RTCS

Views on the News

June 20, 2009

 

Views on the News*

Victor Davis Hanson diagnosed that the first thing to suffer in the Obama Administration is the truth… “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Obama’s own assertions that he was a “student of history” and “Words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up” are refuted by his own words. Barack Obama has a disturbing habit of contradicting his past declarations as if spoken words did not mean much at all. His previous pronouncements simply have been ignored to the point of making it seem they were never really uttered at all, and never acknowledged. Politicians often go back on earlier promises, and they often exaggerate, but the extent of Obama’s distortions suggests that he has complete confidence that the media will cover for him. He also uses the technique known as “The Big Lie” asserting things that are patently false, but repeated often enough that the perception can replace the facts. On matters of history, we now know that much of what President Obama says is either not factual or at least misleading, and predictably errs on the side of political correctness. At other times, Obama throws out historical references that are deliberately incomplete, emphasizing only the parts that support his argument, conveniently ignoring facts that refute his assertions. He also uses the “noble lie” that assumes that facts are to be cited or ignored in accordance with the intended aim. Why has President Obama developed a general disregard for the truth, in a manner far beyond typical politicians who run one way and govern another, or hide failures and broadcast successes? First, he has confidence that the leftist Mainstream Media will not be censorious and will simply accept his fiction as fact. Second, Obama is a postmodernist who believes that all truth is relative, and that assertions gain or lose credibility depending on the race, class, and gender of the speaker. Third, Obama talks more than almost any prior President, empowering him to pontificate on matters he knows nothing about. Finally, our President is a product of a multicultural education where facts either cannot be ascertained or do not matter, given that the overriding concern is to promote an equality of result among various contending groups. That is best done by inflating the aspirations of those without power, and deflating the “dominant narratives” of those with it. Unfortunately the net impact of his credibility erosion is more and more people, when listening to Obama, are wont to ask “I wonder how much of what he said is actually true?”

 

Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers or hear on the network news since Americans now trust the internet as their trusted source of unbiased information. A new poll reveals that more Americans would choose the internet as their only news source than TV, radio and newspapers combined, and Internet reports are considered much more reliable that other media. The survey discovered 56% of adults nationwide would pick the Internet if they were allowed just one source for their news, while television, newspapers and radio earned the support of 41% together. The survey revealed 38% believe news from the Internet is the most reliable, followed by television at 17%; newspapers were in third at 16% and 13% chose radio. 82% said they believe five years from now the Internet will be the most dominant information course, with television second, at 13%, and only one-half of one percent thought newspapers would be the most dominant source of news in five years. The Mainstream Media is going out of business rapidly and doesn’t ever realize its increasing irrelevance!

 

Christopher Adamo observed that Obama's first five months have been an unqualified disaster, not just on the security front, but in every aspect of his governing. Once an observer gets past the "hope and change" platitudes, and weighs real outcomes against the empty promises that were offered in such profusion on the campaign trail and during the transition period, it is impossible to assess Obama's tenure as anything else. The entire "bailout" ruse of last October, for which Obama and his party eagerly took credit at the time, has completely failed to produce any of its promised results while costing current and future taxpayers dearly. The bailout sequel, fraudulently presented as an "economic stimulus," has likewise proven to be every bit as much of a pork-laden sham, and an abomination to every citizen who ever held the Constitution in high regard. Administration ventures into the auto industry, replete with the predictable squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars, are proving to be just as dismal of a failure. Car companies that had been hit hard by high gasoline prices and the recession are now being completely strangled by meddling bureaucrats who know nothing about building automobiles, but are fanatically devoted to a leftist political agenda. Gasoline supplies for those cars remain precarious, owing to the fact that Congressional Democrats and Obama refuse to open American territories to oil exploration and drilling. So despite the government's subsidization and takeover of the formerly private auto industry, its prospects for future prosperity are slim to none. The hideous face behind the mask of socialized medicine, that "unholy grail" of the liberal agenda, is beginning to be revealed to the public. Massive costs, restricted coverage, and ultimately, rationing of services that will seriously degrade the quality of care received by Americans, ultimately degrading their health and even their lives. As a result, it is no longer resonating with the public as it did when presented in flowery campaign speeches, adorned in those banalities of "hope and change." Many on the Right are waiting for the American public to find their way past the fraud of the liberal press, and awaken to the abysmal realities of the Obama/Democrat agenda.

 

Ken Klukowski believes Obama’s use of “Czars” to lead his government transformation efforts may an unconstitutional expansion of the executive branch to bypass Congressional oversight. Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. Principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries. White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do. The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. Nearly seven in 10 survey respondents said they had concerns about federal interventions into the economy; including Obama's decision to take an ownership stake in General Motors Corp., limits on executive compensation and the prospect of more government involvement in health care. Everyone could just ignore these czars, because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to tie our shoes.

 

Numerous polls show that a vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance, with only lukewarm support for the notion of reform but opinions diverge greatly over what it should look like.  Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their own health care. Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say everyone in the United States should have free health care, but the same survey found that 44% disagree. However, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 27%), Americans reject free health care for all if it means changing their own coverage and joining a program administered by the government. Frank Rosenbloom has identified clear goals of an efficient and effective health care system:

·    Simplicity and lack of complexity.

·    Available to all members of society, including the poor.

·    Good, basic lower cost health care options.

·    Shared, sustainable cost and some personal financial responsibility for all.

·    Portable, not tied to employer or the government.

·    Prevention of exclusions for those who have had "pre-existing" problems.

·    Expandable with option to purchase more extensive plans according to personal choice and ability.

·    Patient health centered care emphasizing preventive care with financial penalties for continued poor choices and rewards available for good health practices.

Rosenbloom also proposed several solutions that are much better than a “public” option:

·    First, don't pass any of the current Democrat health care plans - Savings of at least $3 trillion over the next five years.

·    Immediately do away with Medicare, Medicaid, and The Center for Medicare and Medicaid services and scrap the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation - Savings of nearly $1 trillion in federal tax dollars yearly, $1 trillion in savings for states and billions in savings by dissolving the tyrannical Joint Commission.

·    People should be responsible for purchasing their own health care, not the government or the employer, making health insurance completely portable.

·    A Health Insurance Company must offer a good basic low-cost health care plan with expanded health savings accounts - Taxpayer cost zero dollars.

·    No health exclusions for three years - Taxpayer cost zero dollars.

·    Health plans should promote healthy practices and preventive health - Taxpayer cost zero.

·    For the poor, government should subsidize the premiums, not be involved in paying providers - Taxpayer costs by my estimate around $600 billion per year.

·    Retired people of lower means should be helped as above but should not have a separate insurance plan run by the government - Taxpayer cost around $300 billion per year.

·    End tax penalties for individuals purchasing individual health insurance - Taxpayer cost zero dollars as these penalties are merely punitive, designed to make people dependent.

·    The health insurance companies in each state should have the option of creating a risk pool from some of their premium funds - Taxpayer cost zero dollars.

·    Laws should be changed to allow for private health co-ops to be formed as an option for those so inclined - Taxpayer cost zero dollars.

·    Patients should be free to change insurance plans at least annually and since their insurance would not be controlled by their employer or the government no permission is needed from them - Taxpayer cost zero dollars.

·    There should be no legal right for insurance plans to dismiss competent and qualified contracted physicians for "no cause", when that no cause is really due to the physician acting as a patient advocate.

·    Tort reform with penalties for frivolous lawsuits and the loser paying some of the costs.

·    When he tried to finesse the tort reform issue in his speech to the doctors at the AMA meeting, Obama was loudly booed because he is favoring tort lawyers over doctors.

This so called health “crisis” is an urban legend being used to scare Americans into nationalizing health care when a better personal option exists, at a lower cost. This free market health care solution results in savings for taxpayers over three years of nearly $5 trillion, and not requiring hundreds of pages of legislation. Beware of the Obama Trojan Horse “public” solution which would inexorably crowd out private plans thus nationalizing health insurance coverage.

 

Universal health care is estimated to cost up to $2 trillion over 10 years, and we are totally unprepared fiscally even for existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP). Neither Social Security nor Medicare is ready for the onslaught of the 78 million Americans who will stop paying into retirement programs, and who instead will begin to draw on benefits government has promised them. The first line of baby boomers began signing up for early retirement under Social Security last year. Soon the 78 million-person tsunami of seniors will expect to be covered by Medicare. Shockingly, no funds are stored away to keep the government’s promises in future years. Trust Funds exist for both, but the payroll taxes supplying these Trust Funds are already inadequate. Over the next decade, under Obama’s budget, federal spending will increase 25% faster than revenue, says the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Incredibly, this is almost modest dollar-wise compared to the current unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare, totaling $101.7 trillion in today’s dollars. In just three years from now, Social Security and Medicare will need one out of ten tax dollars. In just 11 years in the future, by 2020, the United States will need one out of every four income tax dollars to fund these programs for seniors. It makes no sense to me to expand an existing bankrupt program and expect it will magically pay for itself without tremendous tax increases and dramatic decrease in health care coverage.

 

In latest Gallup polling, the majority now disapprove of how Obama is handling government spending, so the White House wants action now on health care while their man is still popular. Consider that it's not unusual to take a full session of congress to pass legislation a fraction of the size and consequence of health care reform. Yet our president is demanding that a bill to overhaul a $2.5 trillion sector of our economy (one sixth of it) be considered and passed in a few short weeks. They know that the big reason that Hillary Care failed in 1993 was that the American people were given an opportunity to look at it and consider it. They don't want to make the same mistake of giving voters a chance to actually understand what is about to happen to them. They know that the more Americans have an opportunity to take a look at the bureaucrat run, nanny state health care freight train, the more likely they will jump off the track. Breathlessness is a great political technique. This is how the $800 billion dollar "stimulus" bill got passed earlier this year. We were flashed images of the Great Depression of the 1930's and told our only hope is the stimulus bill. Now, three months later, it's clear that our current economy bears no resemblance to the 1930's, that signs of recovery are emerging, and thus far only 6% of the "stimulus" spending pot has been spent. The trillions in new debt have been piled up at such a dizzying pace in the last few months Americans are numb. The federal government take from our economy has jumped from one fifth of it to one fourth. A new report from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) shows why controlling health costs is so important. Since 1975, annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has grown 2.1% faster than overall economic growth per person. Should this trend continue, the CEA projects that:

·    Health spending is almost 18% of GDP today, would grow to 34% of GDP by 2040.

·    Medicare and Medicaid, the government insurance programs for the elderly and poor, would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040.

·    Employer-paid insurance premiums for family coverage, which grew 85% in inflation-adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040 (all figures in "constant 2008 dollars").

The message in these dismal figures is that uncontrolled health spending is almost single-handedly determining national priorities. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important, but when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan. It is reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs. The unaffordable health care nanny state freight train is rushing toward us and we can only hope our representatives see it for what it is before it is too late to vote it down!

 

The Waxman-Markey bill would cost the United States a cumulative $9.6 trillion in real GDP losses by 2035, because an additional 1.1 million job losses each year, raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation, provoke a 74% hike in inflation-adjusted gasoline prices, and add $1,500 to the average family's annual energy bill. The bill would radically "transform" our energy and economic systems; tax and hobble hydrocarbon use; mandate and subsidize "green" energy; and dole out innumerable preferences — and penalties. Written largely by professional environmentalists, the numbingly complex 942-page bill would require an 83% reduction in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, a level last seen in 1908. That's before accounting for the far lower population levels and nigh-antediluvian manufacturing, transportation and electrification systems of a century ago. Even worse, the draconian rules would have no detectable benefits, even assuming CO2 does cause climate change. Thousands of scientists say CO2 has little effect on planetary temperatures, and there is no climate crisis! The painful 83% reductions would result in global temperatures rising a mere 0.1 degrees F less by 2050 than doing nothing. That's because Chinese and Indian emissions would quickly dwarf America's job-killing reductions. A key Waxman-Markey goal is to replace hydrocarbons with wind power, but that would require billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies; hundreds of thousands of turbines, across millions of acres of scenic land, habitats and sea lanes; thousands of miles of new transmission lines and towers; and billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper and fiberglass — plus raw materials and natural gas for backup generators. Spanish taxpayers spent $754,000 for each new wind energy job; mostly installing towering turbines, switching to wind destroyed 2.2 regular jobs for each "green" job, largely because pricey "renewable" electricity forced companies to lay off workers, to stay in business. In conclusion the Waxman-Markey bill is “All Pain and No Gain” and is just a stealth tax increase for every American!

 

The Obama administration’s proposed regulatory overhaul is looking increasingly like a minor regulatory adjustment, a few tweaks here and there to convey the impression of reform. His proposed initiatives confirm the administration fears of the “creative destruction’ that free markets produce, preferring stability over innovation, competition and change. Among the reforms put forward were a new, pumped-up Federal Reserve with greater powers to regulate and oversee the entire financial system, a new consumer credit watchdog to oversee home loans and credit cards, and new rules and oversight for hedge funds and exotic securities, such as credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, which some blame for making the financial crisis worse. Arguably the most important change would be the creation of a resolution authority giving the federal government the power to seize financial holding companies if they become insolvent. This is actually not as scary as it sounds since it is essentially what the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does when it determines that a depository bank is on the verge of failing. Instead of putting an end to bank bailouts, the plan makes bailouts a permanent feature of our regulatory landscape. In fact, it extends the possibility of taxpayer-funded bailouts to any company choosing to become a financial-holding company. The government would decide which creditors got bailouts and which ones took losses, meaning that political favoritism would often trump concern for systemic soundness. The receivership authority, done right, would at least put us back on the road to a rule-based system. Critics have argued that lack of regulation did not bring on the economic downturn but rather regulations and federal loose-lending programs did. The expansion in risky mortgages to under-qualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of “creative” nonprime lending followed Congress' strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified. Add to that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, created and regulated by acts of Congress, which together at one point controlled nearly half of the nation's $12 trillion mortgage market. The two quasi-private entities served as the grand financial engine by which Congress would boost homeownership. It worked well for a while but the failure was one of too much government, not too little, which is the rationale for the new financial regulation regime sought for Wall Street and the banks. The Federal Reserve is too powerful already, so giving it virtually unbridled control over our financial system without having to directly answer to the people is a danger to free market capitalism. The Obama regulation barely mentions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and endorses expanded use of the Community Reinvestment Act thus endorsing the disastrous policies that were the root causes of our current recession.

 

It seems clear now that the Democratic leadership want to do with the nomination of Judge Sotomayor the same thing they did with the infamous bailout bill… rush it through without due diligence. The bailout bill was thousands of pages long yet they demanded Senators vote on it, even without having a chance to read it. No reasonable person can deny that there are things in Judge Sotomayor’s record that could raise serious concerns in a reasonable observer. We now know that the Sotomayor questionnaire the White House bragged about submitting to the Senate in record time contained some glaring omissions. Judicial activists, bend the meaning of the Constitution to bring about the results they desire. In doing so, they act as legislators, if not philosopher kings, violating the separation of powers. This practice results in the codification of abominable jurisprudence. Judicial activism is such a tempting and dangerous practice, because it allows unelected officials to do what cannot ordinarily be accomplished legislatively, thus removing civil policy entirely from the will of the people and the rule of law. We should best heed the advice given by Thomas Jefferson to a jurist in his era, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to a time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” A double standard is in play where Sotomayer asks that her racist remarks be disregarded as “out of context” and her membership in an elite, all women’s club is simply a “female bonding” experience, while if a white male tried the same excuses he would be disemboweled. The more Senator Leahy and his cohorts want to rush this nomination through, the more suspicious it looks. Why should anyone vote to confirm a justice who has been overruled on appeal 60% of the time to the highest court of appeal where she can no longer be overruled?

 

President Obama’s strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes. Reaction to Obama’s speech has drawn a range of reaction from many Jewish leaders, with many on the left who backed Obama were also surprised and dismayed over his speech. His reference to Israel and the special relationship being unbreakable was good, and references to persecution and Holocaust denial were important. However his speech also included a number of troubling references and comparisons. He cites the fact that Obama claimed America has seven million Muslims, which is Arab propaganda, since the Pew Research Center estimated the Muslim American population at only 2.35 million. It is also disturbing that Obama did not mention the Jewish people’s ancient connection with the land of Israel, since 1,400 BC. The biggest omission was that Obama made no reference to the fact that the Palestinians rejected every offer for peace, since they refuse to accept the existence of the Jewish state. Finally Obama also failed to mention the other refugee problem involving nearly a million Jews, who at the time of the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, resided in all of the major Arab cities from Baghdad in the East to Casablanca in the West and forced to leave. American Jews can no longer afford the luxury of wishful thinking. Israel has changed from being an ally of this nation to being an "obstacle" to an Obama-led government that openly seeks alliances with murderous anti-Semites. Interestingly Obama enjoys the support of American Jews who are "blindly liberal" and "in rapture to the almighty Obama.” What is really happening is that the Obama Jewish supporters are now experiencing “buyer’s remorse” as their eyes clear and they see the type of leader they elected President.

 

While the world community declaims Obama as a global hero, they ignore his wishes and do precisely what they want; while Obama savors the sickly sweet praise, he ignores their malfeasance. We have a president who is “loved” and a country that is held to international scorn. He is more interested in applause than freedom or American security. Obama has shown the world that he can be tough and get results when it comes to democratic allies, but when it comes to nondemocratic rivals and outright enemies, Obama is much softer and gets no results at all. Despite obvious problems in the Iranian election and riots in the streets protesting the results, our President has gone back to his Chicago roots and voted “Present” sending a message to the democracy loving Iranians that America is watching but will not intervene. Obama’s harshness toward an ally and gentleness toward foes is, indeed, disturbingly reminiscent of an earlier U.S. president known for that malady, Jimmy Carter. Meanwhile Obama is trying to sneak the global bailout funding for his International Monetary Fund commitment under the covers of the war supplemental bill, forcing Republicans to vote against funding ongoing military operations to stop Obama’s globalist expansion. Just because the world community mouths support for Obama doesn’t mean they’ll stand behind America.

 

* There is so much published each week that unless you go out of your way to find it, you will miss important breaking events. I package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning for your reading pleasure and to fill in factual vacuums.

 

If you are sick and tired of government and politics as usual, read my web site with its individual issue analysis and recommendations sections at: http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com . Individual issue updates this week include:

 

Week’s Best Articles:

·         “Wrong Way on Health ‘Reform’” by Robert Samuelson dated June 15, 2009 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/15/wrong-way_health_reform_96997.html .

·         “Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional” by Ken Klukowski dated June 15, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/Columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/06/15/senior_democrat_says_obamas_czars_unconstitutional .

·         “Americans believe internet news most reliable” dated June 15, 2009 published by World Net Daily at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101220 .

·         “The Immorality of Waxman-Markey: Intense Pain, No Environmental Gain” by Paul Driessen dated June 16, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330043500143549 .

·         “Health reform is all downside for most Americans” by Douglas O’Brien dated June 16, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/health_reform_is_all_downside.html .

·         “Bailing Out Sotomayor” by Mario Diaz dated June 16, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/Columnists/MarioDiaz/2009/06/16/bailing_out_sotomayor .

·         “’Originalism’ is not conservative judicial activism” by Robert E. Meyer dated June 16, 2009 published by American Daily at http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/1639 .

·         “Barack Obama: Looking for Love In All the Wrong Places” by Ben Shapiro dated June 17, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2009/06/17/barack_obama_looking_for_love_in_all_the_wrong_places .

·         “The Return of Carterism” by F. David Hornik dated June 17, 2009 published by Front Page Magazine at http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=35249 .

·         “Fighting the Last War on Wall Street” dated June 17, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTdhODNmOTYxY2MxYTg2ZTY4NTJiMTMxYmZlZDNjZDI= .

·         “Obama to Establish New Financial Regulatory Agency with Broad Powers” by Fred Lucas dated June 17, 2009 published by Cybercast News Service at http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49652 .

·         “Regulation Nation” dated June 17, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330131552441636 .

·         “Public Wary of Deficit, Economic Intervention” by Laura Meckler dated June 18, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124527518023424769.html .

·         “’Public Option’: Son of Medicaid” by Daniel Henninger dated June 18, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528251402125409.html .

·         “Why Scrap a Health Care System That 250 Million Americans Like?” by Larry elder dated June 18, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330215771208184 .

·         “A Fake Financial Fix” by Mark A. Calabria dated June 18, 2009 published by CATO Institute at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10300 .

·         “Panetta Comment Telegraphs America’s Present Weakness” by Christopher Adamo dated June 19, 2009 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/06/19/panetta-comment-telegraphs-america%E2%80%99s-present-weakness/ .

·         “Glass Ceilings Aren’t Glass Slippers” by Suzanne Fields dated June 19, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/SuzanneFields/2009/06/19/glass_ceilings_arent_glass_slippers .

·         “The War Over War Funding” by W. James Antle, III dated June 19, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/19/the-war-over-war-funding .

·         “Explaining Obama: Our First Islamist President” by Richard Baehr dated June 19, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/explaining_obama_our_first_isl.html .

·         “Why The Rush?” dated June 19, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330305901197106 .

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

www.returntocommonsensesite.com