Views on the News
April 3, 2010
Views on the News*
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years, a savior of America's future, but foretells doom for Democrats for years to come. Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents at 44%, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace. That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America. Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness. Americans are starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track, and all because of Barack Hussein Obama.
(“Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation” by Gary Hubbell dated February 28, 2010 published by The Aspen Times at http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20100228/ASPENWEEKLY/100229854 )
The Democrat political template is very predictable and depends on a complicit liberal Mainstream Media (MSM) to cover up and obfuscate for shortcomings in policy execution. The Democrat political strategy to inundate, exaggerate, obfuscate, and inoculate policies is evident in domestic policy initiatives as well as foreign policy efforts. The process begins with a classic Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm the public with “crisis” after “crisis” that only Democrats can successfully address. These “crises” are many times based on real national problems, but are exaggerated and personalized to manufacture the idea of impending doom that will appeal to the emotions of the electorate, without factual backing or scientific proof. The housing crisis, the banking crisis, the automotive industry crisis, the climate change crisis, and now the health care crisis all focused on real problems, but hyperbole and exaggeration ruled the debate. Catastrophic consequences are predicted for inaction, and exaggerated results are guaranteed with Democrat intervention. The liberal MSM acted as a cheerleader during these phases of the policy debate, finding anecdotal evidence and writing puff pieces to support the need for action. Legislation was then crafted that is so huge and complex that it is not understandable by the public or even the Congress, camouflaging government waste and over-reach at every turn. The Bailout bill was $700 Billion and passed without reading, and every major initiative afterwards was over 1,000 pages long, close to $1 Trillion, and unreadable. Once passed visible “low-hanging fruit” aspects are feted while insidious top-heavy bureaucracies are defined and staffed, with organization continuation and expansion as the primary mission. The “saved or created” jobs are a classic example of obfuscation to disguise an absence of any real positive results. Now the MSM plays a vital role covering up initial results that fall well short of “expectations” and the financial justification erodes before our eyes. Never once does the MSM compare real versus actual results, or re-examine the business case, or question the ability to achieve the desired outcomes. The stimulus inability to create jobs and the inconsequential climate improvement promised by the “cap and trade” bill are conveniently ignored by the MSM. The Mainstream Media is an active co-conspirator to government greed and manipulation and has forfeited any credibility as a fair and balanced check and balance of power.
(“Wonder where the next ‘crisis’ will be manufactured” by David Coughlin dated March 31, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/wonder_where_the_next_crisis_w.html )
It is no surprise that Obama is failing to meet America's lofty expectations, since expectations were so high that there was nowhere to go but down. High expectations are based on supercilious rhetoric issued from an individual lacking accomplishment to back up promises. Disappointment is inevitable when the prophecy is refuted by logic and reason. Barack Obama personally cultivated and contributed to unreasonably high expectations by courting over-romantic Americans who chose to overlook his lack of experience and radical past. Dreamers allowed themselves to be willingly swept up in a historic moment so sentimental that it obscured the ability to rationally acknowledge reality. By believing pure, unadulterated nonsense, America proved to be a nation that could be bamboozled by illusory oratory and persuaded by gossamer promises. Barack Obama's triumphant election could only be the direct result of communal reinforcement fostered by millions and millions of beguiled enthusiasts. With only 143 days of actual work experience in the U.S. Senate on Obama's resume, 52% of the popular vote indicated that America strongly believed that an inexperienced ideologue could "fundamentally transform the United States of America." Eloquent self-promoter Obama utilized rousing speeches to cult-like supporters, in tandem with a fawning media repetitively stressing the dawning of a new age. Rather than being wary of a novel self-promoter, voters were ferried along on a wave of enthusiasm, placing high expectations on an individual with no history, empirical or otherwise, of having the capability to run anything, let alone the most powerful nation in the world. Sappy sentimentality has left the country with an ineffectual, ill-equipped leader whose failure is manifest in plummeting poll numbers. A disillusioned electorate is slowly rousing from a schoolgirl crush to the realization that the boy of their dreams is an immature political bully, and perceptions and expectations are not gauges for success.
(“The Wishful Thinking Election of 2008” by Jeannie DeAngelis dated March 27, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_wishful_thinking_election.html )
Obama benevolently accepts the criticism that he is expanding the “nanny state,” but in reality he is more a bully imposing his will on a complacent public to achieve his own agenda. Liberals are often labeled as wanting to bring out the nanny state (the feminine version of a big brother), but this is wrong. A nanny cares for her wards so they can mature into responsible adults able to take care of themselves. The government in the Age of Obama has gone beyond the big brother that watches out and cares for us. Instead, it has becomes the big brother that torments and bullies us and then takes what is rightfully ours: our savings, our freedom, and our futures. But a bully has other desires: a bully cares only about himself and his own greedy will to power; a bully taunts and threatens; a bully holds others in contempt; a bully disregards not only the wishes of those around him but also the rules that may his restrain his power; a bully takes what is not his; and a bully will not stop until people rise up and put an end to him. Very early in 2009, the troika of Obama-Pelosi-Reid sought to expand the power of the federal government over states, businesses and us by all but nationalizing the American auto industry (save Ford), overriding debtor rights and decades of law. They have also taken over chunks of the financial industry and, via their control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much of the housing industry. Education, a local matter, is increasingly becoming a federal one and even the student loan industry has also been brought in-house; the White House, that is. Rules, regulations, taxes, and mandates; the proliferation of unelected czars; the orders and commands; the abuse of power; the diktats-all stuffed down our throats. These are people who have never had to meet a payroll and are strikingly lacking in real-world business experience. It's not their money but ours and bullies take and give to satisfy their whims and not our needs and they want to pay off their allies not our debts. Pelosi-to Reid-to Obama then moved into the major leagues: paving the way to the nationalization of health care. American did not want ObamaCare, and the more they know, the more they rebel against it, but the bullies that rule over us do not care. So why did Obama make healthcare reform the focus of the past year in face of a struggling economy and poor job numbers (not helped by the hyped-up so-called stimulus)? A crisis was just too good to waste (ask Rahm Emanuel), as well as the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress. Therefore, the massive redistribution of wealth that was a goal of Barack Obama all along has been done behind the façade of health care. The three-headed hydra (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) just bullied it through, overcoming opposition among not just Republicans, some Democrats but also most Americans. They engaged in financial gimmickry that makes Ponzi schemes look elementary. They misused parliamentary procedures, customs, broke promises and rules. A bully does not care about your money, except in so far he schemes to make it his money. But in the end, bullies become hated figures, and we have reached that point. Congress is held in very low esteem; generic Democrats poll badly; a recent poll found Pelosi has an 11% favorability rating which beats the pants off of Harry Reid's 8% favorability rating. A CNN poll found that 56% of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful that it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. It gets worse for the Democrats, since a Rasmussen poll reveals that "only 21% of the people believe the US government is governing with our consent." Barack Obama himself is listing as well; his job disapproval rating tops his approval rating by a significant percentage. We just don't believe much of what he says anymore-and now recognize him for what he is: a bully who rules but does not govern. The American people are willing to fight to protect the freedoms and futures for themselves and generations to come, and this November 2010 and 2012, they will be heard, loud and clear.
(“Big Brother Becomes Big Bully” by Ed Lasky dated March 29, 2010 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/big_brother_becomes_big_bully.html )
Socialists believe that the way to paradise is for governments to own "the means of production," but lesser measures are just as effective accomplishing the same objectives. Decades ago even democratic countries such as France and Britain nationalized considerable swathes of their economies to achieve "social justice." That didn't work so well; therefore, since the days of Margaret Thatcher there have been wave after wave of privatizations in Europe and around the world. Today's neo-socialists are smarter than their ancestors, because instead of outright takeovers, they are achieving much the same goal through rigid regulations. ObamaCare is a prime example, since health insurers will eventually be private in name only, as the details of their policies will be dictated by governmental decrees. Entitlements go hand in hand with sweeping, overbearing regulations. President Obama wants higher education in this country to be free of charge, which is why his Administration is pushing for a government takeover of student lending. With such powers it will be but a wee stretch to intrude even further into the governance of the nation's colleges and universities, including, ultimately, admissions. Senator Chris Dodd's recently unveiled package of financial regulatory reforms is a neo-socialist's dream, but it is also destructively stupid. The bill doesn't address the key causes of the recent economic crisis: the Fed's too loose monetary policy, the behavior of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in buying or guaranteeing almost $1.5 trillion in junk mortgages and the failure to properly regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives. In the name of fighting Washington's too-big-to-fail doctrine for major financial institutions, Dodd's bill is a de facto institutionalization of them. Financial outfits that are deemed a threat to financial stability will actually be protected by the government. The bill establishes a $50 billion fund to deal with big failures, but the fact that such a fund exists tells the market that when trouble comes big banks will be saved. Thus these biggies, like Fannie and Freddie, will have lower costs of borrowing (debt is by far the biggest component of their capital) which will put their smaller competition at a crippling disadvantage. With favored access to low-cost debt the big will get bigger, and they will be beholden to Washington. Dodd's scheme would create a new regulatory bureaucracy, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), with sweeping powers for itself (and the Fed). Chief among its tasks would be assessing risk of banks and their products and activities, yet Washington has demonstrated that it is incapable of judging risk. Washington would have vast sway over the operations of the U.S. financial system. In this new world banks would have to get permission from Washington for any innovation. If an institution incurred Washington's displeasure, bureaucrats could order divestitures of businesses or could even put a firm out of business. Nationalizing the U.S. financial system, without formally nationalizing it, would cause Karl Marx to drool in delight.
(“A Grotesquerie” by Steve Forbes dated April 12, 2010 published by Forbes Magazine at http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html?boxes=opinionschanneleditors )
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90% of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported. In its 2011 budget the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion, but the CBO said that the budget would actually generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade. That figure would equal 90% of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40% at the end of fiscal 2008. The President has established a fiscal commission to propose actions to reach his goal of balancing the budget by 2015, except for net interest payments, which CBO projects to total $520 billion that year. The President's budget, however, will generate a $793 billion deficit in 2015, according to CBO. The CBO and the administration expect the deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends Sept. 30, to approximate $1.5 trillion and exceed 10% of GDP, the first time that threshold will have been reached since World War II. Economists disagree over the propriety of running a $1.5 trillion deficit this year as the economy shifts into recovery mode, but they generally agree that budget deficits should proceed along a consistent, downward path as the expansion matures. In a worrisome development, CBO projects that federal budget deficits, after dropping sharply, then will begin to rise continuously from 4.1% of GDP in 2014 to 5.6% in 2020. For the 2016-20 period, CBO estimates that deficits will average more than 5% of GDP, even while assuming the economy will be near full employment, with an average jobless rate of 5% during that same five-year period. The latest alarm comes from Moody's Investors Service, which rates the creditworthiness of governments worldwide, who said the United States' mushrooming debt could threaten its "triple-A" credit rating. OMB Director Peter R. Orszag said last March that "Deficits in the 5% of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable." Obama’s financial policies threaten to morph the Great Recession into the Long Recession, or more likely to ease into the Great Stagnation.
(“CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP” by David M. Dickson dated March 26, 2010 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/
“Obama and America’s 20-year bust” by James Pethokoukis dated March 31, 2010 published by Reuters at http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/31/obama-and-americas-20-year-bust/ )
Ponzi schemes take money from people who think they invested it, give some to others who think it was a partial return on their earlier investments, and the rest is spent on things unrelated to the initial investments. The biggest Ponzi schemes are Social Security and Medicare, since there are no trust funds and payments are given from general funds. These are trillion-dollar scams: Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability; Social Security's is $8 trillion. Unfortunately Congress isn't investigating this scam, because Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing since your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks, and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things, but those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in. In 2010, for the first time, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, will point out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget, and in coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys, not to mention a new medical entitlement, the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy, or inflate the dollar. Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom. More borrowing would mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear. The architects of the government Ponzi scheme welfare state have left us a big mess, and hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.
(“The Entitlement Rip-Off” by John Stossel dated March 25, 2010 published by Reason Magazine at http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/25/the-entitlement-rip-off )
The President apparently wants to do “comprehensive immigration reform,” and the methods used to pass "ObamaCare," which many polls deemed unpopular, will become the model formula for a new damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead progressive agenda? Obama and the leftwing of the Democratic Party intend to turn ten to eleven million illegal immigrants into voters as expeditiously as possible, giving them a permanent national electoral majority based upon a beholden Lumpenproletariat. Any immigrant who plays by the rules to enter this country, adjusts to our public values and obeys our laws should be allowed to earn the full rights of citizenship on schedule. The plan Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham rolled out what amounts to a retread of the Bush-McCain amnesty plan of 2006 and 2007. The plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here. After the health-care fight, we can expect the Obama administration to use the same template to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” by permanently ceasing construction of the still-incomplete border fence; institutionalizing a large guest-worker program; treating illegal residents as de facto citizens in terms of receiving earned-income credits, health care, and general entitlements; and providing virtual amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens. Their legalization of the 11 million illegal aliens hardly lives up to “a tough but fair path forward.” It would require illegals to meet existing requirements for legalization: pass background checks, pay back taxes and learn English. They’d also have to admit breaking the law, pay a modest “fine” and perform community service. They neglect to explain exactly how someone’s fingerprints or other biometric would get checked against that information on the card. Nor is it clear how their approach improves on the simple E-Verify program, which doesn’t require any information beyond what someone already provides on an I-9 form and a corresponding ID people already have. Rather than building on a system of instantaneous electronic verification over a decade in the making, Schumer and Graham waste taxpayers’ investment already made by going a whole new direction. E-Verify already screens out illegal aliens from stealing American jobs, where employers use this easy, fast system. As for employers facing tough sanctions if they “knowingly hired unauthorized workers,” that’s current law. Beefing up enforcement amounts to nothing, either, since that’s already the law. More Border Patrol and border technology is a sham since the senators won’t empower border personnel with new arrest and investigatory powers. Nor will they put up border fencing that might actually deter some illegals from entry. In other words, it will also require the same kind of knockdown, drag-out fight we just saw over health care. Again, far better for the country would be a bipartisan effort to take less-dramatic steps at ending the influx of illegal aliens. The administration has decided that winning another legislative victory in an agenda aimed at remaking America is worth the cost of dividing the country and whipping up heroes and demons and momentum, not compromise, is the order of the day.
(“Schumer and Graham Offer Amnesty Retread” by James R. Edwards, Jr. dated March 26, 2010 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36203
“Next Battle: Immigration” by Victor David Hanson dated March 31, 2010 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/429851/next-battle-immigration/victor-davis-hanson
“Obama’s Greatest Crime” by Ralph Peters dated April 2, 2010 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/02/obama%E2%80%99s-greatest-crime-2/ )
Most of the arguments supporting the health care reform bill just passed by the Democrats in Congress were myths, and most Americans have already seen through the political spin and are not buying the snake oil, and this vision is much clearer outside the Beltway. Most Americans are personally satisfied with their own private health insurance coverage and appreciate the medical advances that save lives and provide miracle cures. Four different polls (Quinnipiac, Bloomberg, CNN and CBS) show the same result: less than 40% of Americans approve of the health care bill that the President just signed. There are significant constitutional questions about requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Congressional Democrats, disregarding the will of the people and dressing their action in high-sounding rhetoric, rammed through Congress their unpopular and disastrous plan for “transforming” America into a Cuban, British, Canadian or French image. The real life record of government control is a long way from matching the soaring rhetoric that has dominated the media coverage of the health care debate. Further, in those countries where massive government intervention has replaced free market enterprise, the reality is far short of the utopian promises and the policies that have been spun out so recklessly and misleadingly. Price controls, inevitably, limit innovation, and if that happens to medical research and technological advancement, the results will be disastrous. ObamaCare is all about redistributing wealth and putting a vast segment of the economy under bureaucratic control. The false promise of something for nothing, the utopian scheme of everybody having top-quality health care coverage and it not costing anybody any more than they are currently paying, is the biggest myth of all. The newest Rasmussen poll shows that 54% of Americans want ObamaCare to be repealed, with the vast majority of those 54% “strongly” supporting repeal. Soon we will be subjected to a propaganda blitz to explain to us just how much better off we will be with less freedom, less money, and worse health care. Obama will be remembered: as the man who accelerated America’s mad dash toward bankruptcy; as the leader who promoted a culture of dependency; and as the figure who sacrificed a dream of national unity upon the altar of big government liberalism. It is true that Obama is now a President of consequence and almost all of those consequences are bad, and now outright Repeal may be the only answer.
(“What You Get With Free Health Care” by Janice Shaw Crouse dated March 29, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2010/03/29/what_you_get_with_free_health_care
“ObamaCare’s Consequence” by Matthew Continetti dated April 5, 2010 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obamacare%E2%80%99s-consequence )
Obama plans to sign a nuclear weapons reduction treaty, New START Treaty (NST), in Prague which is a small step in the right direction, but limited in scope and minimal in impact. This NST will reduce our deployed nuclear warheads some 650 down to 1,550, carried on no more than 700-800 missiles and bombers. In 2002, the “Moscow Treaty” was ratified reducing U.S. deployed weapons from 6,000 allowed under the 1991 START treaty to 2,200, a significant 63% reduction—more the twice the percentage reduction achieved in the new treaty and nearly six times the reduction in absolute numbers of warheads. Advocates of this treaty believe it will help end the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Pyongyang and Tehran. It is unclear how this treaty will improve the current watered-down additional sanctions against Iran which do nothing but call for the enforcement of existing sanctions which (1) are not now being enforced and (2) would not make any difference. For Americans worried about a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea, or a bullying Russia and a rising China, this agreement is at best a distraction. One possible serious flaw in the treaty may be that the allowable numbers of U.S. missiles and bombers may be too small to allow for the continued deployment of an effective and fully survivable Triad of missiles, submarines and bombers. Any reduction in nuclear warheads and/or delivery vehicles is a step in the right direction, but realistically NST will do very little to limit nuclear proliferation around the world.
(“New START Treaty Not a Big Deal” by Peter Huessy dated March 30, 2010 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36250 )
There appears to be a concerted effort among the political Left and many mainstream media people to demonize and marginalize the expanding citizen-based movement known as the TEA Party movement. This effort flows from both a fear of what these TEA Parties represent and a contempt for everyday Americans. Senior administration officials deride them, as do liberal Congressional Democrats. These elitists characterize the TEA Partiers as extremists, some drawing analogies between these ordinary citizens and right-wing militias, fanatics, and religious zealots. Some members of Congress are even saying that these TEA Party people are racist, which is pretty much the worst label that can be slapped on you in modern politics. Many leftist talking heads in the media parrot this message, with their own biting editorial, adding that some in the TEA Party crowd are dangerous. Some talking heads, including some Hollywood actors and others who don’t seem to have any credentials as policy analysts but are nonetheless given air time, are really playing up the racism angle, and even suggest that some TEA Party attendees may be domestic terrorists. Fake anger and indignation are the oldest weapons in the Marxist arsenal, and the Marxists now running the Washington show are following the "Reichstag fire" strategy: seizing on a momentary outrage about perceived violence, magnify it, blame it on the enemy even in the absence of evidence, and use it as a distraction from what they themselves are doing to harm this country. Agents of big government and their boosters in the mainstream media seem determined to throw cold water on this growing grassroots movement that is a reaction to the Obama administration’s power grab of the growth and expansion of this country’s central government. It is the frustrating helplessness of citizens who revere the Founding Fathers and the genius of the Constitution that they wrote, who actually believe the words of the Constitution mean what they say, not more and not less. They who watch politicians and the courts stretch and bend that Constitution -- finding "rights" not enumerated, powers never granted, meanings unimagined -- believe that their country is being redefined without their consent. They all have two things in common: They all want smaller government; oppose the trampling of the Constitution embodied in these efforts to radically expand the size and scope of government; and want this utterly-ludicrous spending binge to end before it bankrupts all of us. There’s nothing extremist about the TEA Party agenda, because Common Sense is never extreme. The TEA Party quiet rage abides, waiting till it can be expressed in that silent place behind the curtain where the ballot lists the names that they have now committed to an angry memory.
(“Demonizing Everyday Americans” by Ken Blackwell dated March 28, 2010 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2010/03/28/demonizing_everyday_americans
“America’s Quiet Anger” by James P. Gannon dated March 30, 2010 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/30/americas-quiet-anger )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Individual issue updates this week include:
· Economy at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/economy.php
· Education at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/education.php
· Middle East at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/middleeast.php