Views on the News
July 2, 2011
Views on the News*
Conservative critics have taken to comparing him to Jimmy Carter, but a comparison to Chauncey Gardiner, the character played by Peter Sellers in the 1979 movie "Being There" is more appropriate with this aloof, disconnected President. As you may remember, Gardiner is a clueless gardener who is mistaken for a Washington eminence and becomes a Presidential adviser. In preparing his February budget, Obama totally ignored the recommendations of his own fiscal commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, and the Senate rejected this budget by a vote of 97-0. Then Obama said he was presenting a new budget with $4 trillion in long-term spending cuts, but there were no specifics and the CBO doesn't estimate speeches. The budget negotiations have stalled unless Obama got personally involved. Obama has seemed less interested in the substance of public policy than in framing issues for the next Presidential campaign. On Afghanistan, regardless of conditions on the ground, the President promised that the last of the surge troops will be removed by September 2012, the month Democrats hold their national convention. As for Libya, Obama pretends we're not involved in "hostilities" and has been content to "lead from behind." Sometimes it seems he's president of the AFL-CIO, not the United States. Meanwhile Obama is releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but his appointees are barring drilling in the Gulf and Alaska and refusing approval for a natural gas pipeline from Canada. On all these issues, Obama seems oddly disengaged, aloof from the hard work of government, hesitant about making choices, so although his policies resemble that of Jimmy Carter, his style is more like Chauncey Gardiner.
(“Like Chauncey Gardiner, Obama is Profoundly Aloof” by Michael Barone dated June 27, 2011 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2011/06/27/like_chauncey_gardiner,_obama_is_profoundly_aloof )
Obama assumed office in difficult economic times and after a couple of years of excuses, which included "the problems were worse than we knew" and the generic, all-purpose "it's Bush's fault," Obama now owns the original problems and new ones of his own doing. The number of Obama supporters seems inversely related to his time in office. An incomplete report card on his "accomplishments" would include the following:
· the economy worsened
· Government debt and spending spun out of control
· Wall Street was bailed out and continues to enrich themselves
· Housing worsened and shows no sign of bottoming soon
· Main Street was ignored and becomes poorer as bankruptcies and foreclosures mount
· inflation increased, especially in critical goods like food and gasoline
· job prospects decreased
· the stimulus failed miserably
· race relations appear to have worsened
· "transparency in government" became a laugh-line for late night TV
· an unpopular, flawed health care plan was forced on the public
· corruption in government accelerated to Chicago-style warp speed
· discretionary military efforts ("kinetic" if you prefer) increased
There are a plethora of other problems that could be attributed to Obama. It is difficult to ascertain what, if anything, has improved other than the demise of Osama bin Laden. Obama is an ideologue, narrowly (and poorly) educated. As a result, he is ignorant in the ways of the world. Obama has virtually no understanding of basic economics. Exploitation ideology is the basis for his world- and economic view. This ideology sees the world as a zero-sum game. In essence a fixed pie is divided, so if one person gets more, others necessarily get less. A country becomes successful by taking advantage of other countries. This naive view, based on the long-discredited concept of mercantilism, sees success as exploitation. Freedom, markets, institutions, incentives, and voluntary trade have no place in Obama's world. Success or failure is determined by one variable, whether you are the exploiter or the exploited. Exploitation theory does not comport with economic theory, history, or reality. Obama's ideology blinds him to relevant variables. Incentives, institutional frameworks, profit and loss, individual initiative, saving and investment, hard work, etc. have no role in his simplistic world. He is a political creation with no experience in relevant matters. He does not understand markets, business, meeting a payroll, or managing an organization. This vacuum in knowledge produces failed economic results because policies do not consider the relevant variables for economic success. For Obama, economics itself is inconsistent with morality. Hence economics itself must be evil. This view of the world is both simple and ignorant. Recognition of this stupidity is the key to understanding Obama's behavior and policies. Obama is doing what he believes right and just. Sophomoric understanding, however, does not explain why the inequities of the world are assumed to be Obama's responsibility. Obama has gone from President of the US to a modern-day Don Quixote for the entire world. What seems no longer at issue is Obama's "superior intelligence." Obama's belief system is dominated by the dismissed exploitation theories of Karl Marx and the 60's-style radicals he grew up around. The Reverend Wright preached to him for twenty years about exploitation in terms of Black Liberation Theology. An unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was a close friend and arguably author of one of Obama's autobiographies. His personally selected "czars" are the sorriest collection of Presidential advisors ever, at least in terms of reflecting American values and beliefs. Many went on the same intellectual voyage that Obama did. Most of us outgrew this nonsense, usually by our mid-twenties, but Obama never did. He is still a child, intellectually undeveloped and locked into the ideas from the 60's -- both the 1960s and the Marxist 1860s. In that sense he is an intellectual dwarf, frozen in the equivalent of a state of intellectual puberty. His "knowledge" is based on nothing but the discredited ideologies of Socialism. The claim that Obama is the smartest man to ever hold Presidential office is absurd and a reflection on the state of our media who insist on propping up this man-child. Obama's obsession with keeping his college records and personal past secret is prima facie evidence that the claim is untrue. His knowledge base and dismal performance on the world stage is even more damning. Instead of having a superior intellect, we likely have the most ignorant, ideological, brainwashed dupe this country has ever elected to high office, and this intellectual pygmy must be removed from office by whatever possible peaceful means, so impeachment is in order, but will not happen, therefore the 2012 election is critical.
(“President Quixote’s Legacy: Confused, Ill-Educated and Not Too Bright” by Monty Pelerin dated June 28, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/president_quixotes_legacy_confused_ill-educated_and_not_too_bright.html )
Barack Obama possesses what political scientists term the "incumbency advantage" - the power to exploit the tools of the Presidency to try to keep his job, because no political figure in American politics has as much control over the national agenda as the President, and this power can be used to considerable electoral advantage. He's a candidate for re-election and the nominal head of the Democrat Party. He is also America's policy setter, head of state and its commander in chief. He can mix government business with political appearances, and the taxpayers will pay most of the price tag for Air Force One along the way. He can create business councils and rural councils to advise the White House and reward his supporters. The President decided to schedule NATO and G-8 international summits in his adopted hometown of Chicago five months before Election Day 2012 simply because it was his decision to make. On any given day, Americans are hard-pressed to compartmentalize Obama's national mission from his personal ambitions when he, just like Presidents before him, so readily melds the presidency with his candidacy. It's not easy for anyone to say where policy and politics don't collide. Running for office from the White House is not without its electoral drawbacks, however. The President is being held partially or entirely responsible for a limping economy, and long before he can target a Republican nominee, Obama faces a legion of GOP critics united in one thing and one thing only: That the man who currently works in the Oval Office has made a hash of things. His challengers on the campaign trail and in Congress have freer rein than he does to fire away. But the advantages still outweigh the strictures. A time-tested playbook for exploiting incumbency is known as the Rose Garden strategy, and Obama is a willing adherent. This approach calls for Presidents to look as if they're levitating above partisan politics. Incumbents must show voters that they are performing the weighty duties of the presidency such as protecting national security, representing America's interests abroad and commanding the military. Another element of the strategy is communications. There is no more important megaphone than the one a President wields. The TV news networks grant the President prime time to make major announcements that no Presidential rival could match. Obama’s biggest challenges are: his accomplishments are not well received, he is not satisfying the left or the right, his actions are appearing more and more partisan, and his image is evaporating in front of the public’s eyes.
(“Obama and the Advantage of Incumbency” by Alexis Simendinger dated June 27, 2011 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/27/obama_and_the_advantage_of_incumbency_110357.html )
President Barack Obama rose to high office on a gust of hope and change, but despite the future-oriented marketing, he has proven himself devoted to old pieties and existing governmental structures, and at this rate, he will be remembered as the last President of the 20th century. His economic policy has been a reprise of the best economic thinking circa 1932. It’s been all Keynesian stimulus, and the soggy results are all around us. With the economy still weak and unemployment still high, he’s checkmated by his own stale orthodoxy. He’s unable to advance any significant proposals that wouldn’t simply be more of the same and politically unacceptable in this era of anxiety over the debt. In his misplaced faith in the “shovel ready” project, he must have had visions of the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system, those jewels of 20th-century American infrastructure, built relatively rapidly before the regulatory state had tied itself in knots, rising up from his stimulus. Instead, the stimulus has built little or nothing anyone will remember. Obama’s health-care program is radical in its sweep, but distinctly mid–20th century in its orientation. An enormous part of it simply depends on the expansion of Medicaid, the pride of 1965. In the first blush of the Great Society, Medicaid might have seemed a glorious innovation. Now, its results are so poor that some studies show that the health outcomes for people on Medicaid aren’t any better than those without any insurance at all. As the baby boomers retire, the 20th-century entitlement state is under increasing strain. Paul Ryan proposes transforming Medicare to harness the power of the market and rein in the program’s costs over time. Obama proposes a bureaucratic board to dictate its future in a command-and-control fashion straight out of World War II. Obama is attached to retrograde, pre-Google government with: high taxes, spending, and regulation. It is coming undone under the solvents of demographics (an aging population), fiscal realities (unsustainable levels of debt) and market changes (globalization and new technologies favoring the quick and nimble). It’s not the 1950s anymore, yet big government lumbers on. For the public sector, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Obama has gone from agent of change to the best friend of government as we know it. He’s gone from capturing the restlessness and discontent of the American public to relying on the sheer power of inertia to resist Republican plans to tackle the debt and update the entitlement state. If Bill Clinton built the bridge to the 21st century, Barack Obama is adamantly refusing to cross it, rendered immobile by his ideology and self-interest.
(“The Last 20th-Century President?” by Rich Lowry dated June 28, 2011 published by National review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270610/last-20th-century-president-rich-lowry )
Liberalpox is not a disease of the flesh, it is a disease of the mind because it affects the centers of the brain that control common sense, logic and objectivity and it distorts the inputs from the five senses. The disease of Liberalpox interrupts the normal electro-chemical functions of the brain such that synapses between neurons fire in the wrong direction, or not at all. It forces the infected person to refute the laws of physics, chemistry and economics. It forces the brain to rationalize theft by taxes to satisfy the person’s irrational desire to be compassionate, no matter what the cost. There seems to be a direct correlation between Liberalpox and irrational compassion. When the person infected with Liberalpox induces the government to take taxes from the rich and upper middle class and redistributes those taxes to the poor, the brain of the infected individual is suddenly flooded with dopamine, the pleasure chemical in the brain that is released just after climax from coitus. What has also been discovered is that it is re-enforced and replicates faster when those infected attend public schools and colleges, where the teachers and professors that are already infected with Liberalpox, are allowed to spew their disease-altered version of reality. When those with Liberalpox are confronted by a non-infected person that the disease manifests itself in abnormal behavior, the infected person gets very angry and disturbed and starts yelling invectives and accuses the non-infected person of being a racist or a radical. Liberalpox suddenly blossomed in the 1930s when FDR became President and now infects well over 50% of the population that now find themselves totally dependent on government, as the Liberalpox bacterium removes their desire to be self-reliant and independent. A vaccine first started to appear in Town Hall Meetings in 2009 all over America when the Obama Administration and the U. S. Congress ran ObamaCare down everyone’s throat. The more TEA Party meetings the infected person attends, the less likely the Liberalpox bacterium can grow and eventually dies out altogether. As Liberalpox has built up its resistance to any possible antidote over the last 100 years, it is also possible that it will take another 100 years to completely eradicate it, like smallpox was wiped out in the middle of the Twentieth Century after centuries of devastating entire societies. With the eradication of Liberalpox, America could once again assume its rightful role as the shining city on the Hill and a beacon of hope for the rest of the world; and the one way to help eradicate Liberalpox is to make sure that Obama, a major carrier of the disease , is not elected in 2012.
(“America’s Life-Threatening Disease – Liberalpox!” by Ron Ewert dated June 22, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37771 )
How far will President Obama go to advance the interests of organized labor? In June alone, the Obama administration adopted rules likely to discourage employers from hiring law firms that specialize in thwarting union organizing drives, and moved to shorten union certification campaigns, long a goal of organized labor. But the targeting of Delta stands out. Following Delta’s merger with Northwest Airlines in 2008, its flight attendants voted against joining the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), and other employees decided against signing on with four separate unions of the International Association of Machinists and Aero-space Workers (IAM). That didn’t end what has become a union crusade against Delta, abetted by Obama. Now, from all appearances, the fix is in, against Delta. It starts with the National Mediation Board, which governs labor relations in the airline and railroad industries. Obama stacked the NMB deck by putting two former union senior executives on the three-member board, Linda Puchala of the AFA and Harry Hoglander of the Air Line Pilots. That tilted the board sharply against Delta. At the urging of the AFL-CIO, the NMB changed the rule for airline and railroad union elections. For 75 years, a majority of the entire cohort of workers was required in a vote to unionize, but now the board reduced it to a majority of those voting. And the two unions were tipped the change was imminent. They had filed for elections under the old rule. Then, just before the NMB’s decision, they withdrew those requests, only to reinstate them later in order to have the more union-friendly new rule apply to the Delta elections. The unions lost anyway. In the case of the flight attendants, it was the third time they had voted against the AFA. But the AFA and the IAM have doggedly refused to take “no” for an answer. Unions routinely accuse employers of using coercive tactics in elections, insist employees were denied a free choice, and demand a new round of voting. Their argument boils down to the fact that Delta vigorously opposed unionization and made the case that both the airline and employees would be better off without the unions. Nothing illegal about that. One might suspect Obama aims to change the Democrat party into the Labor party, and if that’s the end he has in sight, he’s taking all the right steps.
(“America’s Labor Party” by Fred Barnes dated July 4, 2011 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/america-s-labor-party_575547.html )
Both Social Security and Medicare are economically unsustainable, and they are doomed to collapse by the ruthless certainty of arithmetic. They are both manifestations of the modern welfare state and that is what is unsustainable. Social Security is projected to completely use up its trust fund in 2036 and Medicare in 2024, but both systems are already going into the red because there are no actual assets in those trust funds. As Social Security and Medicare begin to pay out more than they take in from payroll taxes, they are swallowing up the entire federal budget and guaranteeing a steady increase in our already dangerous debt. For some state governments, like California, insolvency is looming. For others, it has already arrived; Illinois hasn't paid its bills for years. And where we're all headed is demonstrated by Greece, where government debt now equals more than 175% of the country's annual economic output, well above the threshold (roughly 100%) where debt starts to become impossible to service. What most people haven't absorbed yet is the basic economic unsustainability of the welfare state. The welfare state is taken for granted as the "normal" state of affairs, as if it has always existed. At least, it is assumed that the welfare state has been around for so many decades that the current crisis is just a temporary aberration, a rough patch that we can get through with only minor reforms. The actual economic history does not bear this out. The welfare state "as we know it" is a product of recent decades and has vastly increased just in the past 30 to 40 years. So the current crisis is not some temporary aberration, but instead is cause and effect. It is a direct consequence of the modern welfare state. Let's take a look at the major branches of the welfare state, particularly the ones that are in crisis. They are: education, government employment, health care, and retirement. The first two are interconnected. State governments are in crisis, not because of firefighters and policeman, but mostly because of salaries and pensions for public school teachers. Government spending on all levels for public education has more than doubled since 1970, after adjusting for inflation, with no improvement in the system's results. Something similar has been happening in higher education, mostly through the indirect mechanism of student loans. Student loans are an institution that grew in the 1970s, with vigorous government encouragement and guarantees, as part of an effort to make college education an entitlement. By the 1980s, student loans had become ubiquitous. Since then they have become ruinous. Subsidized loans have fueled decades of rapid growth in tuition. Government employment is an integral part of the welfare state. It has long been a means for politicians to provide jobs, salaries, benefits, and pensions to blocs of highly motivated political supporters. Here again, we find that the large-scale looting of the public treasury is relatively recent. Then there is the great example of Greece. We're used to assuming that the Europeans are a bunch of socialists, but the Greek welfare state is actually relatively recent, dating to the rise to power of the Panhellenic Socialist Party in 1981, which created comprehensive entitlements to health care and old-age pensions. The system immediately caused a crisis, particularly a shortage of doctors and hospitals. But serious reform was put off by Greece's entry into the European Union. One of the main functions of Europe's monetary union was to allow the welfare states of Southern Europe, the so-called PIGS nations, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, to ride off of Germany's good credit and borrow enormous sums of money. They used this debt to delay the day of reckoning, which has finally arrived. Add all of this up and we can roughly measure the half-life of the welfare state, its rate of fiscal decay. The time from the creation of a generous welfare state to its fiscal collapse is about 30 years. Yes, many of the institutions of the welfare state were in place, both here and in Greece, for longer than 30 years, but they had not grown to full size. Social Security, when it was first adopted, provided benefits only for the last few years of the average person's life. In the US and Northern Europe, the process of decay has arguably taken a little longer. That is partly because we started with a much more productive economy, and also because we have benefited from a stronger political opposition, which slowed the expansion of the welfare state. This has delayed the inevitable collapse, but it has not fundamentally changed our direction. The overall conclusion remains: the generous welfare state is a relatively recent experiment, and it is in the throes of a spectacular, world-wide economic failure. The welfare state arose as a reaction against capitalism. Capitalism was a system built on individualism and self-reliance, and it came up against reflexive resistance from a traditional moral code that mandated self-sacrifice and the subordination of the individual to the needs of "society." It was in the image of this opposite moral code that the welfare state was conceived. Yet the welfare state was also a reaction to capitalism's achievement. The post-World War II boom in America and Europe supported the illusion that we were rich enough to afford a lavish system of "cradle to grave" government largesse, but it was an illusion. It was a system that depended on a vigorous engine of wealth-creation, but it punished wealth-creation and the virtues of the wealth-creators, while encouraging and rewarding the exact opposite. In the welfare state, supporting oneself through one's own productive effort is considered both morally and practically optional, while living off the largesse extracted from those who do produce is considered both a moral and a legal right. The familiar life cycle of the welfare state includes lavish benefits decreed by the government and millions rush to claim them, leading to shortages of doctors and soaring prices for health care and education, which the government limits with regulations, price controls, and an ever-increasing bureaucracy. Meanwhile, more people are taken out of the productive sector of the economy, into four years of arcane and useless classes at school, or extended early retirements, or whole lifetimes in make-work jobs or on "disability" pay, while taxes spiral upward on the remaining producers. Yet it is still never enough, so government makes up the difference with chronic deficit spending and an ever-increasing debt, until we reach where we all are now. What we need to realize is that the modern welfare state is a temporary aberration, historically, economically, and morally. It was a brief historical holiday from the basic principle that wealth is earned through work. We need to grasp the basic lesson that this system will not work because it tried to defy the laws of nature, so we need to proceed deliberately and quickly with the task of dismantling the welfare state and rebuilding our economies on the secure footing of individualism and capitalism.
(“The Half-Life of the Welfare State” by Robert Tracinski dated June 24, 2011 published by Real Clear Markets at http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/06/24/the_half-life_of_the_welfare_state_99094.html )
The national debt is almost ten times bigger than politicians quote, since unfunded obligations are not counted as debt, but eventually must be repaid. The federal government actually has three different types of debt. The first is the debt held by the public, which generated the headlines in the CBO report, is the type of government bonds that you, or the Chinese government, might own. The government borrowing competes with investment in the nongovernmental sector, leaving less money available for private investment in such things as factories and equipment, research and development, housing, and so on. Growing levels of publicly held debt can drive up interest rates in the long-run, and may already be choking off interbank lending. The second type of debt is “intra-governmental” debt, which is essentially debt that the federal government owes to itself, such as debt it owes to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. If publicly held debt is like the money you borrowed from a bank, intra-governmental debt is like the money you swiped from your kid’s piggy bank. It may not be on your credit report, but you still have to pay it back. Today, intra-governmental debt exceeds $4.6 trillion. The good news here is that intra-governmental debt is not projected to grow much in the future. The bad news is that that is because both Social Security and Medicare are already running deficits - there’s nothing left to steal. The third category of government debt is “implicit debt.” This represents the unfunded obligations of programs such as Social Security and Medicare, the amount that those programs owe in benefits in excess of the amount of taxes that they expect to take in. Think of it as bills you know are going to come in next month but haven’t been delivered yet. According to the annual report of the Social Security system’s trustees, that program’s unfunded liabilities now exceed $18 trillion. Medicare is in even worse shape. The most recent estimate of its finances, also released this week, warns that Medicare owes $36.8 trillion more in benefits that it is expected to be able to pay for. It assumes that all the projected savings from President Obama’s health care reform actually happen as promised, something that even Medicare’s own actuaries are deeply skeptical of. If those savings don’t materialize, Medicare’s debt could actually top $90 trillion! Add it all up, and total US debt actually exceeds 900% of GDP. That’s somewhere in excess of $120 trillion. As CBO points out, the projected growth in the debt “is attributable entirely to increases in spending on several large mandatory programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and (to a lesser extent) insurance subsidies that will be provided through [ObamaCare].” Finally, the CBO report makes it clear that we have a debt problem because spending is too high, not because taxes are too low. A normalization of interest rates will result in annual interest expense of roughly $420 billion in 2014 and $700 billion higher in 2020. We face a simple choice: Cut spending or face fiscal catastrophe; The question is: Is Washington listening? (“$120 trillion: The shocking true size of our nation’s debt” by Michael D. Tanner dated June 26, 2011 published by New York Post at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/trillion_the_shocking_true_size_tOxcrobUBUup9IEW3vQAhJ
“The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think” by Lawrence B. Lindsey dated June 27, 2011 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304657804576401883172498352.html?KEYWORDS=lawrence+B+Lindsey )
Both of our major entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, started with good intentions but were based on a Ponzi pyramid scheme of funding, and both are approaching the end of their solvency. Back some 80 years ago our governing wizards came up with a plan to force people to pay into a plan that would be result in a monthly “retirement” payment more for those without any sort of retirement insurance vehicle for their elderly years. So the socialistic President Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act included the legislation called the Social Security Act of 1935 whereby a small percentage of the workers’ wages were placed in a government account that would be used to pay a small monthly payment to workers when they retired as few businesses had what is now known as a retirement plan. This Social Security plan was based on current workers paying money into an account from which the older workers would draw their retirement income payments. That is greatly understating the complete package of the Social Security scheme, but a generalization of what it was mainly about. A Ponzi scheme promises to pay very high returns much like the old pyramid game where the payoffs to the early players are made from money by later players, but succeeding players have to keep putting in bigger sums of money and eventually the money dries up and the whole system shuts down. Like Social Security, Medicare finances work like a chain letter. Although workers have been repeatedly told that their payroll taxes are being securely held in trust funds, they are actually being spent as soon as they arrive in the Treasury’s bank account: No money has been saved; No investments have been made; and No cash has been stashed away in bank vaults. Today’s payroll tax payments are being spent to pay medical bills for today’s retirees. If any surplus materializes, it’s spent on other government programs. In 2010, Medicare expenditures reached $523 billion, but the income was only $486 billion, leaving a $37 billion deficit. As a result, when today’s workers reach the eligibility age of 65, they will be able to get benefits only if future taxpayers pay (higher) taxes to support them. That’s the way chain-letter finance works, but in the long run, there’s no free lunch. Just as Bernie Madoff was able to offer early investors above-market returns, early retirees got a bonanza from Social Security and Medicare, but the future is in doubt without major changes.
(“Social Security: Ponzi Scheme of Potential for Greater Living?” by Jerry McConnell date June 15, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37893
“Is Medicare A Good Deal” by John C. Goodman dated June 26, 2011 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2011/06/26/is_medicare_a_good_deal )
* 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. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:
· Homeland Security at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/homelandsecurity.php
· Immigration at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/immigration.php
· Terrorism at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.php