, spend, spend for medical insurance and other services.

Here are the only new ideas coming out of the debates, and they're both McCain's: The Republican nominee called for fixing the financial meltdown by changing rules so it never happens again and pinning the blame on those who caused it--Democrats in Congress like Barney Frank and Charlie Rangle, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Securities Exchange Commission, the Treasury Department, the Fed, banks, mortgage companies, and other government agencies.

McCain said he would fire all of the agency leaders and start over, and that has to include SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. Technically, a president can't fire a Security Exchange Commission chairman, that's the job for the SEC. Cox is a corporate lawyer who served in the Reagan White House and as a Congressman from Orange Co., Calif. for 17 years before being named to run the SEC in 2005. Insiders believe he was "missing in action" and couldn't be located by phone when Bear Sterns went under.

Next, an aggressive and experienced McCain, speaking of Russia's veto power in the UN and their aggression in Georgia, called for creation of a League of Democratic Nations. This body would have more power than the UN, since they're generally in agreement and it's members are well heeled because of private enterprise and free markets. It would, naturally, be able--along with NATO--to respond to nations like Russia that want to work with the West but want to make up their own rules of conduct which include messing with the internal affirs of other countries.

Obama had no comments on McCain's two new ideas, and that's because he needs a teleprompter to speak coherently and he lacks ethos.
In rhetoric, ethos is one of the three artistic proofs (pistis (πίστις)) modes of persuasion (other principles being logos and pathos) discussed by Aristotle in 'Rhetoric' as a component of argument. At first speakers must establish ethos. On the one hand, this can mean merely "moral competence"

McCain clearly won the debate on both the economy and national security and foreign affairs and on new ideas. He is clearly the better contemporaneous speaker, and that's because he has real life stories and experiences to retell while Obama's quest remains a dream and he hasn't a clue about any of this.

McCain hit him on an obvious weak point--that Obama said that without preconditons he would sit down with Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, the North Koreans, and Amadinajab of Iran. Showing typical moral weakness, Obama tried to lie himself out of this when the record is clear, that's what he said. Then he hummed and hawed, saying one of McCain's advisers, Henry Kissinger, had said he would likewise sit down with foreign dictators without preconditons. McCain flatly disputed this and told the audience this was a lie. I hope someone corners Henry and he sets the world right, because those of us who have experienced his diplomacy over the past 35 years know that there were always preconditons before a president he was advising sat down with a head of state.

Obama memorized some points and things he said--not always coherently, and after a lot of "a's and pauses" to gather his vacant thoughts. Obama said nothing about the proposed League of Democracies. Nothing about firing the agency people who were responsible for the financial meltdown. How could he. They aren't his ideas and he's an "empty suit." Why aren't they his ideas? He loves the slush fund money he and his party receives from Fannie and Freddie. He loves the earmarks he is able to make in Congress to his wife's company. He's corrupt, so why should he want to change anything?

These reform ideas are those of the maverick, the reformer, John McCain. That Obama has never thought about a solution to these problems as McCain has is criminal. It's criminal because reform means the end of the kickbacks and unethical donations he receives from these government agencies. Frankly, he's just not in a position to clean up Washington and McCain and his running mate Palin are. If America elects Obama they will elect a man who has no fresh ideas. He's powered by the same old failed Democratic rhetoric that got us into this problem in the first place.

As Albert Einstein said: "The significant problems we solve won't be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."

Bravo for John McCain!

More on Chris Cox and the SEC: The SEC is two years older than John McCain. It was created by Congress in 1934 at the height of the Great Depression. The SEC is charged with making sure that public companies accurately disclose their financials and business risks to investors, and ensuring that brokers who trade securities for clients keep investors' interests first.

In the pro-deregulation ethos that dominated Washington over past two decades, there was little appetite for adding powers to an agency like the SEC: In 1998, when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed regulating the burgeoning derivatives market, the banking lobby, with some help from hedge funds and investment banks, quickly thwarted the measure. And Cox's predecessor at the SEC, William Donaldson, encountered stiff opposition when he tried to push more pro-shareholder measures and subject hedge funds to more oversight. When a court struck down Donaldson's hedge fund registration rule, Cox announced that the SEC would not seek to appeal the ruling — he took the same no-appeal tact when a court shot down an SEC effort to make mutual funds appoint an independent chairman. On the other hand, certain types of enforcement — like cases against companies that backdated stock options — have flourished under Cox. And now he's a loud supporter of regulating the $58 trillion credit default swap market that helps companies insure against defaults on their debt — but also links financial institutions together in dangerously opaque ways.

Both McCain and Obama criticized the fact that no one both spotted a potential problem and made sure something was done to fix it. Babara Kavit of Times.com says she didn't think the SEC had sufficient manpower, expertise, or resources to detect the problem. McCain will fix that!

"Much has been made of the SEC's failure to spot trouble brewing at the investment banks that fell under its purview," she wrote. "An SEC rule change in 2004 — which didn't generate a lot of attention at the time and passed before Cox came along — let the five largest investment banks significantly raise the amount of money they could borrow. In retrospect, the new ratio — $40 dollars borrowed for each dollar of capital to back it up — was precariously high, considering smaller broker-dealers were capped at a ratio of $12 borrowed for each dollar of capital."

All in all, this has been a good week for John McCain. He flies back to Washington to help the conservatives and Democrats come together in devising a bill that could be passed by early next week. McCain won this debate, but what will the polls show is anyone's guess. Frankly, I am highly suspicious of polls. They call up 200 people and that, somehow, is supposed to be representative of what America thinks? I don't think so.

Thursday, September 25, 2008


Pop-Up Books Are Fun--Kids And Grownups Love Them

One of our readers liked our Moveable Books article and made the following comments, offering a heads-up about coming events in this genre. For this we thank generously.

"Moveable Books For Children"

1 Comment - Show Original Post

Blogger Book said...

You should check out Bayard and their series of StoryBoxBooks, AdventureBoxBooks and DiscoveryBoxBooks.
There's lots going on too:
This Month Storybox has guest illustrator Helen Oxenbury featured.

There's a Readathon happening in UK and Ireland - http://discoveryboxbooks.com/readathon.php
There's a Ghost Drawing competition in AdventureBoxBooks assiciated with the Polka Theatre ( http://www.adventureboxbooks.com/competition.php )

September 23, 2008 4:41 AM




Wednesday, September 24, 2008

A Bailout Will Be Done Thursday or Friday

September 24, 2008
Washington--Last night President Bush addressed the nation over the bailout of Wall Street, the banks, and the entire financial sector.

Bush: We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis. Bush said his administration is working with Congress to address the root cause of the financial problems. Then we hear that McCain has asked to be part of an official meeting Thursday afternoon and asked the president to invite Barak Obama. Now Obama says he will go if it isn't just a photo op.

He's the king of "photo ops" so he should know.

On Hanity and Colmes last night, Jack Welch, former president of General Electric, says both candidates are better off in Washington than on the campaign trail.

It was 1999 when the Democrats pushed people into financing the poor into housing. There's blame enough to pass around, including Democrats and Republicans. The important thing is that we get over this. A bail out is so important!

Welch: Government isn't handing anyone a check for $700 billion. They are making an investment in America, meaning jobs, 401K and we can't just sit here and be mad. He says hopefully the bailout will put money back into the government coffers through more jobs, greater tax revenues, and maybe these "investments" will also bring in revenue to the treasury.

In grading the president's performance by Britt Hume and his cronnies, one political analyst actually criticized the president for not laying out before the public the possibility that taxpayers may make money in this liquidity bailout because the government will buy low and sell higher.

I disagree. There is no way a sitting president should expose himself to Wall Street-like sales argument, because it may not work out that way at all. He didn't even suggest it and no sane president wouldn't do it, either.

How is that done? Well, let's suppose we buy these investments for ten cents to the dollar and later, when the financial climate looks better, the government will sell them back for 30 cents on the dollar. That's 20 cents to put back into the treasury. Anyone can see this may work out to become a good investment for oh so many reasons. First and foremost is that we "un-freeze" America's financial climate so the little guy can go out and get a loan to free up salaries, and other money needed to run small and large businesses. That's the real benefit, but the ancillary bennies are great, too.

Welch believes you can't sit around and ponder it. You need to sign it by the weekend. The downside risk is too great.

McCain Suspends Campaign While Obama Says: I'm Out On The Hustings, While America Burns

It may backfire, but John McCain has just created an opening for him to shine for two days in Washington--getting the President and the Republicans in Congress to go for a negotiated compromise in the bail out of Wall Steet. All for which McCain can claim he was the brave knight on the white horse who saved America (and Congress from the ignomy of creating a huge depression).

That scenario is very possible because McCain is the one man in Washington who can pull it off. If I were Obama, after making that huge faux pas about being somewhere in the South if people in Washington need him, I would hide my head in shame.

Yes, Thursday and Friday may turn out to be a big poll turner for McCain.
Do you agree, or do you think this is a stunt by McCain that will backfire?
Comment, please.

Why Taxpayers Should Bail Out Wall Street

One stormy morning, Obama leads by nine points in the polls. Here we are, 41 days from election and the tall guy starts sprinting down the track and opens up a 9 point lead over the short, old guy. How long can the young "empty suit" go this fast is anyone's guess. But unless something is done--and the debates start Friday--the old, stout guy is done. That, despite predictions to the contrary by other pollsters and experts.

Unfortunately, neither the fast "empty suit" or the old, slow guy knows what to do about the proposed Wall Street bailout. The young guy can only read scripts and his handlers are puzzled. Was the old guy right, should we not bail out Wall Street? I think he will say whatever will supercharge his election campaign. We'll see on Friday. Meanwhile, read on and you decide.
By the way, I don't believe in polls.

I did enjoy a Washington Post story by Robert Samuelson this morning that said Paulson and Bernanke are rewriting the text books and running scared--"panic" was the operative word. "Paulson's Panic" was the headline.

I commented that what Americans need most at this time is a better understanding of the markets. Most people think this bailout is just to help the rich guys. Actually, it is meant to protect the people more than help the once rich and fat.

Think of the stock market as a mother. Mothers have kids and they nourish them until they can eat, walk, speak, and blunder on their own. Our markets are our mothers. They are the source of capital for all business in America, so they are the mothers or the source. If we don't help the moms out, there will be no milk or cash for the kids, the many businesses that are capitalized will fail.

To capitalized means to issue stock that is sold on Wall Street that produces the money needed to move the trucks, pay the workers, and produce the goods--it's the money that gets main street and rural business going and makes them viable manufacturers, transporters, farmers, and everything else that qualifies for an American business.

There's a big bully called stupidity, greed, and bad judgment stalking our moms. They will go under if we don't help. Actually they have "Mom" in a strangle hold. She's ready to expire. If she does, there won't be any mother's milk or financial support for all the kids who have these businesses. If that happens, everyone goes to bed hungry at night because jobs dry up and there aren't paychecks or money to buy groceries; no money to buy gas or to pay for the heat and lights. That's called DEPRESSION.

Then government must jump in and create jobs--make work projects like they had in the great depression. My dad was only 24 years old and he had one of those jobs. He made a dollar a day building "a road to nowhere" and our family of five barely survived. No one wants that, so instead of waiting for the big GONG to sound in the sky or depression to hit, we help out Wall Street now instead of bailing out the public later. "Pay me now or pay me later?"

Here's what I wrote in the Washington Post "comment" slot today. Then I'll follow with a smart guy's comments. He explains stuff that may be over all our heads, except those who work in the markets. And I'm not sure how his comments help educate us to the point where we can decide if Congress should do a bailout or not. That's for you to decide. As you may know, Congress is stymied, almost in a state of rigor mortis. It's brain damaged and in permanent shock and awe and delay. Of course most of them were that way when they came to Washington, so what else is new?

http://dusanotes@yahoo.com (me): "For we the taxpayer, Washington should do something to educate us. Unfortunately, no one in government, the economists, or market gurus really know what's going on in this financial crisis, much less know how to solve it. I doubt Paulson, Bernanke, or any of the economists advising Congress know what to do and this is creating delay and panic in some quarters including the halls of Congress. No one wants to make a mistake that worsens the problem.

Is it really true that delay is bad for America? Along with others including McCain, initially I argued that the government should not bail out anyone. It is basically against the free enterprise notion that companies live and fail on their own. Then comes along Bernanke and Paulson who are running scared, telling us action today or the crisis will create a depression. What are these two--some kind of socialists? What--we own all the companies in America? I don't think so...

None of the above does the taxpayer understand, much less believe. Government should not expect support for it's programs without first telling the public what the **$$!! are the options. We're smart. We can figure things out. We just need some help re-explaining Free Enterprise 101 and how all this "hurry-up and bail-out " stuff is germaine to anything.
Don White
PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com

Here's the smart guy's comments:
DCX2 wrote:
It all starts with bad mortgages that are pooled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and expands from there. The MBSs are used to create fake capital that can be used for a wide variety of purposes when you don't have enough money, increasing your leverage.

The first avenue of exploit was structured finance; over-the-counter derivatives that are unregulated. MBSs are collected and sliced into different tranches as part of a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO). The upper tranches are low-risk low-yield (they get money back first), and the lower tranches are high-risk high-yield (they get money back last). Knowing that these subprime loans will eventually default, they rig the game so they can skim off the good money with "super senior" tranches and then sell the rest of the junk that won't ever be paid back in junior tranches. Ta-da, they keep real money and you get imaginary money.

But they didn't plan on recursion. Sometimes a bunch of CDO slices are combined to create a CDO squared (and, further, CDO cubed, and so on). This is how imaginary money can get a good rating and be sold to institutions who normally only buy real money.

Even further, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enjoyed access to a special interest rate discount window. They would take out loans from the discount window, and then buy up MBSs and CDOs that had a better rate of return, and take advantage of the interest rate gap (Alan Greenspan called it a "Big Fat Gap" of profit). Then they would use their profits to lobby Congress and ensure that the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was practically neutered, thus minimizing regulation and oversight.

Finally, we have the Credit Default Swap (CDS) market. Someone (like UBS) would buy a bunch of bad debt (like $1.3b in CDOs) and then would seek insurance from a hedge fund (like Paramax) for an annual premium (like $2m). Since the CDS market is unregulated, there are no capital requirements, so Paramax is ensuring $1.3b with $4.6m. Paramax is now ultra-leveraged and a lot of the money involved is imaginary (both Paramax's lack of capital to insure the CDO, and the subprime borrowers' inability to fulfill their obligation)

This gigantic web of financial foolishness created an intense hunger on Wall Street for more MBSs. In order to get more CDOs to tranche up and sell to Fannie/Freddie/UBS/Citibank/Bear Stearns/etc, they need more MBSs, so some lenders lower lending standards so they can feed Wall Street's hunger. Lenders who don't lower standards might get knocked off by those who do, so everyone feels compelled to be evil. And with more CDOs out there, there are more hedge funds and insurance companies who can make easy cash off of the insurance scam with nearly zero collateral.

Regulation at any point - keeping sane lending standards, regulating the maximum leverage, monitoring the real risk of CDOs, stopping Fannie/Freddie from exploiting the Big Fat Gap, regulating CDSs to at least require significant capital - could have minimized or even eliminated this problem.

And the solution, contrary to Paulson's plan, is to make sure people keep paying their mortgages, and to try to sell the foreclosed homes. Then the money will start flowing again, CDOs won't default, CDSs won't need to be paid out, and life will return to normal.
9/24/2008 12:57:34 PM

Do you understand more now than you did five minutes ago about what Congress should do with the Bush-Paulson plea for $700 billion?
Read Robert Samuelson's report in the Washington Post

Monday, September 22, 2008

Moveable Books For Children





A Concise History of Pop-up and Movable Books

by Ann Montanaro


"Mechanical books should look like ordinary books. Their success is to be measured by the ingenuity with which their bookish format conceals unbookish characteristics."

Because books are by design two-dimensional, it might seem impossible for a page to add motion or depth other than through illustrations with perspective and illusion. And yet, for more than 700 years, artists, philosophers, scientists, and book designers have tried to challenge the book's bibliographic boundaries. They have added flaps, revolving parts, and other movable pieces to enhance the text.

It is not known who invented the first mechanical device in a book, but one of the earliest examples was produced in the 13th century by Catalan mystic and poet Ramon Llull of Majorca who used a revolving disc or volvelle to illustrate his theories.

Throughout the centuries volvelles have been used for such diverse purposes as teaching anatomy, making astronomical predictions, creating secret code, and telling fortunes.
Yet, while it can be documented that movable parts had been used for centuries, they were almost always used in scholarly works. It was not until the 18th century that these techniques were applied to books designed for entertainment, particularly for children.

F. J. Harvey Darton, English authority on childrens' books, wrote that before 1770 there were virtually no books "produced ostensibly to give children spontaneous pleasure, and not primarily to teach them, not solely to make them good, nor to keep them profitably quiet." London book publisher Robert Sayer changed that with the production of "metamorphoses" books.

These books, which were also called "turn-up" books or "harlequinades," afforded amusement, not so much through their printed contents, but through their illustrations that changed and kept pace with the story. "Metamorphoses" books were composed of single, printed sheets folded perpendicularly into four. Hinged at the top and bottom of each fold, the picture was cut through horizontally across the center to make two flaps that could be opened up or down. When raised, the pages disclosed another hidden picture underneath, each having a few lines of verse.

Other early examples of movable books were the Paper Doll Books produced by London publisher S. & J. Fuller beginning in 1810; the "toilet book," and an early example of a lift-the-flap book, first illustrated and published by the artist William Grimaldi in the 1820's; and peep-show books. Little or nothing is known of the origin of the peep-shows but they appear to have evolved from the traveling exhibits that showmen featured at fairs and festivals. They were often quite elaborate constructions depicting scenes from famous stories or topical events and were viewed through a small hole in the cover.

The first true movable books published in any large quantity were those produced by Dean & Son, a publishing firm founded in London before 1800. By the 1860's the company claimed to be the "originator of childrens' movable books in which characters can be made to move and act in accordance with the incidents described in each story." From the mid-19th century Dean turned its attention to the production of movable books and between the 1860's and 1900 they produced about fifty titles.

To construct movable books, Dean established a special department of skilled craftsmen who prepared the hand-made mechanicals. The designers used the peep-show principle of cut-out scenes aligned one behind the other to give a three-dimensional effect. Each layer was fixed to the next by a piece of ribbon that emerged behind the uppermost portion, and when this was pulled, the whole scene sprang up into perspective.

Dean also introduced movable books with transformational plates based on the jalousie or venetian blind principle. The illustrations in these books had either a square or an oblong picture divided into four or five equal sections by corresponding horizontal or vertical slits. When a tab at the side or bottom of the illustration was pulled, the picture "transformed" into another picture.

Read and Ward & Lock, Darton were two other London publishers of movable books, but Raphael Tuck was the first publisher to seriously challenge Dean & Son. In 1870 Tuck and his sons founded a publishing business in London that produced luxury paper items including scrapbook pictures, valentines, puzzles, paper dolls, and decorated papers. In the genre of movable books, Tuck published "Father Tuck's 'Mechanical' Series." The series included stand-up items with three-dimensional effects as well as movable books. To produce these books, Tuck, like Dean, formed editorial and design studios in London where volumes of high pictorial quality were produced. All of the printing, however, was done in Germany. The Germans developed a mastery of color printing in the second half of the 19th century and their equipment and techniques superbly reproduced the finest art work.

Another 19th century publisher who specialized in movable books was Ernest Nister. His printing business, begun in 1877, was capable of producing works by all of the major processes of the time. However, despite his wide range of publishing endeavors, he is best known for his movable books that were published from 1890. Nister's works were similar to those produced by his contemporaries but Nister's illustrations stood up automatically. The books had figures that were die-cut and mounted within a three-dimensional peepshow framework. The figures were connected by paper guides so that as the pages were turned, the figures lifted away from the page within the perspective-like setting. Nister also produced movable books with dissolving and revolving transformational slats.

The distribution of Nister titles was not limited to European markets, the New York firm of E.P. Dutton worked in conjunction with Ernest Nister to promote and sell the publisher's titles in the United States.

The most original movable picture books of the 19th century were devised by Lothar Meggendorfer. The Munich artist had a rare comic vision that was transmitted both through his art and through ingenious mechanical devices. In contrast to his contemporaries, Meggendorfer was not satisfied with only one action on each page. He often had five parts of the illustration move simultaneously and in different directions. Meggendorfer devised intricate levers, hidden between pages, that gave his characters enormous possibilities for movement. He used tiny metal rivets, actually tight curls of thin copper wire, to attach the levers, so that a single pull-tab could activate all of them, often with several delayed actions as the tab was pulled further out. Some illustrations used more than a dozen rivets.

McLoughlin Brothers of New York produced the first American movable books. Innovators of printing techniques, McLoughlin issued two separate "Little Showman's Series" in the 1880's each containing three-dimensional scenes. These large, colorful plates unfolded into multi-layered displays.

Few movable books were produced once the first World War began. The manufacture of movable books was labor-intensive. Presumably, after 1914 the labor force in the German printing works was required for less frivolous tasks.

However, in 1929 a new series of movable books was initiated. British book publisher S. Louis Giraud conceived, designed, and produced books with movable illustrations described as "living models." While the term had yet to be used, these were authentic "pop-up" books. Each title contained at least five, double-page spreads that erected automatically when the book was opened and had illustrations that could be viewed from all four sides.

Unlike his German precursors, Giraud's books were moderately priced. They were produced on coarse, absorbent paper, employing crude photolitho printing and color reproduction techniques, and were finished with inexpensive covers and bindings. Between 1929 and 1949 Giraud produced a series of 16 annuals, first for the Daily Express and later as an independent publisher using the trade names "Strand Publications" and "Bookano Stories." Each annual included stories, verses, and illustrations as well as five or more pop-ups. Giraud's books reached a wide audience and were very popular.

As the Depression years deepened, American book publishers sought ways to rekindle book buying. In the 1930's Blue Ribbon Publishing of New York hit upon a combination that proved successful. They animated Walt Disney characters and traditional fairy tales with pop-ups. Blue Ribbon was the first publisher to use the term "pop-up" to describe their movable illustrations.

McLoughlin Brothers reentered the movable book market in 1939 with the publication of their first Jolly Jump-up title. The commercially successful Jolly Jump-up series included ten titles illustrated by Geraldine Clyne.




A new group of artists and publishers entered the movable book market in the 1940's. The exciting adventures of Finnie the fiddler was the inaugural book of a series of titles featuring the animation of Julian Wehr. Wehr's illustrations were printed on lightweight paper and had tab-operated mechanicals. By moving the tab, which extended through the side or lower edge of the illustrated page, the various parts of the animation were put in motion. The action was transmitted to as many as five different parts of the picture.

Beginning in the late 1950s a series of remarkably innovative pop-up books was produced by Artia in Prague, Czechoslovakia, a state-run import/export agency. Voitech Kubasta was their preeminent artist and the creator of dozens of pop-up books. Bancroft & Co. (Publishers) of London marketed the Czechoslovakian titles.

In the mid-1960s American Waldo Hunt, President of Graphics International, a Los Angeles-based print brokerage company, was creating dimensional pop-up magazine inserts and premiums. Inspired by the Czechoslovakian works, and deterred in an attempt to market them in the U.S., he began to produce his own pop-up books. This decision led to the renaissance of pop-up books as we now know them. Graphics International moved to New York in 1964 and with the publication of Bennett Cerf's pop-up riddles in 1965, began producing books for Random House.

Hallmark Cards purchased Graphics International at the end of the decade and the staff moved to Kansas City, Missouri. With more than forty successful titles produced for Hallmark, Hunt left in 1974 to return to California where he began a book packaging company, Intervisual Communications, Inc. Today there are a number of packaging companies such as Compass Productions, White Heat, Ltd., Van der Meer Paper Design, Sadie Fields Productions, and Designamation to name a few, and the number of pop-up books has grown tremendously. There are between 200 and 300 new pop-up books produced in English each year.

The publication of pop-up books is production involving the skills of a number of individuals.

The creation of the book begins with a concept, story line and situation. Once the basics are worked out, the project goes to the "paper engineer" who takes the ideas of the author and the illustrator and puts motion into the characters, and action into the scenes. They may even add sound, as in a book where the opening and closing of the pages cause the teeth of a saw to run across a log.



The paper engineer's task is to be both imaginative and practical. The designer must determine how movable pieces attach to the page so they won't break, which points need glue and how much, how long pull tabs should be and how high a piece can pop up. The final step for the paper engineer is to lay out or "nest" all the pages and pieces so they fit onto the size sheet that will be run through the printing press.

All contemporary pop-up books are assembled by hand most in Colombia, Mexico, or Singapore. After printing, the nesting pieces of a book are die-cut from the sheets and collated with their pages. Production lines are set up, with as many as 60 people involved in the handwork needed to complete one book. These people fold, insert paper tabs into slits, connect paper pivots, glue and tape. Alignment of tip-on pieces with the printed page must be exact and angles must be precise. The most complex books can require over 100 individual handwork procedures.

The movable books of the last two decades have become increasingly complex with sophisticated pop-up illustrations and intricate mechanical devices. The addition of lights and music in some titles has contributed to the surprise of the mechanical illustrations. Pop-up and movable books are not ordinary books. For more than 100 years their ingenious mechanical devices have surprised and entertained readers of all ages.


References

Abrahamson, Richard F. "Movable books - a new golden age," Language arts, v.5 (April 1982), p. 342.

Carothers, Martha L., The design and production of children's novelty books [unpublished graduate research monograph]. Pennsylvania State University, 1980.

Carothers, Martha L., "Novelty books: Accent of images and words," University of Delaware Library Associates, Collections, 3:36Ä58, 1988.

Darton, F. J. Harvey, Children's books in England: Five centuries of social life. Cambridge University Press, 1958.

Dawson, Michael, "Checklist of books written, edited and/or published by S. Louis Giraud," Antiquarian book monthly review, 19:266Ä271, June 1992.

Dawson, Michael, "Children's pop-ups, movables and novelty books: A short history for collectors, part II," Movable stationery, 3:6, December 1995. p. 1, 8-10.

Dawson, Michael, "S. Louis Giraud and the development of pop-up books," Antiquarian book monthly review, 18:218Ä222, May 1, 1991.

Dawson, Michael, "S. Louis Giraud, the wizard of Bookano,"Antiquarian book monthly review, 18:250Ä256, June 1, 1991.

The genius of Lothar Meggendorfer. New York, Random House, 1985.

Haining, Peter, Movable books: An illustrated history. London, New English Library, 1979.

Krahe, Hildegard E., "The importance of being Ernest Nister," Phaedrus, 1988, pp.73Ä90.

Lindberg, Sten G., "Mobiles in books: Volvelles, inserts, pyramids, divinations, and children's games," Private library, 2:49Ä82, Summer 1979.

"Llull, Ramon," New encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1989.

Montanaro, Ann R., Pop-up and movable books: A bibliography. Metuchen, New Jersey, Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1993.

Myrick, Frank, "It's child play!" Bookbinding, 36:25Ä29, November 1924.

Opie, Iona and Peter, "Books that come to life," Saturday book, 34:60Ä79, 1975.

Quayle, Eric, The collector's book of children's books. New York, Clarkson N. Potter, 1971.

The Renier collection of historic and contemporary children's books. "Occasional list no.3. Moveable books." London, Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood, Spring 1988.

Sabuda, Robert. "So what do they package?" Movable stationery, 3:4, June 1995. p.1.

Seymour, Peter, "The resurrection of the pop-up book," Publishers weekly, 219:97Ä99, February 27, 1981.

Taylor, Sally A., "Intervisual Communications: Popping up all over," Publishers weekly, 238:217Ä218, July 26, 1991.

Whitton, Blair, Paper toys of the world. Cumberland, Maryland, Hobby House Press, 1986.

Yokoyama, Tadashi, The best of 3D books. Tokyo, Rikuyo-sha, 1989.


To see GALLERY ENTRANCE
To see ABOUT THE EXHIBITION
To see CHECKLIST OF ONLINE EXHIBITION
To see Special Collections and University Archives Homepage

MJoseph@rci.rutgers.edu

Some Don't Want A Financial Bailout


Newsmax's Ben Stein is angry that the Treasury Department is bailing out the banks and Wall Street.

Now, that's a new twist. Are there others of you--especially taxpayers--who feel a bailout is not in order?

Apparently Stein, an economist, author, former presidential speech writer, and occasional actor, is angry about the current "economic earthquake" that he says has rattled U.S. and global markets and he wants everyone to know.

Newsmax says Ben is particularly peeved with the $700 billion proposed Wall Street bailout and its architect, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, but it appears he's most peeved about the fact that Paulson in 2006 as CEO of a large Wall Street firm, Goldman Sachs, took an eighteen million bonus. But nowhere do I see where the government is contemplating the bailout of Goldman. They haven't even been mentioned, and we all hope they are in the clear. So what's all this shouting by make believe school teacher Ben Stein about? Apparently, it's his way of getting his writing career off and running with Newsmax, but it isn't selling.

Bloomberg.com has weighed in with an article headlined "Wall Street's Woes May Be Wall Street's Fault, U.S. Chiefs Say." Written by Christopher Donville and Chris Burritt, the article says that the

``At the end of the day we are here because we have moved from sound fundamentals of doing business to shady get-rich- quick programs,'' Dan DiMicco, chief executive officer of steelmaker Nucor Corp., said in an e-mail Sept. 19. ``It is very discouraging that we have come to this point through gross mismanagement and greed and the wrong kinds of regulatory rules changes over the last several years.''

As we reported in earlier blogs, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson devised a proposal over the weekend aimed at averting a credit freeze that would bring the financial system and economic growth to a halt. The plan, which is being considered and elaborated on by lawmakers, follows the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the government takeover of American International Group Inc. last week.

A collapse of the financial industry might leave U.S. corporations unable to raise money to build new plants, invest in research or even pay salaries, and might threaten to throw the country into an economic depression.

The Securities and Exchange Commission banned short selling -- the sale of borrowed shares by investors betting on a drop in the stock -- on shares of 799 financial companies through Oct. 2 to limit declines. Meanwhile, Paulson, who headed Goldman Sachs Group Inc. until two years ago, called for the use of public funds to buy $700 billion of bad mortgage investments by financial institutions.

In a CNN interview, Stein said Paulson should be "fired yesterday." If Stein had a brain he would tell us why, when all the evidence points at his being able to keep the company he led out in front and profitable despite other firms that have gone under.

"Paulson is a disgrace to the Republican Party and to his country," said Stein. Another target of Stein's ire is Wall Street itself.

Stein says he'd like to see President Bush on national TV "with Mr. Obama to his left and Mr. McCain to his right and say we are going to make sure that you Americans are going to stop being looted by Wall Street." Now, this is something I can agree with him on. It's high time the Administration takes a strong stand against using taxpayer money to bail out business.

This bail-out stuff is not a Republican principle, and it sure as heck isn't what we learned in college "Private Enterprise 101" because the next step is printing a big red sign on the Statue of Liberty calling "America, The Land of Political Takeovers and Bailouts."

"It's a first-class disaster. The worst Treasury regulation of the economy in my lifetime..." says Stein. "The effect of this on the ordinary investor and pre-retiree ... is just catastrophic for the free enterprise system."

John Gapper, the Financial Times columnist, has a simpler solution: Get Henry Paulson to give some money back.

Well, Gapper, that would be appropriate if Paulson had done anything to break a law or make the bailouts unnecessary. But he didn't. He ran a tight ship at Goldman Sachs. The worst we can say is that he isn't a prophet and didn't see this coming. But, then, neither did Congress, the president and millions of Americans.

"Mr. Paulson now declares himself shocked," says Gapper, "shocked that structured finance was going on Wall Street but he was there at the time, and the $18.7 million bonus he received for the first half of 2006 presumably reflected it." That's what Gapper wrote on his FT blog, but I don't think he knows what he's talking about. He's just like a lot of other Americans, angry, and wants to lash out at anyone in sight.

Yes, Paulson was "there" for two years. But this didn't come about overnight. We were heading into it during the administration of Bill Clinton and Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin who, with Alan Greenspan's help, printed up all that money to make the dollar worth next to nothing, to make the stock market soar out of control.

Then there were Congressmen Barney Frank, Charlie Rangle and their ilk with their left-wing liberality, their shouts that down echoed down the halls of Congress calling for looser loan requirements for the "poor" and Bush fell for it. That's really what caused this problem. And it all stems from the Democrats' innate desire to get re-elected at all costs and to patronize poor black folks, many of whom felt they couldn't get those bank loans more qualified people were getting bcause of racial discrimination. At least that's what Frank and Rangle pounded into their heads.

Listen to Gapper speculate: "I wonder if, as a public gesture, Mr. Paulson might consider handing that bonus over to the Treasury’s fund and lowering the U.S. taxpayer’s bill by $18.7 million?" Now, Mr. Gapper, that would be very fine and I'm all for it, but to be fair, every person who made profits on Wall Street the past ten years--especially since 2005--should do likewise and then we the taxpayers wouldn't have to shell out anything, now would we?


Sunday, September 21, 2008

Democrats Don't Know "Clean and Quick"

WASHINGTON - Just as expected, Democrats want to load a lot of patronizing pork onto the Bush bill to bail out Wall Street and America's Banks.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson can resist the Democrats all he wants, but in the end this won't be a quick bailout. On Saturday he requested that it be "clean and quick." That is the approval process. But Democrats don't know "clean and quick." Nothing is clean with the Dems. They can see a lot of political hay and pork that needs harvesting with this bailout and they want their pound of flesh, contrary to the Administration that merely wants to solve the credit problem before main street business grinds to a halt and we have more Americans laid off. These businesses need bank loans to survive, and the banks need taxpayer help to survive. The people will also benefit by keeping their jobs. It's easy to see for all but the Democrats because they live in another world.

I'm an attorney and yesterday I gave the American public a legal opinion. In it I said the three-page proposed bill gives Secretary Paulson authority to set up an apparatus as he sees fit, operate the bailout as he sees fit--devoid of pork for this state and pork for that one, which is good--and to spend $700 billion dollars to get American business and jobs back on track.

Democrats have an uncanny way of twisting things. They want to sell this as also direct bailout of people so they don't have to pay for the mortgage agreements they made. In other words, Dems would compound the problem that they created in the first place. That would really be something, wouldn't it?

But if the Democrats will just back off, that's exactly what Paulson will be empowered to do. He will solve the problem which is systemic. Democrats believe it is not a problem with the system. They don't have any idea of how the free enterprise system works. All they can see is windfall pork for them to pass around.

Paulson is going around to all the talk shows today talking up the urgency that this proposal has. If it's not passed quickly, you can kiss goodbye to millions of jobs which are with employers depending on banks for loans. But, hey, isn't that just what the Democrats want. They want more failure of the economy during the Bush administration so they can play the blame game and make people believe the Republicans caused it and don't know how to handle the problem.

See, Democrats envision a world much different than the average American. They feel that while we the taxpayers are bailing out the stupid mistakes of agreeing with Charlie Rangle and Barney Frank that America's better off half owed it to the poor to see to it they could own a house (thus the bills they passed to lower loan standards), that there must be something in it for politicians. I pegged the blame yesterday on the liberal Democrats. The losse credit situation caused the financial crisis and those loose credit rules were the brainchild of those who spout all this racial inequality stuff (Democrats and their ilk). Somehow, they feel it their inalienable right to deny you of your money by higher taxes and to redistribute the wealth of many directly to the poor in this crisis.

The poor will benefit if the banks are bailed out. They will be able to get out from under their loans. Some may even end up owning the houses they bought, but at far better terms--if Democrats stand aside and leave Paulson to his work.

Paulson said Sunday that because financial markets remain under severe stress there is an urgent need for Congress to act quickly without adding other measures that could slow down passage.

Paulson said in an interview on ABC's "This Week that "We need this to be clean and to be quick,"

Paulson resisted suggestions being made by Democrats that the program be changed to include further relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures and to include an additional $50 billion stimulus effort. Some Democrats have also suggested capping compensation of executives at firms who get the bailout help.

Paulson said he was concerned that debate over adding all of those proposals would slow the economy down, delaying the rescue effort that is so urgently needed to get financial markets moving again.

"The biggest help we can give the American people right now is to stabilize the financial system," Paulson said.

Then Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., weighed in, saying that he believed there would be changes to the three-page Paulson plan and that agreement could be reached quickly. The more changes, the longer the bill, the better for Democrats. They like it long and complicated, so no one understands it except the politicos. Then the Dems can work their magic and squeeze out of it patronage for them. That's what this Democrat delay game is all about, and nothing more. They're always thinking, what's in it for me?

Schumer said that he was pushing to get a provision where the government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief and for creation of a government oversight board to supervise the huge operation, which under Paulson's plan would be run out of the Treasury Department. He said Paulson seemed receptive to changes when he had discussed his ideas with him. Maybe Schumer should read Title 5, section 3109. There are already provision for Congressional oversight. But it happens every three months. Americans would hate it if Democrats tied this thing up in controversy and hearings at every turn of events. Plain and simple, this is a bill to allow a highly qualified man to add money to the credit markets and to do it in an expeditious manner. Too many hands in the pie spoil the pie.

"I have told him ... we need changes related to housing, we need to put the taxpayer first ahead of bondholders, shareholders," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday." This is typical Democrat talk. THE TAXPAYER IS FIRST INSTEAD OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, DUMMY. Shareholders have lost their shirts, or hasn't Sen Schumer noticed? Taxpayers, all of us, are going to benefit if Bush's bill passes intact. We will not benefit if this thing is laboriously delayed and more and more companies go belly up due to Democrat haggling and delay. If that happens, a lot of Democrats may lose their jobs quickly--and I'm talking about November 6th.

Paulson said in the interviews that he had been talking to other governments about the need for them to offer similar relief because the current financial crisis is global.

"The credit markets are still very fragile right now and frozen," Paulson said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "We need to deal with this and deal with it quickly."

Paulson said that the nation's outdated regulatory system for financial markets must be overhauled but the first job is to get the most sweeping rescue package since the Great Depression passed by Congress in coming days.

Paulson made the rounds of the television talk shows on Sunday to stress the need for speed in getting the bailout package approved. The administration was negotiating the details of the proposal with members of Congress with the expectation that it can be passed in the next week.

Paulson said that "it pains me tremendously to have the American taxpayer put in this position but it is better than the alternative."

Both Paulson and President Bush have argued that the alternative would be credit markets that remain frozen, meaning that businesses will fail because they can't get the loans they need to operate and the economy will grind to a halt because consumers won't be able to get loans to make the purchases that keep the economy moving forward.

On Saturday, Bush said the White House is ready to work with Congress to quickly enact legislation to allow the government to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bad debt linked to the collapse of the housing market.

Congressional aides and administration officials were working through the weekend to fill in the details of the proposal.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Political Disconnect's Legal Opinion of President Bush's Proposal

The proposed litigation gives Secretary Henry Paulson almost carte blanche authority to do whatever he wants to do to buy up commercial paper of American banks that debtors could not pay for in this Housing crisis.

Without the conditions that the limit of authority is $700 billion and the money is to be used to buy sick mortgages from companies, there are no conditions.

I'm reminded of the term cart blanche. Blanc means blanche, like a white piece of paper given from one person I call the Party of the First Part (Congress and the President) to another called Party of the Second Part.

Carte blanche authority means you have just signed your life over to me to do with it what I please. The white paper has nothing on it but a signature at the bottom for the party of the second part (Hank Paulson) to do with it whatever he feels appropriate, to "superscribe what other conditions he pleases." Hence, except for the two conditions set down by the president about the subject matter and the amount, it is almost unconditional in terms, unlimited in authority.

Of course, that's just the beginning. Congress will make sure their oversight ability is not destroyed--so that if something goes haywire they can shout and squeal bloody murder that the Republican Administration has raped us. That, they will do, with or without further conditions. The New York Times is already blaming President Bush for the entire mess, anyway. Despite the fact that a big part of the mess is the loose and easy money policy of the preceding administration. If you want to go to the genesis of the problem, name Robert Rubin, Clinton's Secretary of Treasury--and also Alan Greenspan--for printing up so much new money every time we had a shock wave in the markets. Blame Barney Frank and Charlie Rangle and their ilk for screaming racial discrimination so loud in the halls of congress that the Democrats got that august group to approve less rigid requirements to buy a house so that even the poorest of the poor in Harlem, Rangle's bailiwick, could "afford" to buy a house.

Well, as the pendulum falls, we see that wasn't a good idea at all. It's those very people--not all of them black--that caused this mess. The mortgage loan fall was first enabled by an "easy money dollar printing scheme of Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, then by a Congress that wanted to look good before voters and patronize them for votes. It was President Herbert Hoover in 1928 who called for "a chicken in every pot." But Democrats had to go one better. "Let's extend this from a chicken to something much bigger--all on the public largesse," they said--that is, "to house ownership despite the fact they don't qualify for loans." But home ownership buys a lot more votes than a chicken in a pot, so they sponsored bills that loosened bank rules and they got President Bush to go along. Little did any of them realize--or maybe they did and didn't care--that this tomfoolery would come back and bite the rest of the American taxpayers who could afford a house and who have never defaulted on their loans. Frankly, none of them were thinking about the honest, mortgage-paying taxpayer. They never do. We own America and our lawmakers, our public servants, treat us like dirt. It is time to send all lawmakers back home and start out fresh.

Here's the deal breaker. As mentioned in Bush's section 4 and 5 the Secretary of the Treasury will be the only one authorized to supervise this mess and to purchase the mortgage-related issues and issue obligations. Congress, keep your greedy hands off. Congress will never give up their oversight of this, and that will be a real deal breaker, or at least an obstacle that will prevent speedy passage of the bill. Without speedy work on the part of Congress, more banks will go under, and more financial damage will be done in America, making it all-the-more expensive for us the taxpayers.

The only limitations on "financial institutions" who are eligible to play this payoff game is that banks must be domiciled in America. The law would designate these institutions as "agents of the Government."

CALLING ALL DEMOCRATS: For once in your lives can you put details and petty turf squabbling and quarreling aside and pass something to benefit all Americans. And pass it right now?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Bush is proposing. The White House wants to solve a problem potentially as big as the 1929 stock market crash and the depression. Speed is of essence. He and his people, together with the Fed, worked very expeditiously. Now it's the turn of Congress! The American people demand and expect no less.


Title 5, Section 3109 of the U.S. Code

The above U.S. code defines how Secretary Paulson will, with Congressional approval, be able to set up an office which will spend the proposed $700 billion on bank mortgage buyouts of companies domiciled in the U.S.

I thought you'd like a copy of it, since this will govern everthing Paulson does in setting up machinery to spend your money.

§ 3109. Employment of experts and consultants; temporary or intermittent

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) “agency” has the meaning given it by section 5721 of this title; and
(2) “appropriation” includes funds made available by statute under section 9104 of title 31.
(b) When authorized by an appropriation or other statute, the head of an agency may procure by contract the temporary (not in excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or consultants or an organization thereof, including stenographic reporting services. Services procured under this section are without regard to—
(1) the provisions of this title governing appointment in the competitive service;
(2) chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of this title; and
(3) section 5 of title 41, except in the case of stenographic reporting services by an organization.
However, an agency subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of this title may pay a rate for services under this section in excess of the daily equivalent of the highest rate payable under section 5332 of this title only when specifically authorized by the appropriation or other statute authorizing the procurement of the services.
(c) Positions in the Senior Executive Service or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration Senior Executive Service may not be filled under the authority of subsection (b) of this section.
(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of this section. Such regulations shall include—
(1) criteria governing the circumstances in which it is appropriate to employ an expert or consultant under the provisions of this section;
(2) criteria for setting the pay of experts and consultants under this section; and
(3) provisions to ensure compliance with such regulations.
(e) Each agency shall report to the Office of Personnel Management on an annual basis with respect to—
(1) the number of days each expert or consultant employed by the agency during the period was so employed; and
(2) the total amount paid by the agency to each expert and consultant for such work during the period.

Here's What President Bush Proposes

September 21, 2008

Text of Draft Proposal for Bailout Plan

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Why Sarah Palin's Religion Is Her Right and The Godless Left Should Be Ashamed of Themselves

Why Those Who Dismiss Religion From The Public Square Are Wrong

Richard Neuhaus of First Things has it right.

September 18, 2008

In his article "A New Order of Things" in this Month's Meridian, Neuhaus takes us back to our founding fathers--specifically to Thomas Jefferson. He said that Jefferson wanted to be remembered as the author of the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. In the text of the bill, said Neuhaus, Jefferson underlined this sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.”

For some unknown reason the silly "religious" left found a fight to pick with Sarah Palin, partly because she appeared "in their face" and said she was a believer of Jesus Christ and principles of truth found in Christianity. The audacity of that woman! thought the liberal press and their coterie of Ivy League-trained pseudo sophisticates. "And she's from Alaska. Can there be anyone who is really in the know from Alaska?"

"Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John 1:46

Never mind the fact that she fought and defeated corruption in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. No matter that she worked for the Oil Commission in Alaska, faced-down big oil and won big dollar concessions from them and as governor returned about $1,200 per year to every citizen of Alaska because of this. No matter that she was a successful small town mayor and a governor with almost an 80 percent approval rating while those who criticize her in Congress have only a 14 percent approval rating.

The combination of all of the above gave her ten years of administrative experience compared to Barak Obama who has no executive experience, gave nothing back to the citizens of Illinois, and has little or no experience running things; yet the young darling of the left is preening all over the globe before television cameras, hoping to become president on no account of his own. Yes, you could say Barak Obama is a "no account" politician. All talk and bluster, very little accomplishment.

The partisan remarks about Palin's qualifications are as out of control and silly as the people making them. Here are some of the inane stuff liberal Democrats like to say: "How could John McCain put her up to run next to him? If he dies, she's president and she's no more fit to be president than my servant back in North Adams or the Bar maid at Joe's Dinner. It's an outrage, that's what it is. An affront to our superior inherited intelligence and McCain should be charged with treason. Why, she's got a 15-year-old daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock. If she can't run her household better than that, what business has she running for vice president of the United States?"

These are only a few of the slanderous, supercilious comments. The fact is, Governor Sarah Palin has the Democrats running scared. That's why all the negative talk and suggestions that with Palin, Senator McCain is attempting to spoof the world. It all started with Palin's religion. It's the genesis of all the dribble they write and say about Sarah and her family, and why Obama and Biden have placed her family members "in play" and "free game" to not only criticize but to slander and to set a smelly pen of wild hound dog attorneys loose to rummage around Alaska trying to pick up the scent of scandal and dig up dirt on her, but "Mr. Obama, save your money! They won't find any."

But as to Sarah's religion, or yours and mine, it is not considered fair game by decent people, but only for Barak's legal bulldogs who work for indecent Democrats that will do anything to keep a religious person out of office. Their mantra: anyone as brassy as Palin, who openly spouts her beliefs, must be stopped at all costs. Must be expunged from the public square.

But we disagree. As Neuhaus so eloquently writes, "In a republic of free citizens, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, every moral argument has access to the public square in which we deliberate the ordering of our life together.

“The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.”

Neuhaus writes that civil government is "ordered by, and derives its legitimacy from, the opinions of the citizenry. Precisely here do we discover the novelty of the American experiment, the unique contribution of what the Founders called this novus ordo seclorum , a new order for the ages. Never before in human history had any government denied itself jurisdiction, whether limited or total, over that on which it entirely depends, the opinion of its people.

That's what Lincoln, the founding father of the Republican Party, forcibly argued to Judge Douglas over slavery. While Douglas stubbornly held to the Dred Scott decision as the law of the land, Lincoln had the deeper insight into how this republic was designed to work.

“In this age, and this country,” Lincoln said, “public sentiment is every thing. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the inforcement of these, else impossible.”

Neuhaus said the question of religion's place in the public square is not, first of all, a question of First Amendment law. It is first of all a question of understanding the theory and practice of democratic governance. Citizens are the bearers of opinion, including opinion shaped by or espousing religious belief, and citizens have equal access to the public square. In this representative democracy, the state is forbidden to determine which convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for public deliberation. And partisans should not attempt to limit the discussion, though it comes from a man or woman of religion. Though the argument refers to religious texts.

This is something the snobs and elites must learn. In a free and robust democracy, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. "There is, or at least there ought to be," Neuhaus said, "no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public."

And this is the thing most non-religious people fear most. "It matters not at all that the speakers' words are to advance religion, any more than it matters that other associations would advance the interests of business or labor or radical feminism or animal rights or whatever.

"For purposes of democratic theory and practice, it matters not at all whether these religious associations are large or small, whether they reflect the views of a majority or minority, whether we think their opinions bizarre or enlightened. What opinions these associations seek to advance in order to influence our common life is entirely and without remainder the business of citizens who freely adhere to such associations. It is none of the business of the state. Religious associations, like other associations, give corporate expression to the opinions of people and, as Mr. Jefferson said, 'the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.' ”

What should be our fear in America is the special definition the elites give to a concept known as “the separation of church and state.” Their misconception makes it mean the separation of religion from public life. That would be their goal, but it is not reality or the truth. The writer said they do not understand the theory and practice of democratic governance. America doesn't have a secular form of government, "if by secular is meant indifference or hostility to opinions that are thought to be religious in nature." America's "government is as secular as are the people from whom it derives its democratic legitimacy. No more, no less. Indeed a case can be made—and I believe it to be a convincing case—that the very founding principle that removes opinion from the jurisdiction of the state is itself religious in both historical origin and continuing foundation. Put differently, the inspiration for religious freedom, as of other freedoms, is itself religious."

All of this is anethma to the elite on snob hill, to the vicious left wing in America. Their view of religion is just what Obama called it, a crutch to which "those people cling to." To elitists it can't represent contemporary thought or intelligence. How could it, it isn't true? "Gov. Sarah Palin—combining fervent Christian faith with political moxy and celebrity power—is an interloper from an earlier America that secularists had long since consigned to the past. But it keeps coming back."

Thank God our founders knew how important religious beliefs were. “We hold these truths,” they declared. And I believe explicitly with Richard Neuhaus when he said. . . when these truths about the “unalienable rights” with which persons are “endowed by their Creator” are no longer firmly held by the American people and robustly advanced in the public square, this experiment will have come to an end.In that unhappy case, this experiment will have turned out to be not a novus ordo seclorum but a temporary respite from humanity's penchant for tyranny.

Yet it is a longstanding fact that secularized elites in our universities and our courts are embarrassed by the inescapably religious nature of this nation's founding and subsequent history.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Vote: Was AIG's Bailout a Good Thing?



http://www.ask500people.com/questions/mccain-opposed-it-was-it-a-good-decision-for-the-fed-to-take-american-taxpayer-money-to-bail-out-private-insurer-aig

Can The Fed Bail Out An Insurance Company?

Readers must distinguish the Fed, an instrument of government but technically not part of it, in regulating monetary policy. Distinguish the Fed from Hank Paulson who is President Bush's Secretary of Treasury. Remember that the Secretary said the government would not bail out the world's largest insurer, and it didn't. It appears that was left to the Fed.

The interesting thing about what I call a huge mistake is this: When you consider who oversees American International Group (AIG) you go back to the State of New York's Insurance Department. Something to understand about insurance companies--and I don't care how big they are, whether they're huge like State Farm Mutual and AIG or some little Podunk Mutual in Sorrysville, Alabama, in America they are regulated by state insurance departments. The irony is this: Despite the fact the Feds have no jurisdiction over AIG, they came in with federal funds to bail them out.

New York Governor David Paterson is happy to shuffle this big problem off on someone else and seems pleased the Fed is loaning AIG $85 billion.

Though Hank Paulson of the Treasury Department seems to be going along with it, I find this quite extraordinary and there is an awful lot of impropriety in this. Are we getting to the stage in the financial world that an agency of the Federal Government that is not part of the government must take regulation of insurance away from the states? If so, there's a legal backlog of thousands of pages of record showing they have no business doing so. This is an old states rights issue and what has happened with this takeover is the precise thing we're talking about--a takeover of regulation of one insurer. Because you can't see the Fed just idly sitting there letting AIG do something that is not in keeping with "the Fed's good judgment" now can you? This whole thing is a mess. It reeks of socialism at its worst.

The Fed has fired all of AIG's management. Edward Liddy, the former head of insurer Allstate Corp (ALL, Fortune 500)., will lead the company, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Federal Reserve Board is lending as much as $85 billion to rescue crumbling insurer American International Group, officials announced Tuesday evening.

The Fed authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) the funds. In return, the federal government will receive a 79.9% stake in the company.

Officials decided they had to act lest the nation's largest insurer file bankruptcy. Such a move would roil world markets since AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) has $1.1 trillion in assets and 74 million clients in 130 countries.

An eventual liquidation of the company is most likely, senior Fed officials said. But with the government loan, the company won't have to go through a tumultuous fire sale.

Can you imagine the Federal Government, the new owner of AIG, now being regulated by the State of New York? But that's precisely what has happened. Or has the Fed placed AIG in the same company as Social Security with all of its stumble-bum decisions? One difference, since the Fed did this, anything they do cannot and will not be subject to presidential or congressional oversight. Can a state legally oversee the Federal Government? With AIG, a best case can be made that the state is the only jurisdiction that has the power to do so.

Even a better question: We know AIG didn't go under because of its superior insight and management ability. When we the people now own the giant insurer with liabilities estimated at more than $450 trillion, what happens to "we the people's" pocketbooks if this stumbling giant continues to stumble under Federal Reserve Board oversight? AIG will continue to fail and must sell off assets to pay us back plus about 13% interest. But what if it doesn't work the way Bernanke envisions?

Who then will bail out the taxpayers who will be called upon to come up with that $450 trillion--assuming, of course, all of AIG's invested reserves also go curplunk? What we have been doing to less developed nations (LDN) for years and years is coming home to roost. Through companies like MAIN, and Halliburton many LDNs have mortgaged their souls to the devil in the name of U.S. imperialism and our effort to create international empires.

Ecuador is a good example of a poor nation developing oil wells, oil lines, and building power plants, roads and other infrastructure for which their leaders have sold their people into bondage. They can never live long enough to pay it back. Third world debt has grown to more than $2.5 trillion, and the cost of servicing it--over $375 billion per year as of 2004. It's more than all third world spending on health and education and more than twenty times what developing countries receive annually in foreign aid. Over half the people in the world survive on less than two dollars per day, which is roughly the same amount they received in the early 1970s. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of third world households accounts for 70 to 90 percent of all private financial wealth and real estate ownership in their country; the actual percentage depends on their country (James S. Henry, "Where The Money Went," Across The Board, March/April 2004, pp42-45. For more information, see henry's book: The Blood Blood Bankers: Tales from the Global Underground Economy (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003).

The reason I mention third world countries is because they don't have money and have become indebted up to their ears. We Americans are quickly following in that pathway. Our country is broke and our leaders don't know it. If they do they're not telling. Isn't it about time we elected a president and Congress with conservative values?

To my question about who will bail out us taxpayers, the answer is no one. We're the pocketbook of last resort. Maybe we could call up King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. He could help, but would want the State of New York in exchange. Or, maybe Hank Paulson can help. He knows a lot of people in China because he was a good Boy Scout; he could talk to Chinese President Hu Jintao. Maybe good old Hu could bail us out. But he would want the State of California.

Good, give them California and New York. Let Hu deal with the Spanish immigrant problem. Good, give them New York. Let King Abdullah deal with the Democrats and the Jews in New York.

In my view, the Feds have no business throwing around taxpayer money to salvage an insurance company. That's state business. Maybe we would end up there, but where's the good-sense protocol? If you're Bernanke you naturally would have had lunch with New York Governor David Paterson and NY insurance commissioner Eric A. Dinallo and ironed out an agreement beforehand. And maybe they did. Everyone should have been placed on the same page here, especially the financeers of this grandiose deal, the American taxpayer. We know it's our money, but we weren't even consulted.

There will be a lot of political backlash on this Fed move. John McCain was right--we should let AIG fail, and that's pretty much what the Bush Administration decided to do rather than expose our national assets on a private enterprise like this. Of course, Obama was silent. He doesn't even know to this day and hour what he would have done because he's an "empty suit"--a deadhead.

A lot of national leaders must have quizzical looks on their faces this morning. Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) should call for hearings and start questioning the likes of Greenspan and Bernanke. Ask them how they feel this is all going to fall out? At the least, Bernanke has overstepped the bounds of his authority.

And at most, he has done something that should have called for pre-counseling from others, including the Treasury and the President. How does Bernanke even know the U.S. Treasury has enough money in the bank to pay for this kind of socialistic maneuvering? If we're halfway broke, who delegated him to completely break the bank?

When we look into what has turned out to become--The grand AIG fiasco--we'll find the U.S. is on the ropes with money. In fact the U.S. is broke and our elected officials haven't yet awakened to that fact.

It is quite disheartening to see the Fed use taxpayer money this massively when they have no accountability. Blog onto this story. Do you believe the Fed should be so powerful, first off; second, doesn't it seem weird and wrong for a private group like the Fed to be able to tap into your pocketbook and mine whenever they please?

My position is that this is very wrong. In this case, the Fed has stepped way beyond their previously-given mandate. Maybe Congress should look into what the Fed can or cannot do and change something here. Next, they'll be selling the Capital buildings and the White House.

Or maybe not. Can you imagine how badly the Fed would perform--not to say that Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have been angels and highly competent--if we had a political hack making these decisions? Who is to say Bernanke is not beholden to somebody--perhaps many of AIG's biggest stockholders? If anyone has information on that, sound off, please.

The following fits in nicely with this from Slate:
In for a Pound
By Daniel Politi
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2008, at 6:42 AM ET

News keeps pouring out of Wall Street and all the papers lead with the Federal Reserve's startling decision to lend insurance giant American International Group up to $85 billion in a bailout deal that would give the government control over the company.

The New York Times calls it "the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank's history." In exchange for its cash, the government would get a 79.9 percent equity stake in the company. The Washington Post notes that the rescue package "effectively nationalizes one of the central institutions in the crisis that has swept through markets this month." The Wall Street Journal points out that this is "a historic development, particularly considering that AIG isn't directly regulated by the federal government."

The move marked an astounding about-face for the government that had been resisting AIG's pleas for help over the last few days and earlier chose to let Lehman Bros. fail rather than put forward more taxpayer money. "The main difference between the two situations: AIG is so huge and its operations so intertwined in the financial system that the Fed feared an AIG failure could harm the broader economy," USA Today summarizes. Or as the WSJ puts it: "This time, the government decided AIG truly was too big to fail." The Los Angeles Times notes that while Fed officials said the action was due to the fact that AIG insures the assets of millions of Americans, it seems the main reason "was fear that the company's failure could weaken or destroy nearly a half-trillion dollars' worth of financial protection that AIG provides Wall Street firms and the biggest companies of Europe and Asia."

To continue reading, click here.

Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

John Perkins: Confessions of An Economic Hit Man

Should capitalism and democracy be forced on the rest of the world?

If the objective of foreign aid is imperialism, is that so wrong?

Those are questions John Perkins asks in his book Economic Hit Man. chapter 8 entitled, "Jesus Seen Differently." Off hand, most of us don't know the answers, but let's get into it.

Perkins said he kept coming back to the above question. He doubted whether limited resources would allow the whole world to live "the opulent life of the United States, when even the United States had millions of citizens living in poverty." He said it wasn't clear to him that people in other nations actually want to live like us.

"Our own statistics about violence, depression, drug abuse, divorce, and crime indicated that although ours was one of the wealthiest societies in history, it may also be one of the least happy societies. Why would we want others to emulate us?"

First, I would tell John Perkins that not all Americans are unhappy. Especially not those who have found Jesus Christ and vow to serve him and help others their entire lives. That has been my happy situation, and the blessing of millions of others like me who call themselves (and act like) true Christians.

I recently printed a story about the church I belong to, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) who continually send out food, medicine and supplies to Hurricane, flood, tornado, earthquake victims and those displaced by any number of catastrophes that occur each year in this country and abroad. This is a worldwide church, which aids people in every nation. May I refer you to a story in the blog entitled "Service Around The World." http://womenlovemenwhoadmire.blogspot.com

Once on this page, click down to titles: "Church Members Contribute To Global Humanitarian Aid" and "Utah Volunteers Working To Help Those Threatened by Ike." Though these stories feature Utah volunteers, the Mormon Church has members who become volunteers of their service throughout the world.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and Biloxi, Mississippi and those surrounding areas in 2004, for example, a large contingent of volunteers left Orlando Florida in busses and helped muck out and clean storm victims' mud and water-soaked houses. Volunteers from many other of this church's dioceses, or wards and stakes as Mormons call them, also came and were directed by a central command to those neighborhoods where help was most needed.

They wore yellow shirts with "Mormon Volunteers" written on it to distinguish themselves from others who were not helpful, but may have been their illegally to loot from damaged homes. When people saw the yellow shirts they felt blessed and safe and knew they would get some badly needed help. These workers worked for two straight days before boarding the bus again to come home to their jobs and families some one thousand miles away. Many other instances of that occurred throughout the church, which is one of the best organized churchs in the world, especially when disaster strikes.


Hank Paulson's New Financial Governance

I wholeheartedly suggest you click onto a column in the usually liberal Washington Post by Sebastian Mallaby. My comments and others follow. DWhite

dusanotes wrote:
I'm used to seeing a lot of liberal ideas that make no sense to a conservative. But today Sebastian Mallaby was right on, dead center. This is a great article by a very articulate writer. Long live
Sebastian and the American dollar.
Don White
http://political disconnect.blogspot.com
9/16/2008 10:37:41 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
chawsheen wrote:
Paulson seems to be a decent man but what can he do if he is trammelled by a tightly knit group of oligopolists whose motto is: WE ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, others, if not with us, are un-Americans.
9/16/2008 10:32:27 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
rcc_2000 wrote:
When George the First was President and ran against Clinton our economy was in turmoil. Clinton came to office on the mantra "it is the economy stupid". The Dow was around 3000 when Clinton came into office. When he left office it was at 11,400. Then Bush came into office. after 8 years in office the Dow is actually lower than when he took office. Yet the GOP says that it is the party of business? All I know is that McCAin is weak on the economy, he has said he will rely on people like Phil Gramm, a man who is partially responsible for the mortgage crisis (see Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) by loosening regulation on the mortgage markets and for investment banks. But that is not Phil Gramm's only claim to fame he also had a hand in creating the "Enron Loophole" that basically set-up Enron's crash because of the greed of his Enron buddies.

Historically, over the past 20 years it has been the Democrats that have been in power during the most prosperous years. BTW this stuff effects millions of working Americans who have their retirement tied to investments, these are the working folks who the GOP has screwed by stagnating their investments, lowered their property values and set the markets tumbling while the CEO's of these failed companies make tens of millions of dollars (which they pass some on to the GOP).

The GOP is not pro-business it is pro-greed of corporate executives..
9/16/2008 10:08:29 AM
Recommend (3)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
charleydan wrote:
Bold gamble on Lehman? Nada.

Mac and Mae is a government entity and had to be covered, or for the government to claim bankruptcy and let countries dissolve it for assets. Not quite that simple, but the basic idea.

The others are all free enterprise. Many enterprises gambled(high risk) with their loans and lost and now pay. American people were involved because of their greed and now will pay with a depression if not a recession. Many with lost of home for buying more then they can afford. The whole mess is because of greed and many seen it coming, but like always only the responsible know the end.

The largest banks will be covered as they could trigger other banks to go in a domino affect.

The economy is sound. Money is being generated. Debt needs to be managed.

Government biggest debt is Medi and expected in short order to cost as much every year as our present expenditures for the whole government. 3 trillion a year.

Obama wants to add on to that by adding national health. Years ago health was a charity and was very affordable. Then went free-enterprise and look the mess we have now. National Health will be worse economically and service will be rock bottom.

Till the biggest lobbyist's in America cut their wants and desires. America will increase it's debt till it folds.

Who is the biggest Lobbyist in America, American Voters. And that is only the start. Of course it always is for a noble cause that the biggest lobbyist in America will not take care of for themselves or have not and now want others to do it for them.
9/16/2008 10:05:38 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
tc125231 wrote:
A comment on this mess by Stiglitz --who actually knows something, unlike this mouthpiece.

"Financial markets hinge on trust, and that trust has eroded. Lehman's collapse marks at the very least a powerful symbol of a new low in confidence, and the reverberations will continue."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/16/economics.wallstreet/print
9/16/2008 9:45:13 AM
Recommend (0)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
LeftGuy wrote:
It may be impossible to understand the global scope of this problem, but Mallaby hints at it if we read between the lines.

For once, let's all put idealogy aside. O'Neill was able to bail out foreign governments (so did Rubin under Clinton)because investors believed that there was plenty of money in the US capital system (not the government alone, but in the entire system including the private sector). Today, the US would be unable to help Argentina, Brazil and Turkey due to lack of internal resources.

The central problem today is that no one in the world has the same level of faith in today's system--please keep your idealogy aside for a moment before you respond.

Our capitalist system depends upon faith in private enterprise and the ability to financial markets to serve them. The last piece of this partnership has evaporated. And no one knows how long it will take before the partnership can be restored...months, years?

Worse, the problem is not confined to the US financial markets and the corporations that depend upon them. The entire global enterprise is holding a lot of worthless paper in the form of debt that can never be repaid. Hence the global system is teetering and foreign markets are reeling in turmoil like those in the US.

Every retiree and every worker who ultimately depends upon some type of private pension, whether self-directed or company sponsored, has a vested interest in seeing these global capital markets survive and ultimately recover. So we all have a stake in this.

Paulson faces the same question as Rubin and O'Neill: Intervene or let the markets collapse? The stakes this time around, however, are an order of magnitude higher than that faced in the past few decades. The S&L collapse and the demise of long term capital were managed successfully by a partnership between the government and the private financial sector. But this time around, it is the private financial sector that is in need of help.

I don't know whether Paulson can avert total disaster, but I do know that he has the background and intelligence to do so.

He has my vote of confidence, as did Robert Rubin a decade ago. Bush did the right thing by getting him into this post at this time. Future presidents need to do the same.
9/16/2008 9:45:02 AM
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse Discussion Policy
billcarr542 wrote:

Monday, September 15, 2008

Is Putin A Good Man Or Bad Man?





http://www.ask500people.com/questions/vlad-putin-is-called-an-ethnic-cleanser-satan-kg

Is Vladimir Putin a Plagiarist?

Putin plagiarized His Thesis

The Washington Times reported in March, 2006 that Vladimir Putin -- KGB spy, politician, Russian Federation president and Prime Minister--was also a plagiarist.

They said "this 2006 host of the Group of Eight international summit could add a new line to his resume: plagiarist."

One must wonder what he thought when he saw published reports in the press of these American academics nailing him. They "literally caught him red handed (if they still use that term on Red Square). It must have blindsided him." American academics don't take lightly to the stealing of a U.S. economist's ideas--especially by a Russian who has no current recollection of plagiarizing anything or anyone because he has no current conscience.

But was he so naive to think no one would ever notice? An international leader? Suddenly, there he was--speechless. He probably thought all international leaders have something in their pasts that they're not proud of; and this--a tiny "convenient" peccadillo at best--what harm was it? Certainly among friends who brought it up point blank to his emotionless blond face the news must have made him flush or his cold blue eyes flicker nervously while his devious mind raced to find legitimacy to what he had or had not "written." He needed a comeback, anything. . .

But the report was damning to his character. It said "large chunks of Mr. Putin's mid-1990s economics dissertation on planning in the natural resources sector were lifted straight out of a management text published by two University of Pittsburgh academics nearly 20 years earlier, according to Washington researchers.

Here he is, the master spy, former KGB head--actually still head of a KGB unit when he supposedly wrote the thesis--caught by what he might consider to be some weirdo scholars, pinheads (or you could say "egg heads"), the type that throughout his life he most likely disdained and may have even taken time to kill or beat up a few here and there in the Krasnorgorsk Train Station men's room near the dumpster behind the elegant Bordino restaurant located in the stylish Aerostar Hotel or along some deadly, lonely road. Putin's a little guy, but very tough and ruthless. Besides, he's not really the academic type. He doesn't enjoy writing, it's too. . . well, too mental and mundane, not copyable enough.

Six diagrams and tables from the 218-page dissertation mimic in form and content similar charts in the Russian translation of the Americans' work as well, according to Brookings Institution senior fellow Clifford G. Gaddy.

"It all boils down to plagiarism," he said. "Whether you're talking about a college-level term paper, not to mention a formal dissertation, there's no question in my mind that this would be plagiarism."

The dissertation, which Putin scholars have tried in vain for years to examine, is one of a number of mysteries surrounding the enigmatic Russian leader's academic career.

The official Kremlin biography asserts Mr. Putin obtained a "Ph.D. in economics" in 1997 from the St. Petersburg Mining Institute, but the report said his thesis was for a "candidate of sciences" degree that is considered at least an academic class below a formal doctoral degree.

In a semi-autobiographical series of interviews published just after he was named president of Russia in 2000, Mr. Putin does not even mention the thesis, he "conveniently omits" it, referring only to preliminary work he did on another dissertation on international law at the then-Leningrad State University in 1990 while still formally an employee of the KGB. He didn't dare bring it up, what if people drew attention to his "convenient" little lie? The timid might call it an inconsistency, but it's still plagiary. What if people found out and it cost him his job?

It is not even clear when Mr. Putin wrote the thesis, formally titled "The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations," although it is known he returned from Moscow to St. Petersburg in 1997 to defend his work--with brass knuckles, I suspect.

What is clear, according to Mr. Gaddy and fellow Brookings researcher Igor Danchenko, is that large sections of the dissertation's central argument were taken almost word-for-word from the 1978 management text Strategic Planning and Policy, by University of Pittsburgh professors William R. King and David I. Cleland.

Mr. Gaddy said that in the 20 pages that open the dissertation's key second section, 16 pages are taken either verbatim or with minute alterations from the American work. The book had been translated into Russian by a KGB-related institute in the early 1990s.

The thesis writer does cite the King-Cleland work as one of his 47 sources, but gives no indication that paragraphs and pages are being taken unchanged from the earlier work.

"Somebody was cutting corners," said Mr. Gaddy, "whether it was Mr. Putin or whoever cut-and-pasted the work for him."

Western researchers have reported continual frustration since Mr. Putin took power in obtaining a copy of the dissertation. Mr. Danchenko said the Brookings researchers learned that a Moscow technical library had a text of the work in its electronic files.

A friend signed up as a subscriber to the library and was able to obtain a copy, he said.

Some Putin apologists have tried to explain it away. Though it falls short of Western scholarly conventions, partisans say "Putin's effort should be seen in a Russian, post-Soviet context." Just what is that? I believe it would go easier on Putin if we took it in a Soviet context. We knew they lied and cheated at the KBG, we just didn't think they needed to attach their name to the ideas and actual words in an American book. Pretty soon they'll be stealing the Gettysburg Address and Jefferson's final copy of the Declaration of Independence too.

E. Wayne Merry, senior associate at the American Foreign Policy Council, said dubious academic credential building was common in Eastern Europe and especially the old East Germany, where Mr. Putin served as a KGB agent in the dying years of the Soviet Union. So it was common? It sure makes it easier to get a doctorate. Just steal some lines, everything will be fine. If it's okay to steal an American tank, warplane, or submarine design, I guess a few words can't hurt.

It's the primitive mentality and mores of the KGB and its leaders that really set us back in time a few thousand years. Now it becomes clear. This kind of mentality finds nothing wrong with attacking a small country, killing thousands, putting 200,000 out of their burning homes and driving them from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And what's a little genocide between "friends?"

Was it really quite common for an up-and-coming apparatchik to get a ghostwritten work done to obtain a degree?" People are doing it all the time in Russia. The "pinheads" even questioned "whether Putin even read his dissertation until shortly before he had to defend it."

Mr. Merry noted that, at the time of the dissertation, Mr. Putin was a provincial politician in St. Petersburg, more concerned with impressing visiting German investors than with how a questionable economics degree would look when he was president of one of the world's great powers.

But Mr. Gaddy said Mr. Putin's effort was worth studying even if its key ideas were either thin or borrowed. I should think so! Let's map his psyche and how he comes to the conclusion that one and one is four? Maybe we can learn something from this acquisitive genius.

He noted that the thesis topic -- on how a state can best manage its natural resources -- is a central preoccupation for Mr. Putin as head of one of the world's energy superpowers. So! That's where he arrived at his plan to take over the Georgian pipe line. To turn it on and shut it off whenever Europeans were acting badly, sort of like punishment.

And Vladimir Litvinenko, the rector at the St. Petersburg mining institute that awarded Mr. Putin his degree, has remained close to his former student and is an emerging power in his own right. Of course he is. Putin owes him plenty. Not only the degree, but some of the controversy that he failed to stifle with a stiff rejection of his thesis several years ago.

Mr. Litvienko is a key adviser to the president on energy policy and had been mentioned as a possible future head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom. I can hear him now. "Yes, indeed, he would make a fine puppet over oil. Mr. Medvedev, see that he is given every consideration."

Stories You Should Read

Townhall.com Blogatorium Townhall.com Blogatorium
Monday, September 15, 2008

PLAN B
Posted by GunnyG at 6:59 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
Want to make a liberal miserable? Want to make em pay for all of the times they vote for tax and spenders who then... Read More

Half time thoughts
Posted by Ed Martin at 6:58 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
www.edmartinonline.com Forgive me for not blogging. The NFL season started and I have been occupied rooting for... Read More

re Dinesh D'Souza's thoughts on Islam
Posted by TOTA at 6:51 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
!--{cps..0}--> Dear Dinesh, Your illuminating piece about attitudes in the Muslim world skims too lightly... Read More

Judge Agrees, Patriotic Banner OK for Classroom
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 6:40 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
-By Warner Todd Huston A Federal judge said that it was OK for a Poway, California school teacher to sue... Read More

Did ABC & Gibson Use Camera Trickery To...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 6:40 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
-By Warner Todd Huston Did ABC use particular camera tricks to make Governor Palin look small and powerless in... Read More

More ACORN Vote Fraud Attempts
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 6:40 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
-By Warner Todd Huston The union supporting, Democratic Party pushing, extreme leftist Association of Community... Read More

Disgraced Ex-Labor Chief Helps Feds Snare...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 6:39 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
-By Warner Todd Huston What a career move. From top union chief, to convicted felon, to snitch. News emerged... Read More

Winning the War
Posted by Gary Fisher at 6:28 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
Winning the War The roots of the war are planted so deeply that few, even experts, can define them. It can... Read More

Sex after 50 – Senior Sex
Posted by suresh at 6:25 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
Just because a man or a woman hits the age of 50 doesn’t mean that sex is no longer a part of their lives. In... Read More

Sex and Aging
Posted by suresh at 6:19 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
It’s a fact of life that people need and want to be close to one another, and even though we have no choice... Read More

Steps to Make Your Guy More Romantic
Posted by suresh at 6:14 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
As some individuals might figure out, not all the men out there are in communiqué with their romantic side,... Read More

Testosterone and Sexual Performance
Posted by suresh at 6:10 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
Primarily secreted from the testes and the ovaries of male and female mammals, testosterone is a steroid hormone... Read More

Spots to Stimulate Orgasm in Her
Posted by suresh at 5:58 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
At the risk of upsetting the male population, most men are oblivious to what it takes to arouse their partner to... Read More

Health Insurance Companies West
Posted by Abitun Makenesh at 5:40 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
car insurance in AbernantMedical insurance of company, Western Virginia. Proposing to California the insurance of... Read More

Dangers of Incompetent Internet Users
Posted by David at 5:26 AM on 9/15/2008 | Permalink
I found this story fascinating! Well, if I owned stock or knew someone who owned stock in United Airlines I might... Read More

Had a tough time selling your home? It is being done every day, but only by those who have studied the market and know what they're doing. For less than the cost of a lunch, you can buy the PDF format of the best books on selling houses around: SELLING FAST, We Sold Our House In One Day And You Can Too. . . Read More

Friday, September 12, 2008

It's Anyone's Race, But Obama Runs Scared

With only seven weeks to the election, what John McCain has going for him besides Sarah Palin is a quiet confidence that voters are noticing. Some of the country's best known editorialists have commented on it. It's as if Barak sees Palin as an ingredient in the campaign against which he has no defense. He had his chance, but decided on foreign policy against female voters. He is paying the price, as women swing to the Republicans in a big way.

Krauthammer: How Barack Obama's bubble burst

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Barack Obama's celebrity had peaked - a...

The Main Event for Sept. 12, 2008

Obama reclaims the offensive and reinforces his brand as a new kind of politician by going after McCain's "pig in lipstick" attack. ...

Voice of the People for Sept. 12, 2008

To Voicer Mark Butler: If the Republican convention was cartoonish, then the Democratic convention was an outright fairy tale. ...

Only Barack Obama will truly change course

John McCain's identity crisis has finally come full circle. After losing as the alternative to Bush in 2000, McCain won this year's primary as a Bush Repub...

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan

September 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — A New York Times story by Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti published yesterday said President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

There is always going to be criticism of any order like this, to go after the enemy in an enemy country. But this country, Pakistan, has openly supported our desires to wipe out Al Qaeda and the Taliban--even in their country, but did not want their administrations to topple because of criticism of their own people who like the enemy. After all, they are Pakistanis and other Arabs, perhaps funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I believe this kind of action is long overdue. We have been far to cautious, far to desirous to do the politically and diplomatically correct thing. This action by Bush is right and correct. I hope we get all of them.

I thought you might want to see some of the comments posted in the Times, then you can click over and read the entire story if you have time:

Readers' Comments

1) Good--we should chase terrorists around the world so that they do not arrive here.Hank, Warwick
September 11, 2008 6:45 am

Link

2) It's about time. We should not be in Iraq, but should be going after the true culprits behind 9/11.— Dave, New York City
September 11, 2008 6:45 am

Link

3) It took 7 years for him to sign off on this?

— Kevinusma, Washington, DC Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers

Link September 11, 2008 6:45 am

4) Does anyone smell an October surprise here? Alan

— Alan, Rockville, Md Recommend Recommended by 27 Readers

5) This is completely unacceptable. It is clear that Pakistan has sold itself to the USA. A Taliban leader once said correctly, 'It is better if Pakistan give itself to Indian than sell itself to the USA.'

6) I hope the US looses this so-called 'War on Terror,' in which the USA is the actual terrorist.

7) These raids will only fuel more anti-US, anti-Pakistan, pro-Taliban sentiment.

— John, India Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers

September 11, 2008 6:45 am

Link

8) This should have been done a long, LONG time ago.— curliquedan, Phoenix, Arizona
9) Clearly another foreign policy, strategic, lives lost failure of Bush/McCain.

10) Supporting former Pres. Musharraf and feeding him dollars while being played for fools has been official US policy in Pakistan since 9/11. We can all now clearly see the results.

11) Bush/McCain at War Recap;
Afganistan > Not Won > 7 years

Iraq > Not Won > 5 1/2 years

Pakistan > Taliban regrouped and planning attacks

Osama Bin Laden > Still free and leading Al-Qaeda

Failure for all to see! Casey Jonesed, Charlotte, NC
September 11, 2008 6:45 am

Link

12) If they could track down these terrorists to the villages they sleep in, why couldn't the US set up ambushes on these guys when they crossed back into Afghanistan? It certainly would have avoided embarrassing blunders like these. Instead I guess razing an entire Pakistani village to the ground, while undermining the power of the Pakistani government is the White Houses recipe for stabilization in the region

13) I guess more unilateral arm flexing is what does it for Mr. Bush. I mean it certainly hasn't undermined any of our other international positions thus far...— CAV, VT

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

“The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,” said a senior American official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. “We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.”

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military’s Special Operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

Pakistan’s top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.”

It is unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country. A second senior American official said that the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.

The official did not say which members of the government gave their approval.

Any new ground operations in Pakistan raise the prospect of American forces being killed or captured in the restive tribal areas — and a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda. Last week’s raid also presents a major test for Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, who supports more aggressive action by his army against the militants but cannot risk being viewed as an American lap dog, as was his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf.

The new orders were issued after months of debate inside the Bush administration about whether to authorize a ground campaign inside Pakistan. The debate, first reported by The New York Times in late June, at times pitted some officials at the State Department against parts of the Pentagon that advocated aggressive action against Qaeda and Taliban targets inside the tribal areas.

Details about last week’s commando operation have emerged that indicate the mission was more intrusive than had previously been known.

According to two American officials briefed on the raid, it involved more than two dozen members of the Navy Seals who spent several hours on the ground and killed about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters in what now appeared to have been a planned attack against militants who had been conducting attacks against an American forward operating base across the border in Afghanistan.

Supported by an AC-130 gunship, the Special Operations forces were whisked away by helicopters after completing the mission.

Although the senior American official who provided the most detailed description of the new presidential order would discuss it only on condition of anonymity, his account was corroborated by three other senior American officials from several government agencies, all of whom made clear that they supported the more aggressive approach.

Pakistan’s government has asserted that last week’s raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas.

LEAVE A COMMENT

























Good To See Sarah Palin On TV

Palin: ABC Spells Out TV Interview Plan With Charlie Gibson

September 11, 2008

Charles Gibson will do multiple interviews with Alaska Gov. and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin
in Wasilla and Fairbanks, Alaska, Thursday and Friday that will air on virtually every ABC News telecast.

Sarah Palin

The first of those interviews will take place Thursday and will air on that evening’s World News, with more on Thursday’s Nightline and Friday’s Good Morning America, although there may be another interview Thursday after World News wraps that will be included on Friday’s Good Morning America.

Palin will also subsume Friday’s 20/20, which is being called The Interview: Sarah Palin with Charles Gibson.

A large portion of Gibson’s sit-downs with Palin will air on the newsmagazine. ABC News correspondent Kate Snow will also have a report about Palin’s personal and professional background. And This Week’s George Stephanopoulos will moderate a live roundtable discussion on the state of the presidential race. Panelists for that roundtable are still being worked out.

Since she burst onto the national stage less than two weeks ago as Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) surprise running-mate pick, the campaign has declined to make Palin available for media appearances citing attacks on the her qualifications and intrusions into her private life, specifically the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol.

Several speakers — including Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Palin herself — fired broadsides at the media during speeches at last week’s Republican National Convention.

Campaign manager Rick Davis told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace Sunday that Palin would not do any interviews “until the point in time when she’ll be treated with respect and deference.”

The McCain campaign offered Palin to ABC News and Gibson, specifically, according to the network. They also set the timing of the interviews, the first day of which will coincide with the deployment of Palin’s eldest son, Track, to Iraq.

All of this has made Gibson’s interview something of a national obsession, with everyone from Maureen Dowd to Keith Olbermann to the Anchorage Daily News and the public suggesting questions for Gibson.

Nearly 500 people wrote in to The World Newser, the World News blog, with questions for Gibson to ask Palin.

“We’ve read every post,” World News senior producers wrote. “We’ve divided them by subject (interestingly, Iraq topped the list); and we’ve given a stack to Charlie. He — and we — appreciate the input.”

By contrast, when Gibson interviewed McCain during the Republican National Convention, there were 105 questions posted.

Posted in "This Week", ABC, Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, Good Morning America, Iraq, Kate Snow, McCain, Nightline, Obama, Palin, TV, World News, interview, news, personal, politics, professional

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Washington Post Critical of Palin's Expenses

Here's the first of a three-part article by the Washington Post which is both critical and complimentary of Sarah Palin's expenses while mayor and governor. It is complimentary because the Post reporters were professionals in getting both sides, and on balance Palin comes out on top. I commented to the story because it made me mad. My comments were printed on the Post's blog, surprisingly, because I was critical of the newspaper and of the New York Times and their treatment of Republican candidates generally.
Read my comment, then hit the link below and go to the Post story and leave an appropriate comment. Thanks, Don White

Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home

Taxpayers Also Funded Family's Travel

Audio
Ed O'Keefe talks to Washington Post's investigative reporter James Grimaldi, who is working from Alaska, about documents showing that Gov. Sarah Palin billed Alaska taxpayers for travel expenses for her and her family.

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 9, 2008; Page A01

ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by The Washington Post.

ad_icon

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show.

Gubernatorial spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Monday that Palin's expenses are not unusual and that, under state policy, the first family could have claimed per diem expenses for each child taken on official business but has not done so.

Before she became the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee, Palin was little known outside Alaska. Now, with the campaign emphasizing her executive experience, her record as mayor of Wasilla, as a state oil-and-gas commissioner and as governor is receiving intense scrutiny.

During her speech at the Republican National Convention last week, Palin cast herself as a crusader for fiscal rectitude as Alaska's governor. She noted that she sold a state-owned plane used by the former governor. "While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for," she said to loud applause.

Speaking from Palin's Anchorage office, Leighow said Palin dealt with the plane and also trimmed other expenses, including forgoing a chef in the governor's mansion because she preferred to cook for her family. The first family's travel is an expected part of the job, she said.

"As a matter of protocol, the governor and the first family are expected to attend community events across the state," she said. "It's absolutely reasonable that the first family participates in community events."

The state finance director, Kim Garnero, said Alaska law exempts the governor's office from elaborate travel regulations. Said Leighow: "The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it."

The popular governor collected the per diem allowance from April 22, four days after the birth of her fifth child, until June 3, when she flew to Juneau for two days. Palin moved her family to the capital during the legislative session last year, but prefers to stay in Wasilla and drive 45 miles to Anchorage to a state office building where she conducts most of her business, aides have said.

Palin rarely sought reimbursement for meals while staying in Anchorage or Wasilla, the reports show.

dusanotes (Don White) wrote:
Palin can well answer any criticism of her expense account by looking at the bottom line and comparing it with any of the other candidates and her predecessor in the governorship. The bottom line is that she has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars comparing the past governor's expenses and when comparing those of any governor in the country. The Palins are not extravagant people.

Now that the Washington Post has vetted Palin, get on with vetting Obama who has been running for the past two years. There's a lot of graft and dishonesty about his expenses, the Democrat slush funds, his house, his lot, his relationship with Tony Rezko and George Soros and his protective arm and do-nothing, say-nothing policy about the crooks that were running Freddie and Fannie that were dealt a death blow with the government taking them over this week, and the many favors Obama has received from his friends where there is no accounting and little or no oversight, especially by the Washington Post and the NY Times, two of the most liberal pro-Democrat papers in the country. Don White, Florida, a conservative writer and blogger.
http://PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com

Monday, September 8, 2008

We Need McCain-Palin To Clean Up Washington

September 8, 2008

By Don White

Orlando, FL—In a previous post today I asked some pertinent questions about the government takeover of Fannie and Freddie. I have studied the questions and now it’s time for some answers.

Question One Through Three: I asked why Bush and Secretary Paulson hadn’t come on prime-time national television to explain both what they did and where we’re going. I can’t answer why they haven’t appeared, except to conjecture that they haven’t the slightest idea of where they’re going.

That being the case, may I offer some advice. America is not a socialistic country. Taking over a function of the private enterprise should not become a habit. In fact, there is a way to reverse this “error” and to do it right.

The president should announce that Fannie and Freddie will be chopped up into several—maybe two dozen—small private mortgage guarantee companies completely disassociated from the government. They would be private companies capable of purchasing mortgage paper just as the F&F twins do right now. Except, there will be one huge difference. Never again will the American taxpayer be placed on the hook for failure of a mortgage guarantee company. These companies must buy good paper, loans that will have expectation of full payoffs.

That means banks and mortgage companies must cease operating like they have in the past, That is, offering credit to people who have no expectations of paying their mortgages each month. That’s precisely what got us into this mess. The sub-prime mortgage business was booming and someone was making some money, but it sure wasn’t Mr. And Mrs. John Q Public. They are only the sad goats of all this nonsense. “Nonsense” is too kind a word.

What banks, mortgage companies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did was outright criminal and someone should go to jail. But I would rather someone other than taxpayers foot the bills, which I estimate could range from $50 billion to $200 billion.

What that will result in is a big tax increase for everyone. Oh, lawmakers will delay the impact. Paulson will merely print some more money and our buying power will take a beating commensurately because the Chinese will exact an arm and a leg for future financing, knowing our paper just depreciated ten percent.

Who is at fault? The Democrat high rollers and their slush funds.

"What? Why do you people always blame the Dems?" we will hear from the liberal left.

"Because they’re at fault, especially in this one," I'll reply. There were a lot of conservative financial gurus who saw this coming. They warned politicians on both sides of the isle what was coming down. They said we needed a vast cleanup of the financial mess in this country. But strong Democrats always stood in the way of reform—people like Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.); Byron Lewis Sr., chairman & CEO Uniworld Group; Sanford Weill, chairman & CEO Citigroup and H. Carl McCall, New York State Comptroller, and Richard A. Grasso former chairman of the NY Stock Exchanges, and benefactors of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/Push Coalition.

Big money went to fake do-good concerns like Acorn and the Open Society Institute -- an institution committed to George Soros' militant ideology of toppling the "fascist" tyranny of the United States, which he says must undergo "de-Nazification" in favor of "justice." As writer Michelle Malkin said, “The mob at Obama-endorsing MoveOn, purveyors of the "General Betray Us" smear against Commanding General, MNF-I, David Petraeus, is the most notorious Soros-backed political arm. But scores of other activist nonprofits have received Soros funding under the guise of doing nonpartisan "community" or "social justice" work -- and it is exactly such leftist activist groups that would be first in line for the Democratic Party/Obama's "social investment" seed money.”

Point in case: ACORN. As I've reported before, Obama's old friends at the Chicago-based nonprofit now take in 40 percent of their revenues from American taxpayers. They raked in tens of millions in federal antipoverty grants while some of their operatives presided over massive voter fraud and others were implicated in corporate shakedowns and mortgage scams across the country. Soros has donated at least $150,000 to the group, according to Investor's Business Daily, and "heads a secretive rich-man's club called 'Democracy Alliance' that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN."

Substituting for Rush Limbaugh today (September 8, 2008), Jason Long said the reason Republicans haven’t been able to clean up the partisan “waste” in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae financials is because certain powerful democrats didn’t want it cleaned up. He said one of the reason these institutions were not well enough funded to handle the unusually high number of mortgage note failures is because they had donated their “rainy-day funds” to Acorn, the Open Society Institute and other Democrat social investment groups—and he mentioned $400,000 and $600,000 going to these two groups in a given year, and there are more. It’s kind of like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition that sucked The New York Stock Exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars each year until scandal caused its leader to be discredited and fired.

Once the spigot is turned on, there's no plugging it up.

The McCain-Palin ticket has promised to reform Washington. This is just the place to start putting people like Frank and Rangle out of business.

I doubt there will even be indictments, but there should be.

To Sum it Up, here are the answers to this mornings Post:
Orlando--Secretary of Finance Henry Paulson has some tall explaining to do. The American taxpayer demands it. He recently took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ousted their president and CEO and assumed management of two very poorly financed and managed companies.

First, President Bush and Paulson should come on national television and explain these actions. In a free country with a market-driven economy what the administration did is tantamount to something you hear about in dictatorships, not in America. Here's what they could say:

While it’s true that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil . . at home and around the globe," we need to turn Washington upside down. We need to get rid of corrupt politicians and get the U.S. government out of the mortgage guarantee business. McCain and Palin are just the people to do it. This is part of the reason liberal congressmen like Barney Frank insist on criticizing Sarah Palin and believe even her family is fair game. She could hurt Barney and his kind, and hurt him bad!

I strongly suggest we chop up Fannie and Freddie and don’t guarantee any more loans. The good will of the taxpayers is fragile. It won’t take much more of this bailout and guarantee stuff to create a real taxpayer revolt in America.

But by the same token, I believe THIS LAST TIME a bailout is necessary. "A failure would affect the ability of Americans to get home loans, auto loans and other consumer credit and business financing. And a failure would be harmful to economic growth and job creation," Hank Paulson said. We know that, but why wasn't action been taken sooner? Just reorganize the whole thing differently to insulate and protect American taxpayers in the future

I still ask question two. Lest you forgot, here it is again:
Question Two: If things are so bad, why didn't you (Bush Administration) see it coming? Why did you wait so long to take such drastic action? Is someone in Washington falling asleep? Why weren't the Democrats calling for Bush to do something before now? The answer to that is the graft they were aiding and abetting. It was to the Democrats’ best interest to look the other way and they did. In a real sense, you could say the Democrats caused this whole mess, and that is true; but that, too, would be an oversimplification of a complex problem.

Question Three: How much? How much is this going to cost you and me, Mr. and Mrs. American taxpayer? Why doesn't anyone have a handle on the costs? Or is it so bad you can't face us with the facts? Come on, George Bush, you owe a full accounting, and not next week but right now. Someone knows precisely how bad things got. Someone also knows how much it may cost the U.S. taxpayers. Freddie Mac alone will cost the American taxpayer more than $12 billion. I’m still estimating the whole mess could cost us $50 billion to $200 billion. Whoops! Barak Obama, there went your big money you were going to give to Africa. We just don’t have it anymore. You and your fellow Dems stole that money and more from the taxpayers long ago...




.







Mortgage News Tops Them All

Political Disconnect chose to lead today's stories with the blockbuster one on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac getting gobbled up by the Feds.

Apparently, the best journalistic minds in America agreed with me. Slate highlights all the big papers and they're right in line with my blog. "The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times lead with the news the papers have been previewing all weekend as the U.S. government officially took control of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac yesterday."

We asked in the blog a lot of questions. But one that jumps out and doesn't need explanation is this: The government now has control over the companies that fund around two-thirds of all new home mortgages. Or, as the LAT succinctly summarizes: "Washington's move means the federal government will directly back the great majority of the nation's home mortgages."

And if the magnitude of that fact is still not clear, the papers all make sure to emphasize that this is A Big Deal. The NYT calls it "a seismic event" and the Wall Street Journal characterizes it as the "most dramatic market intervention in years."

Maybe I should have bought some of that $1.00 stock.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

McCain-Palin Ticket More Lincolnesque Than Demo Senators Who Come Off Looking Like Two Worn Out Senators

Palin comes out throwing punches

Governor Palin may lose the foreign relations debate with her counterpart Senator Biden, but she wins hands down in the hearts of the average American.

Like Abraham Lincoln, she calls a spade a spade. It's Mr. Smith goes to Washington, only with a female twist. She slammed Obama for "saying one thing in Scranton and another in San Francisco," argued that he had written two memoirs but never authored a major piece of legislation and asked what he would do "when those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot," a reference to the stage where Obama gave his acceptance speech last week. Video Watch Palin attack Obama »

Thousands of delegates at a party conference roared their approval at Palin's speech, bursting into chants of "Sarah! Sarah!" and "Zero! Zero," the amount of executive experience Republicans say Obama has accumulated.

LA Times:

Sarah Palin touts her executive experience
The governor says she knows how to be a leader.

September 5, 2008

"Here is something you might not have thought about much lately, but by the time Nov. 4 rolls around, trust us, you will know it better than you know your own mother: Governors make decisions. They are chief executives. They veto stuff. They never vote 'present.' "

Sarah Palin took a few minutes during a luncheon for the Republican Governors Assn. last Thursday to press the argument that her 21 months as Alaska's governor have given her a leg up on her opponent, or rather, her ticket mate's opponent.

She did not mention Sen. Barack Obama by name, but there was no question whom she meant when she said, "There is a big difference between the legislative and executive branch in our experience. . . . We are expected to lead and take action and not vote just 'present.' " (When Obama was in the Illinois Legislature, not getting any executive experience, he voted "present" rather than "yea" or "nay" more than 100 times.)

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Russia Acting Like They Own Georgia



See outline of Georgia Above. Look at European Map directly above. Georgia is located on the far lower right with Armenia on it's right and the tip of Russia on it's left, then Moldova. See what an advantageous sea port Porti, Georgia must be. Without Georgia, Russia is landlocked regarding the Black Sea.

The Problem With The Russian Empire is Putin's Hubris

Russia didn't always control Georgia, just as the heads of the Russian leaders weren't always swelled. There was a time before the Tsar annexed Georgia in the eighteenth century that it existed very well, with it's grape growers on hills and looked somewhat like Southern California grape country. In his book The Future Belongs To Freedom, Eduard Shevardnadze described it as a "beautiful and bounteous land."

Georgia is in the south, near the Black Sea and has some strategic ports such as Poti that the Russians are tying up.

When Russia attacked Georgia they closed off this strategic Georgian port that was to have played an important role in President Mikhail Saakashveli's plan to revitalize his country. He wanted to transform this Black Sea port so that it could accommodate even bigger payloads of goods from all over the world and improve Georgians' standard of living and that of it's neighbors.

A story out of Britain from Telegraph.co.UK by Christopher Hope on August 11, 2008, just three days after Russia invaded Georgia, told how just five months earlier President Saakashvili was touting a $70 million deal "which he hoped would transform the Black Sea port of Poti, creating 20,000 jobs over the next five years."

Under the deal Arab investors were set to plough $200 million into developing a new port alongside the existing commercial port, trebling Poti's capacity to 25 million tons of cargo a year.

Now those plans could lie in ruins as the port has been cut off by Russian troops and the 51,000 inhabitants of Poti must put those plans on hold until the country can expel the Russians lingering in the vicinity, even at this date, acting as "peacekeeper inspectors" while Putin's real purpose is to terrorize the people with their presence.

Russia's over-running of Senaki, a town 25 miles inland from Poti effectively shut down the country's biggest commercial port.

The move has been starving the country of more than half of its imports of key products like wheat, grain, tinned food and cars. The U.S. is trying to bring in food, medicine, clothing, and other supplies but are being thwarted by the presence of the Russian soldiers. How long that will last is up to negotiations now underway between Russia and Georgia and the amount of international pressure America can mount.

In a story by by Renee Montagne and Mike Shuster, we learned that some aid ships were Diverted From Port Porti which is guarded by Russians.

Listen Now add to playlist

Morning Edition, August 27, 2008 reported that the United States will not dock a Coast Guard ship carrying humanitarian aid in the Georgian city of Poti. Russian forces are posted on the outskirts of the port city. A U.S. embassy spokesman says the ship will dock well south of where Russian and Georgian forces clashed this month.

Giorgi Badrdidze, the acting head of mission at the Georgian Embassy in London, said: "Poti is a vital lifeline for Georgia and Tbilisi because it offers a direct connection to western countries.

"This is a major, strategically important economic target. It imports a huge part of the Caucuses' agricultural products."

Independent experts said that the blockade of Poti would be felt across the regions as products shipped through the Black Sea port feed neighboring countries Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Georgia is situated between both the borders of Europe and Asia, "at the ancient crossroads of the most important routes of migrations of peoples and civilization, where cultures, faiths, and strategic interests of the powerful of the world intersected and clashed, ensuring Georgia an enviable, glorious, but in many ways torturous fate."

Georgia chose Christianity as a state religion in the fourth century, destining it to struggle to preserve national identity and its main foundations: language, letters and faith. Shevardnadze said "...Georgia fought against powerful neighbors, whose designs on the strategically important territory were disguised under the banners of an alien faith. Georgia was subjected to forcible assimilation and the destruction of her culture and methods of farming. Her way of the cross is reflected in the first surviving Georgian literature, The Martyrdom of St. Shushanik, a biographical novel of the torments endured for the faith, which cold not destroy the spiritual freedom of the soul."

It wasn;'t until 1783 that a treaty of alliance was signed between Russia and Georgia. The great power from the north promised to protect the little country (which countries have $140 million versus 7.5 million today). But only 18 years later, 1801, with the manefesto of Emp[eror Alexander I, Georgia was annexed to Russia. The Georgian kingdom was abolished, and bureaucrats from Moscow ran its government. Action provokes counteraction, and the activists for freedom in Georgia joined forces in Russia to oust the tsar and end his kindgom. Many in Georgia saw this as a turning point, the rebirth of nationhood. With the signing of he Brest Peace Treaty, Georgia took advantage of the opportunity to declare it a republic which occurred on May 26, 1918. It ceased to exist three years later, after Red Army detachments marched on Tbilisi.

All of the above once again proves that you can't trust whoever is in power in Moscow. And today it is Medvedev, instructed by Putin. They are ruthless cowards. They mean no good to the common folk of Georgia or of any other people of their commonwealth. Their eyes are only set on riches, expansion, and glory for themselves--in the name of glory for Russia. Is Putin occupied by a demon spirit? Sometimes he appears to be. For one day he can be George Bush's good friend, and the next he is stabbing him in the back with his invasion of Georgia. One day he is the man intent on building a nation using the democratic process, the next day he is bent upon taking territory as in the old days, by force--just as he is doing in Georgia today.

Putin, Go Home. Get Your Troops Out of Georgia NOW!


Thursday, September 4, 2008

Here's The Sarah Palin Speech

September 3, 2008


In these prepared remarks, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin introduces herself to the Republican delegates by talking about her family background and her tenure as the governor of Alaska. She paints herself in the speech as small-town woman, who gets things done and who is an outsider to Washington, D.C. Throughout the speech, she also frequently compares the GOP ticket with the Democratic one. The speech as delivered may vary from the following text from NPR.

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for vice president of the United States.

I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.

I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election against confident opponents at a crucial hour for our country.

And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges and knows how tough fights are won — the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost — there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself — the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Sen. John McCain. The voters knew better.

And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.

He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow — Sept. 11 — he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.

In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between — my strong and kind-hearted daughters, Bristol, Willow and Piper.

And in April, my husband, Todd, and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That's how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other — the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.

He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.

Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.

We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My mom and dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.

And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.

When I ran for City Council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

No one expects us to agree on everything.

But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.

I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.

Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef — although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending — by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

Sen. McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest — and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

Our state budget is under control.

We have a surplus.

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

I suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly 40 billion-dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.

Maybe you have, too.

We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.

And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.

And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Sen. McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency — from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.

Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.

He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.

A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the majority leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.

He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the majority leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

And though both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.

It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a 6-by-4 cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

But if Sen. McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.

It's the journey of an upright and honorable man — the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.

To the most powerful office on Earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pinhole in his cell door as Lt. Cmdr. John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.

As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" — as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.

If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.

Thank you all, and may God bless America."

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Taxes Will Double Under Obama

I have no idea how you plan to vote, but you might want to read the following which can be verified. It comes to AngstBlogger from conservative John Raper.

INTERESTING INFO & TAX COMPARISONS FOR 2009 -CHECK THIS OUT

Verify tax information at
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

TAXES & PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES AFTER 2008 GENERAL ELECTION.

Time to consider your pocketbook:

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN:
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). Mc Cain does not propose
any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA:
28% on profit from ALL home sales

How does this affect you?

If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on
taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size
your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make
from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the
elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their
retirement income.


DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN : 15% (no change)

OBAMA : 39.6%

How will this affect you?

If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college
funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or
reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earn ed
on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax
rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do
absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'


INCOME TAX (find your bracket)

MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reverse all tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama, your taxes will more than double!

How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight
forward.




INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax

How does this affect you?

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been
in their families for generations because they could not afford the
inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose
them to these taxes.


NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.

New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)

New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)

New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....

New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of
medical care as other third-world countries!!!


THE FOREGOING IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF. . . IT SHOULD MAKE YOU
THINK BEFORE YOU CAST YOUR VOTE IN NOVEMBER. IF YOU DON'T OWN ANYTHING
NOW, CHANCES ARE YOU NEVER WILL BECAUSE TAXES ARE GOING TO GET IT ALL.

Please spread the word.

Fred Thompson Speech Transcript

href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93739362">The Republican Convention and Fred Thompson's Speech

Transcript: Former Sen. Fred Thompson's Speech

NPR.org, September 2, 2008 · In these prepared remarks, former Sen. Fred Thompson focuses on John McCain's character. With intimate detail, Thompson talks about McCain's history as a serviceman and prisoner of war. He also calls Gov. Sarah Palin "a breath of fresh air."

Tonight our thoughts are still with our friends and fellow citizens in the Gulf Coast area, and our thanks go to those who have worked so hard to keep them safe. There can be no more important work than this.

But what we are doing at this convention is also important to our country.

We are going to nominate the next president and vice president of the United States of America.

We do so while taking a different view of our country than that of the other party.

Listening to them you'd think that we were in the middle of a great depression; that we are down, disrespected and incapable of prevailing against challenges facing us.

We know that we have challenges ... always have, always will.

But we also know that we live in the freest, strongest, most generous and prosperous nation in the history of the world, and we are thankful.

Speaking of the vice presidential nominee, what a breath of fresh air Gov. Sarah Palin is.

She is from a small town, with small-town values, but that's not good enough for those folks who are attacking her and her family.

Some Washington pundits and media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit. Well, give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the union — and won — over the beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week.

Let's be clear ... the selection of Gov. Palin has the other side and their friends in the media in a state of panic. She is a courageous, successful reformer, who is not afraid to take on the establishment.

Sound like anyone else we know?

She has run a municipality and she has run a state.

And I can say without fear of contradiction that she is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field-dress a moose ... with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.

She and John McCain are not going to care how much the alligators get irritated when they get to Washington, they're going to drain that swamp.

But tonight, I'd like to talk to you about the remarkable story of John McCain.

It's a story about character. John McCain's character has been tested like no other presidential candidate in the history of this nation. He comes from a military family whose service to our country goes back to the Revolutionary War.

The tradition continues.

As I speak, John and Cindy McCain have one son who's just finished his first tour in Iraq.

Another son is putting "country first" and is attending the Naval Academy. We have a number of McCains in the audience tonight.

Also here tonight is John's 96-year-old mother, Roberta. All I've got to say is that if Roberta McCain had been the McCain captured by the North Vietnamese, they would have surrendered.

Now, John's father was a bit of a rebel, too.

In his first two semesters at the Naval Academy, he managed to earn 333 demerits. Unfortunately, John later saw that as a record to be beaten. A rebellious mother and a rebellious father — I guess you can see where this is going.

In high school and the Naval Academy, he earned a reputation as a troublemaker. But as John points out, he wasn't just a troublemaker. He was the leader of the troublemakers. Although loaded with demerits like his father, John was principled even in rebellion. He never violated the honor code.

However, in flight school in Pensacola, he did drive a Corvette and date a girl who worked in a bar as an exotic dancer under the name of Marie, the Flame of Florida.

And the reason I'm telling you these things, is that, apparently, this mixture of rebellion and honor helped John McCain survive the next chapter of his life:

John McCain was preparing to take off from the USS Forrestal for his sixth mission over Vietnam, when a missile from another plane accidentally fired and hit his plane. The flight deck burst into a fireball of jet fuel. John's flight suit caught fire. He was hit by shrapnel. It was a scene of horrible human devastation.

Men sacrificed their lives to save others that day. One kid, who John couldn't identify because he was burned beyond recognition, called out to John to ask if a certain pilot was OK.

John replied that, yes, he was.

The young sailor said, "Thank God"... and then he died. These are the kind of men John McCain served with. These are the men and women John McCain knows and understands and loves.

If you want to know who John McCain is, if you want to know what John McCain values, look to the men and women who wear America's uniform today. The fire on the Forrestal burned for two days. Twenty planes were destroyed; 134 sailors died.

John himself barely dodged death in the inferno and could've returned to the States with his ship.

Instead, he volunteered for combat on another carrier that was undermanned from losing so many pilots. Stepping up, putting his "country first."

Three months later John McCain was a prisoner of war.

On Oct. 26, 1967, on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam, a surface-to-air missile slammed into John's A-4 Skyhawk jet, blowing it out of the sky.

When John ejected, part of the plane hit him — breaking his right knee, his left arm, his right arm in three places. An angry mob got to him, after he landed. A rifle butt broke his shoulder. A bayonet pierced his ankle and his groin.

They took him to the Hanoi Hilton, where he lapsed in and out of consciousness for days. He was offered medical care for his injuries if he would give up military information in return.

John McCain said "No."

After days of neglect, covered in grime, lying in his own waste in a filthy room, a doctor attempted to set John's right arm without success ... and without anesthesia.

His other broken bones and injuries were not treated. John developed a high fever, dysentery. He weighed barely a hundred pounds.

Expecting him to die, his captors placed him in a cell with two other POWs who also expected him to die.

But with their help, John McCain fought on. He persevered. So then they put him in solitary confinement for over two years. Isolation, incredible heat beating on a tin roof. A light bulb in his cell burning 24 hours a day. Boarded-up cell windows blocking any breath of fresh air. The oppressive heat causing boils the size of baseballs under his arms. The outside world limited to what he could see through a crack in a door.

We hear a lot of talk about hope. John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had to survive on. For propaganda purposes, his captors offered to let him go home.

John McCain refused. He refused to leave ahead of men who'd been there longer. He refused to abandon his conscience and his honor, even for his freedom. He refused, even though his captors warned him, "It will be very bad for you."

They were right. It was.

The guards cracked ribs, broke teeth off at the gums. They cinched a rope around his arms and painfully drew his shoulders back. Over four days, every two to three hours, the beatings resumed. During one especially fierce beating, he fell, again breaking his arm. John was beaten for communicating with other prisoners. He was beaten for not communicating with so-called peace delegations. He was beaten for not giving information during interrogations. When his captors wanted the names of other pilots in his squadron, John gave them the names of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers.

Whenever John was returned to his cell — walking if he could, dragged if he couldn't — as he passed his fellow POWs, he would call out to them. He'd smile ... and give them a thumbs up. For 5 1/2 years this went on. John McCain's bones may have been broken, but his spirit never was.

Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president. But it does reveal character.

This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders. Strength. Courage. Humility. Wisdom. Duty. Honor.

It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the presidency?"

He has been to Iraq eight times since 2003. He went seeking truth, not publicity. When he travels abroad, he prefers quietly speaking to the troops amidst the heat and hardship of their daily lives. And the same character that marked John McCain's military career has also marked his political career. This man John McCain is not intimidated by what the polls say or by what is politically safe or popular.

At a point when the war in Iraq was going badly and the public lost confidence, John stood up and called for more troops. And now we are winning.

Ronald Reagan was John McCain's hero. And President Reagan admired John tremendously.

But when the president proposed putting U.S. troops in Beirut, John McCain, a freshman congressman, stood up and cast a vote against his hero because he thought the deployment was a mistake.

My friends ... that is character you can believe in.

For years, members of Congress, Republican and Democrat alike, have gouged the taxpayer with secret earmark spending.

Well, he has never sought an earmark.

I've experienced John's character firsthand. In 1993, when I was thinking of running for the Senate, I went to John for advice. He convinced me I could help make a difference for our country. I won that election, and with Republican control of Congress, we reformed welfare. We balanced the budget. And we began rebuilding our military.

What I remember most about those years is sitting next to John on the Senate floor as he led battle after battle to change the acrimonious, pork-barreling, self-serving ways of Washington.

The Senate has always had more than its share of smooth talkers.

And big talkers.

It still has.

But while others were talking reform, John McCain led the effort to make reform happen — always pressing, always moving for what he believed was right and necessary to restore the people's faith in their government.

Confronting when necessary, reaching across the aisle when possible, John personified why we came to Washington in the first place.

It didn't always set too well with some of his colleagues.

Some of those fights were losing efforts.

Some were not.

But a man who never quits is never defeated.

Because John McCain stood up, our country is better off.

The respect he is given around the world is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad but because of decades of clearly demonstrated character and statesmanship.

There has been no time in our nation's history, since we first pledged allegiance to the American flag, when the character, judgment and leadership of our president was more important.

Terrorists, rogue nations developing nuclear weapons, an increasingly belligerent Russia.

Intensifying competition from China.

Spending at home that threatens to bankrupt future generations. For decades an expanding government ... increasingly wasteful and too often incompetent.

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.

History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

Together, they would take on these urgent challenges with protectionism, higher taxes and an even bigger bureaucracy. And a Supreme Court that could be lost to liberalism for a generation. This is not reform. And it's certainly not change.

It is basically the same old stuff they've been peddling for years. America needs a president who understands the nature of the world we live in. A president who feels no need to apologize for the United States of America.

We need a president who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

My friends, we need a leader who stands on principle. We need a president, and vice president, who will take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking. And we need a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade. The man who will be that president is John McCain.

In the days ahead at this convention, you will hear much more about what John will do as president — what he will do on the economy, on energy, on health care, the environment. It is not my role tonight to explain that vision. My role is to help remind you of the man behind the vision. Because tonight our country is calling to all of us to step up, stand up, and put "country first" with John McCain.

Tonight we are being called upon to do what is right for our country. Tonight we are being called upon to stand up for a strong military ... a mature foreign policy ... a free and growing economy and for the values that bind us together and keep our nation free. Tonight, we are being called upon to step up and stand up with John just as he has stood up for our country.

Our country is calling. John McCain cannot raise his arms above his shoulders. He cannot salute the flag of the country for which he sacrificed so much. Tonight, as we begin this convention week, yes, we stand with him.

And we salute him. We salute his character and his courage. His spirit of independence, and his drive for reform. His vision to bring security and peace in our time, and continued prosperity for America and all her citizens.

For our own good and our children's, let us celebrate that vision, that belief, that faith so we can keep America the greatest country the world has ever seen.

God bless John McCain and God bless America.

Source: Republican National Convention

Fred Thompson Nailed It Last Night!


Here in a few graphs are some of the best economic lines in Fred Thompson's speech last night:


"We need a president who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

"Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

"No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

"They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform."

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Inaction by NATO and The EU Caused The Georgian War?


War in Georgia: What's Happening?

One blog said, during the Russian-Georgian War that it was :"a little difficult to figure out precisely what's happening in Georgia."

Before the war Lili Di Puppo failed to get all the straight scoop from a Georgian official, but she got enough of it and drew the right conclusion as evidenced by her headline:"What is Happening in Georgia Is A Clear Attempt By Russia to Redesign Eastern Europe"

It's not difficult to blog there, The Caucaz europenews. Before the war she conducted an interview with Temur Iakobashvili, Georgia’s State Minister for Issues of Reintegration which we will reprint:

You declared in Brussels that the risk of war with Russia is close. Was this declaration intended as a wake-up call for the European Union or is the Georgian government genuinely considering military action?

I made a longer statement and in this longer version I provided rationale to explain why I think we are close to war. The information I gave was that we know Russia’s behaviour very well. We are enormously alarmed when we see quite intensive anti-Georgian propaganda in the Russian media, when we see not only talk, but also very active actions from the Russian side such as illegally moving troops to Georgian territory and violating all sorts of agreements. For example, I do not know since when paratroopers are considered peacekeepers…

Russians refer to an agreement allowing them to have a certain number of peacekeepers on Abkhaz territory…

Yes, it is true that they have an opportunity to increase the number of peacekeeping troops to 3,000, but the first question is what sort of troops. Second, there is a procedure on how this troop increase should happen. Third, the equipment Russians can have is limited and none of the documents talk about having artillery. When we see Russian offense forces entering Georgian territory, it is a violation of all possible agreements. We see anti-Georgian propaganda in media, we see that these troops were deployed based on false information such as Georgia having increased its troops in the Kodori valley. It is not true and this information has been verified by the UN agencies. Of course, it is very alarming.

Is the Georgian government considering military action in response to these moves?

No, the Georgian government is not considering military action as a response to these Russian deeds. We showed our restraint, we will continue to show our restraint and we still have a lot of opportunities to avert war. In this regard, important steps should be taken not only in Georgia, but also outside of Georgia, particularly by Europe.

What were the outcomes of your discussions in Brussels? What concrete steps does Georgia expect from the EU?

These steps are under discussion. Generally, the most important thing now is to avert war and second to think about new forms of negotiations and new formats for negotiations. The EU has already endorsed President Saakashvili’s new peace plan, but we have to see more concrete developments. We believe that it would be very important to deploy another type of ground operation other than Russian peacekeepers. We have several ideas. All of them are under discussion and we will see which ones prevail.

Why do you think it is in the EU’s interest to support Georgia?

It is the EU's job to support Georgia because we are talking about the European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Energy Security Policy and all other policies that are important for the EU. In this regard, what is happening in Georgia is a clear attempt by Russia to redesign Eastern Europe. This is why I think the EU cannot remain neutral on the sidelines.

At the same time because of energy interests, the EU refrains from adopting a confrontational position towards Russia...

They do not have to confront Russia. They just have to avert Russia’s irresponsible actions.

Do you see a link between Russian actions in Abkhazia and the fact that Georgia was not granted a NATO Membership Action Plan at the Bucharest Summit?

It is a combination of different factors. The question was not only concerning Georgia’s NATO membership, but also Kosovo, domestic Russian policy and definitely issues related to Georgia’s realistic peace plans with regards to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The combination of these factors is bringing about the Russian behaviour we are facing today.

Do you see the new Saakashvili peace plan as a good basis for negotiations even if the Abkhaz side does not see it this way?

I do not think the Abkhaz side does not see it this way, I think the peace plan has elements that were elaborated together with the Abkhaz side over the past eight years at least. So there is an Abkhaz ownership there and in these circumstances we have to find other negotiating formats besides the UN’s Group of Friends, where the Abkhaz can and should participate.

Since the war, here's where we stand:

Frederick Kagan has been posting regular updates here In his update yesterday afternoon, he offered the following analysis:

• Russia has announced a unilateral ceasefire because its operations have achieved their aims.

• Medvedev and Sarkozy have drafted a document that encapsulates all of Russia’s demands in return for a ceasefire—but not a final settlement, which must still be negotiated [The so-called "final settlement" has not been drafted, but a settlement was signed by both Medvedev and Saakashveli which Russia has already broken. They are masters of deceit and should be thrown in jail.] Sarkozy is discussing that deal with Saakashvili right now.[As we know France's Sarkozy did broker a deal, and Condi Rice of the U.S. participated and convinced Saakashvili to sign it. The deal requires all parties to go back to the positions they had before the war, which Russia has violated. In addition, Russia has voted to recognize Abkahzia and South Ossetia as independent countries, which is an illegal move. Russian troops, not peacekeepers, are stationed in those provinces which are legally still part of Georgia. In addition, Russia has brought in missiles and aimed them at Tblisi].

• So the situation on the ground now legally is that there are two unilateral ceasefires, although the Georgians claim that Russian forces continue their attacks, and the Russian military has laid the predicate for those and further attacks in public statements today [i.e., Tuesday]. The Russian military has also made plain that if a formal ceasefire agreement is not reached, then Russian forces will not withdraw from Ossetia or Abkhazia.

• The Russian military has clearly stated that the objective of its operations was to reduce Georgia’s overall military capability so that Georgia could not again conduct an operation similar to the one it launched in South Ossetia, and for that reason has been attacking targets throughout Georgia.

• Russian leaders repeatedly say that they will not deal with Saakashvili.[He doesn't need to, as Georgia has severed all diplomatic ties to Russia and is dealing with Russia through a third party intermediary, which Russia reportedly disdains]

• The Russian Attorney General has announced that Russian law permits the trial of Saakashvili for crimes under the Russian Federation Criminal Code.[Yet it is Russia that invaded a soverergn nation, killing innocent people, displacing 160,000 Georgians from their homes. Georgians who had lived for centuries in South Ossetia were evicted from their homes, their homes and property confiscated by the Ossetians with big brother backing them up.]

• The Russian Foreign Minister has called for an investigation of Georgian war crimes and the punishment of those ultimately responsible by international tribunals, and has said that Russian citizens victimized by Georgians will be bringing individual actions in appropriate European human rights courts.

• The Russian aim is to force Saakashvili from power, preferably using international legal maneuvers (a la Milosevic), but possibly using Russian law instead or in addition.

• The Russians are maintaining their excessive forces in South Ossetia, and continuing to control Georgia’s airspace and conduct periodic attacks in a flagrant effort to compel an immediate Georgian agreement to their armistice terms, conveyed by Sarkozy.

Russia will not permit South Ossetia and Abkhazia to return to Georgian control, and will move one way or the other to have their independence recognized, and probably soon.

Meanwhile, the U.S., NATO, the EU and the United Nations sit on their hands doing nothing. (The reason NATO does nothing is clear--they refused Georgia membership and, thus, they feel no responsibility. In the UN Russia holds veto power.

In the EU, Russia also holds veto power though they aren't a member. It is in the form of oil. If the EU isn't careful, their winter oil from Russia could be shut down. This is one of the tragedies of this war. That the superpower is doing little to marshal forces behind the tiny 7.5-million-people nation of Georgia (of which 2.5 million are Russian). If this is how we in the West deal with these kinds of Russian-caused crises, we are sending a message to Moscow--a green light, to go ahead and try the same in the Ukraine, where the dynamics are much different. There you have a NATO country of 60 million.

When will someone stand up and shout, STOP! Will it be after Russia has taken the tiny independent Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?


What Now With Romney?


September 2, 2008
Salt Lake City, UT--

Washington Watch

Romney: Political Future in Utah?
Boston Herald: "Mitt Romney -- once a top contender to be John McCain's running mate -- may have suffered a bruised ego when he was passed over for the little known Gov. Sarah Palin, but the ex-Bay State governor emerged as a major player on the national stage, experts said. ... [One] scenario has Romney running for office in Utah, should Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch decide to retire, said Steve Crosby, dean of the McCormack Graduate School at UMass. Romney, he said, is enormously popular in Utah, the center of his Mormon faith and site of his rescue of the 2000 Salt Lake City Olympics."



Romney serving himself at a Newbury, New Hampshire Lincoln Day Dinner while campaigning in 2007 for president. My, times have changed.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Russia Needs a New President


Moscow demonstrations protesting the 1991 coup

Russia Needs Another Mikhail Gorbachev

I've been reading Gorbachev's book The August Coup, The Truth And The Lessons and I can't emphasize enough the goodness of Mikhail Gorbachev.
He was heaven-sent, the right man for Peristroika, the right man to extend long-overdue freedoms and self-determination--both political and economic--to the Russian peoples.

Yet as we pause to consider what took place less than a month ago in Georgia, where "foreign" troops of Russia invaded the sovereign nation, of Georgia, I can see how actions by Russian Prime Minister Vladimere Putin and President Dimetry Medvedev have set back the process 30 years.

The book retells a sad time in the times and life of Russia, a fledgling democracy, carved out of a desire by its people to be free. Its people embraced these freedoms, but soon some of its leaders almost took it away in a brazen act of cowardice, a putsch, a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.


The coup failed, thanks to the resoluteness of Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and others who valued the progress they had made toward carving out a democracy and a free market economy more than a reactionary desire to return to an all-powerful dictatorship known as the Soviet Union. They valued their relationship with the West, particularly with America and President George W. H. Bush, the French, the British, and other European nations. Lucky for Russia, and the world, the good Russians were able to put down the Coup, arrest its leaders and return to "normalcy."

The coup execution was started while President Gorbachev was vacationing in the Crimea, one day before a crucial meeting called the Novo-Ogarevo process where important agreements would be signed, ensuring the democratization of the nation. At Novo-Ogarevo, the country had arrived at the formula--"a Union of Sovereign States," as President Gorbachev stated in his memoirs that made up part of the book, "but that too is now in need of reinterpretation."

The Russian leaders had high hopes for the nation. On page 66 he stated: "... I am quite convinced that the international community will be dealing with a union of sovereign states, with a country in which free democratic states and republics and dozens of nations and national and ethnic groups cohabit voluntarily and with equal rights--acountry in which the most varied cultures and practically all known religions exist side by side and interact, creating a unique cultural and spiritual entity.

"the great Eurasian democracy will become one of the bulwarks of the new world, of its security and of the rapprochement of two continents of building a just world order. The combined foreign policy potential of the new Union will increase thanks to the liberated and original contribution that will be made by the sovereign republics that compose it."

Gorbachev made special mention that the moral and legal foundation of the Union was the declaration of rights and freedoms of the indivdual, "which was approved by the Congress, and the documents defining the guidelines for the transition period and the principles underlying the new Union . This required that each individual state in this confederacy would respect the territorial integrity of other states.

Then on August 8, 2008, for trumped up reasons, Russia invaded Georgia, a "free country" with well known boundaries and displaced 160,000 Georgians, killed thousands, occupying this country for ten to 14 days. Russia unilaterially declared South Osettia and Abkahzia.
both sides were to return their forces to pre-war positions, but Russia has interpreted one of the agreement's clauses as allowing it to set up 4-mile deep security zones, which are now marked by Russian checkpoints.

In addition, in stark contrast to the spirit of the talks leading up to Georgia becoming a free nation, not only have they been invaded, but Russia has missile sites primed and aimed at Tblisi, capitol of Georgia, presumably as some kind of punishment or deterent to keep Georgia out of the two provinces (which belong to Georgia). The rule of law has been fractured.
Russia is no longer looked at as a democratic, forward-looking country.

The invasion has cast grave doubts about the stability and intentions of the former Soviets who have acted more like Tzarist Russia than a freedom-loving republic which respects the laws and principle of free determination. In fact, they have cast a pall over future EU and US relations with this country that not so long ago held so much promise. Now the so-called republic looks more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Refugees who were kicked out of South Ossetia fled into Georgia from those zones and said they had been terrorized, beaten and robbed by South Ossetians.

Georgia severed diplomatic ties with Moscow to protest the presence of Russian troops on its territory, saying as the West does that Russia is in violation of the EU agreement.