Views on the News

October 31, 2009

Views on the News*

While Obama’s campaigning could center around soaring rhetoric, governing is altogether messier since it involves tough, unpopular choices and cutting deals with opponents. Obama is showing little appetite for governing, since he is far more comfortable being the campaigner-in-chief. Campaigning and raising cash is what Mr Obama does best, as demonstrated by the 24 fundraising events he has headlined since entering office in January. Bipartisanship to Washington liberals seems to be an invitation for conservatives to go along or get out of the way-vote with us for healthcare reform or we'll change the rules and use the 'nuclear' option! Democrats keep saying Republicans haven't shared any positive ideas, but it is more accurate to say that they haven't presented plans liberals or their constituencies like. Obama is eager for diplomatic talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, but talking to Fox News, that evil conservative cable network, is just out of the question. Everyone knows that Fox leans Right and contains some of the most virulent critics of the president. Rather than ignoring or even repudiating Fox commentators, the White House has instead sought to marginalize Fox News in its entirety. Top Obama aide David Axelrod even lectured that Fox was not a news organization and the rest of the media "ought not to treat them that way." Late-night comics, although unabashedly liberal and at a loss last year as to how to poke fun at the rather humorless Obama, are now having a field day portraying him as a do-nothing prevaricator obsessed with his own image. Such win-at-all-cost change agents may win a key vote, but they may very well look back at such a victory as the day the tide of America's culture war turned against them. Losers don't forget heavy-handed leaders; they don't just get mad; they go to the polls to turn the rascals out! Beyond the grand announcements, fine speeches and his eager acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama has yet to achieve anything of substance, so it is about time for the campaign to end.

(“Barack Obama must stop campaigning and start governing” by Toby Harnden dated October 24, 2009 published by Telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6424419/Barack-Obama-must-stop-campaigning-and-start-governing.html

“President Obama Is More Steamroller than Change Agent” by Terry Paulson dated October 26, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryPaulson/2009/10/26/president_obama_is_more_steamroller_than_change_agent )

Americans, particularly registered and likely voters are disillusioned and disgusted with both political parties and their candidates, who seem to be over-promising, under-delivering, asking for too much, and taking advantage of their positions. Americans are becoming less and less thrilled about the direction of the country and with the job Congress is doing and support has been peeling off steadily. Voters are left wondering what happened to the candidates they voted for? The voters thought their candidates were avengers - people who were going to clean-up Washington’s corrupt culture, stop partisan bickering and remove those bad Wall Street titans who retained their fat bonuses only because taxpayers bailed out their companies. A CNN poll last week suggests that most people no longer agree with Obama “on the issues that matter most to them." A Rasmussen poll shows only 49% “think that the economy will be stronger in five years than it is today.” a September 2009 Gallup Poll found that 57% believe the government is "doing too much"—the highest percentage in more than a decade. Just 38% said it "should do more." A Gallup poll shows 57% of Americans believe the government is "doing too much" and 60% “think the economic conditions are getting worse." What Americans see is Obama blaming everyone, but himself, for the poor results seen so far from his policies, and the emergence of a heavy handed media suppression campaign. Barack Obama may believe that his incessant whining about all the challenges his predecessor left him lets America know how tough he has it. The danger to Obama’s presidency is that he is beginning to sound awfully like "I'm not up to the job," and the poor results so far are proving this point.

(“Polling Polls: Americans Independent and Irate” by Salena Zito dated October 25, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/SalenaZito/2009/10/25/polling_polls_americans_independent_and_irate

“The Post-Gracious President” dated October 26, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574497780846099654.html )

President Obama decided in August that they needed to be more aggressive in confronting their critics, creating, in effect, a new version of the Nixon “enemies list.” President Obama pledged to stop the polarized politics of the past, but he has sucked the veracity from this hope. Many believe he has fallen into the same swamp of bitterness and polarization he promised to end. Playing Chicago-style politics comes naturally to this White House, populated with a cadre of former Obama for president staffers and others steeped in the tactics of the permanent campaign. In August 2008 the Obama campaign tried to press criminal charges against American Issues Project for an embarrassing political commercial. The Obama campaign then sent an "Obama Action Wire" to thousands of liberal activists exhorting them to harass Chicago's WGN radio that broadcast embarrassing Obama connections to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. In the autumn, a chilling Obama campaign request was issued to threaten to prosecute Missouri media outlets that printed or broadcasted material they deemed to be inaccurate. In the final days before the election, three newspapers that endorsed John McCain were booted from the Obama campaign bus. In only his third full day as president Obama personally went on the offensive against Rush Limbaugh. Earlier this year, Justice Department political appointees killed a six-month investigation of blatant voter intimidation the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. Obama's chief political strategist then attacked a 21-year-old beauty pageant contestant whose public views were out of step with those of Administration allies. Earlier in the spring, the Department of Homeland Security circulated a document warning law enforcement of an alleged threat posed by "domestic rightwing terrorists," including individuals who are pro-life, support the Second Amendment and oppose the flood of illegal aliens, and military veterans as possible domestic terrorists in-waiting. White House targets include sectors of an entire industry, such as closing 789 Chrysler dealerships closed where the owners donated to GOP candidates, Republican-leaning causes or donated to Hillary Clinton or John Edwards during the Democratic presidential primaries. Also targeted were financial institutions that did not willingly accept Obama's political demands in Chrysler's restructuring. At mid-year, the White House ordered the firing of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service after Walpin discovered a key Obama supporter misused federal grant money. When the Tea Party movement was at its height, the White House publicized an email address, encouraging supporters to turn-in neighbors who opposed the Obama Administration's socialized medicine proposals. The Department of Health and Human Services threatened health insurance companies against communicating with their customers over proposed legislative measures implying the agency would punish offenders when it came to Medicare reimbursement. Color of Change, a deeply partisan group founded by Obama political appointee Van Jones, launched a boycott effort against Fox News personality Glenn Beck. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue says a campaign by the White House and its allies to undermine his $200-million-a-year association has largely failed. In recent weeks, the White House escalated its assault against Fox News, urging other news organizations to sever ties with the news channel which resulted in Fox increasing its viewership by 10%. Obama’s pathological narcissism is a reflection of weakness, not strength. Obama lost points in the polls; you can give the American people only so many demonstrations of the Chicago Way before they figure out you aren't the Great Healer after all. Obama’s attack on his critics has backfired, increasing visibility to the issues and increasing support to his critics and actually has helped raise even more money for his opponents

(“Obama’s Real Enemies List” by Mark Hyman dated October 26, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/26/obamas-real-enemies-list

“Chamber: W.H. attacks are backfiring” by Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen dated October 26, 2009 published by Politico at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28720.html

“Narcissistic Rage in the White House” by James Lewis dated October 28, 2009 published by American thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html

“Obamaland” by Gary Andres dated October 29, 2009 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/132koltj.asp?pg=2 )

When President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill last February, the administration projected that the bill would create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year, in part by quickly implementing “shovel-ready” infrastructure and energy projects. Now that this money has been dedicated, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs and the unemployment rate has climbed to 9.8%. The only sector growing jobs is the public sector, which is not a surprise since growing government was the real objective of Obama’s economic “stimulus” bill. The administration recently announced that stimulus spending totaled $113 billion by the end of fiscal 2009. While this top-line number was consistent with what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected when the bill passed, the composition of spending differs significantly from the original estimates. By May 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) had changed its message…the stimulus would “save or create” 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. The Obama administration claimed that the government's fiscal stimulus program has helped create or save almost 650,000 jobs, a figure that is hard to believe when the overall unemployment rate is stalled at 9.8%. Transfer payments to states and individuals for unemployment insurance and education have far exceeded initial projections, while spending for construction and infrastructure projects, designed to fuel job creation, is far below the original plan. A closer look at the implementation of the stimulus bill reveals why it is not surprising that the bill has failed to meet its objective of stimulating the economy. The Chairman of Obama's own Council of Economic Advisors testified before Congress last week that the outlook for unemployment remains grim and the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009, with little contribution to growth in 2010. Meanwhile the White House disclosed the other day that the fiscal 2009 budget deficit clocked in at $1.4 trillion, amid the usual promises to do something about it. Yet even as budget director Peter Orszag was speaking, House Democrats were moving on a dozen spending bills for fiscal 2010 that total 12.1% in more domestic discretionary increases. These spending hikes do not include the so-called mandatory spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which exploded by 9.8% and 24.7%, respectively, in the just-ended 2009 fiscal year. All of this largesse is also on top of the stimulus funding that agencies received in 2009. The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency rose 126%, the Department of Education budget 209% and energy programs 146%. House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There's no recession in Washington. More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children's health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this new spending has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. The American economy is recovering by itself, despite all attempts by the Obama administration to elongate this exaggerated “Great Recession” for political reasons, but continued out-of-control Democrat spending and government expansion ill cause employment to lag for years to come!

(“The Spending Rolls On” dated October 26, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416631441797424.html

“The Myth of the Multiplier” by Veronique de Rugy dated November 2009 published by Reason Magazine at http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/the-myth-of-the-multiplier

“About the Stimulus: The Shovel Wasn’t Ready” by Alex Brill and Rachel Forward dated October 27, 2009 published by The American Magazine at http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/about-that-stimulus-the-shovel-wasnt-ready

“Determined to Decline” by Peter Ferrara dated October 28, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/28/determined-to-decline

“Federal stimulus money makes state budget deficit worse” by Tom Patterson dated October 30, 2009 published by American Daily at http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/2450 )

Why does Obama insist on replacing the most advanced and successful medical care in history with the restricted care and lower cost social programs of Europe, just to insure the less than 5% of people who don't buy insurance will pay for the care they receive? Regardless of the facts, most of the media seem to focus on one aspect of the proposed health care legislation cost as if it is a given that the Democratic reforms are desirable, except for the quandary of how to pay for them. States such as Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have imposed ObamaCare-style regulations, and have seen premiums jump for everyone. Instead Obama should heed the medical advice “First, do no harm” because the proposal so far will degrade the health care system by imposing a “public option” that will erode competition on the path to nationalization. Inside the Beltway, the Democrat health care plan looks unstoppable, but outside it, the legislation looks “Dead On Arrival.” Opposition to ObamaCare has risen all year. First there is a Constitution question whether the government has the authority to require Americans to buy insurance or impose a tax penalty if they refuse. Public resistance stems from the sense that the proposed reforms do violence to three core values of America's free enterprise culture: individual choice, personal accountability, and rewards for ambition. With roughly 40% approving of the plan and 55% against it, Democrats will likely heed the pleas of their leaders and lend their assent. The latest Rasmussen poll finds 54% opposed to and 42% in favor of ObamaCare, with 42% strongly opposed and just 24% strongly in favor. The percentage of Americans who believe the cost of health care for their families will "get worse" under the proposed reforms rose to 49% from 42% in just the past month. Average current health insurance premiums with likely triple under ObamaCare, according to a state-by-state study conducted for WellPoint, Inc. A public option would interpose bureaucrats between doctors and patients, restricting access to new drugs, to innovative new cures, and to choice of doctors. It is already proven a failure the world over, even by our own Medicaid program, where government-imposed, below-cost payments have created patients who cannot even find doctors to care for them. While Congress and the administration claim otherwise, costs to the taxpayer increase, and choice and access disappear with a public option. America's health system, the most advanced in the world, is about to be destroyed, and most of the debate is about how to pay for it. Americans who value control of their own health decisions, access to sub-specialty doctors of their own choosing, and access to safer, more effective treatments are beginning to recognize what they are about to lose and are not happy with this “Audacity of Hype!”

(“Public Opinion Turning Against ObamaCare” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann dated October 23, 2009 published by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/morris/obama_health_plan/2009/10/23/276329.html

“Is ObamaCare Inevitable?” by Joseph Smith dated October 25, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/is_obamacare_inevitable.html

“Where’s the benefit?” by Scott W. Atlas dated October 25, 2009 published by The Washington Times at http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/25/wheres-the-benefit/

“Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls” by Arthur C. Brooks dated October 25, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495131591949574.html

“ObamaCare’s False Dawn” by Rich Lowry dated October 27, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGUzNjdiMWVlNGQ4ZjhiY2Q0ZTcyMTc5M2E1MmEwZTE=

“Constitutionality of health overhaul questioned” by Donald Lambro dated October 28, 2009 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/28/constitutionality-of-health-overhaul-questioned/

“ObamaCare: Startling New Revelations Scare Public” by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown dated October 29, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2009/10/29/obamacare_startling_new_revelations_scare_public?page=1 )

Injecting the government directly into a market that it has the power to regulate, “ObamaCare” would place the health care industry in America on an irreversible path toward nationalization, not to mention raise health care costs on the typical American family. Government doesn’t want to “compete” in the marketplace – it wants to artificially manipulate the marketplace to force millions of Americans out of private plans and into government-run plans, which they ludicrously claim will save taxpayers money. At the heart of this bastardized notion of “competition” is the demonstrably false belief that government-run programs have lower administrative costs than private plans. Medicaid plans have significantly high per person costs than private plans, even though Medicaid is exempt from state health insurance premium taxes that private providers must pay. Private insurance is subject to many expenses not incurred by Medicare. Contrary to the claims of public plan advocates, moving millions of Americans from private insurance to a Medicare-like program will result in program administrative costs that are higher per person and higher, not lower, for the nation as a whole. Medicare Advantage plans will drop out of the program, limiting senior’s choices and causing many to lose the current health care that they have. The CBO has also said the Democrats’ health plan will increase senior’s Medicare prescription drug premiums by 20% over the next decade. Additionally, Medicaid is riddled with fraud and abuse – an epidemic problem that the U.S. government has shown little interest in “reforming.” That means one out of every seven dollars spent on Medicaid goes toward fraud – one reason why the program has seen skyrocketing annual premium increases in recent years, and one reason why its hospital trust fund is forecast to run out of money within the coming decade. Whenever these government-run monstrosities break down – and they always break down – every American taxpayer is suddenly on the hook for the “bailout.” Proponents of Obama’s socialized medicine proposal are very well aware of the public’s skepticism when it comes to supporting unsustainable entitlement programs, which is why they are hiding the greatest government power grab since the “Great Society” beneath a cloak of capitalist-sounding terms like “market principles,” “choice” and “competition.” The latest “rope-a-dope” of the health insurance cram-down includes an “opt-out” provision that allows states to decline government health insurance but the state can't "opt out" of paying for it. The only “choice” Americans will receive in this “market” will be left exclusively to government bureaucrats, whose definition of “competition” is racking up exorbitant costs to provide substandard service, and then sticking you with an ever-expanding 1,990 page “Borg” like monstrosity.

(“Co-Opted Competition” by Howie Rich dated October 28, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/HowieRich/2009/10/28/co-opted_competition

“Republicans Aim to Inform Seniors of True Cost of Dems’ Reform” by Jordon Vivian dated October 28, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34160

“I’ll Pass on ‘Opting Out’” by Ann Coulter dated October 28, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2009/10/28/ill_pass_on_opting_out )

Obama intends to roll out for Senate approval a series of international treaties that will further bind America to the will of the international community if they are ratified. Policies will be tied down by these treaties and we will be judged by international bureaucrats and held to their interpretation of what our obligations are under the treaties. International treaties require only Senate approval. Obama will begin with treaties designed to achieve his vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Efforts will begin to bind America to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (setting guidelines for countries' use of the world's oceans, including economic activities and the protection of maritime resources). Treaties subjecting us to the desires of climate change advocates will follow. Gun control treaties, perhaps under the guise of small arms trade treaties, will certainly be in Obama's queue. The President wants to outsource our policy to the international community, refuses to use our strength and talent to protect the American interest, and is determined to weaken America in the years ahead. Obama clearly sees American power, in and of itself, as evil. 1,168 cities, towns, and counties worldwide are members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) - Local Governments for Sustainability, which is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. The ICLEI has Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council and coordinates local government representation in the UN processes related to Agenda 21. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government's goal of social re-engineering. Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a "smart code" zoning template causing a massive reshuffling of property rights. Obama is trying to force America into an unprecedented, massive makeover to please the international bureaucrats whose approval and acclaim he so desperately craves. Expect Obama and his minions to attempt to “Rahm through” these types of treaties in the Senate. Once in place, treaties and international agreements will lock America in, since they are rarely broken, and countries, including America, rarely withdraw from them.

(“Signing away sovereignty” by Ed Lasky dated October 27, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/signing_away_sovereignty.html

“UN Agenda 21 – Coming to a Neighborhood Near You” by Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild dated October 28, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html )

The main object of the "new era of engagement," Iran, has settled back into its old game-playing, and the United States is “being played.” The joint proposal agreed to by the United States, France and Russia, to have Iran ship 70% of its low-enriched uranium to Russia this year, was a compromise. It might theoretically have delayed Iran's bomb program by a year or so and thus bought some time to get a better and more definitive agreement with Tehran, but it would not have stopped Iran from continuing to enrich uranium, which has been the goal of the United States and Europe for the better part of a decade. The deal, blessed and promoted by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El Baradei, was really more a test of Iran's intentions than a decisive breakthrough. So now the test results are in and Iran's intentions are not good. Tehran apparently will not accept the deal but will propose an alternate plan, agreeing to ship smaller amounts of low-enriched uranium to Russia gradually over a year. Iran's nuclear clock, which the Obama administration hoped to stop or at least slow, would continue ticking at close to its regular speed. Tehran is obviously probing to see whether President Obama can play hardball or whether he can be played. So what about Russia, that other great object of the "new era of engagement"? Moscow agreed to join in sanctions should Iran refuse to make a deal, and Obama paid in advance for cooperation by acquiescing to Moscow's demand to cancel planned missile-defense deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic. If the administration's engagement strategy is working, then Moscow should come through by joining in sanctions. If Moscow declares that Iran's counterproposal is satisfactory, or calls for further weeks or months of negotiations, then we will know that Russia, too, is playing Obama. Here again, Obama will have to show whether he is someone whom other powers have to take seriously, or if he is an easy mark in a geopolitical con game. If Moscow continues to act as Iran's facilitator, then doesn't Obama need to make clear that, just as cooperation brings rewards, noncooperation will have consequences? We worry that every time Iran rejects one proposal, the president will simply resume negotiations on another proposal and that this will continue right up until the day Iran finally tests its first nuclear weapon, at which point the president will simply begin negotiations again to try to persuade Iran to put its nuclear genie back in the bottle. Russia, meanwhile, will continue to be accommodated as a partner in this effort, on the perpetually untested theory that if Obama ever did decide to get tough with Iran, Moscow would join in. Meanwhile the military has lost confidence in Obama’s commitment and tenacity to see the fight through to victory fearing that he regards Afghanistan and Iraq as political distractions. Many worry that, for Obama, engagement is an end in itself, not a means to an end, and his strategy is doomed to fail.

(“Can Obama play hardball?” by Robert Kagan dated October 29, 2009 published by The Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102803804.html

“The Tenacity Question” by David Brooks dated October 29, 2009 published by The New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html?_r=1 )

Even though several less sweeping versions of the health care “public option” are gaining steam on Capitol Hill, potentially providing an opening for GOP lawmakers to bargain for the least offensive, party leaders are sending a message: Not impressed. The unyielding resistance ensures that Republicans will keep health care reform complaints in their arsenal for the 2010 elections and beyond. At the same time, they run the risk of reinforcing their image among critics as the "Party of No." None of the legislative proposals Speaker Pelosi is discussing can be called 'reform.' “All of the Democrats' trillion-dollar bills will increase premiums, raise taxes, cut Medicare benefits, destroy jobs and jeopardize the health coverage that millions have today," House Minority Leader John Boehner remarked. Meanwhile mainstream (Silent) America has finally woken up to the damage being done to our economy, and the TEA Party protests were born and grown into a real national movement. The Tea Partyers seem to be the same kind of people who rose up in anger to support Ross Perot in 1992. Perot’s “Reform Party” achieved 20% of the 1992 vote, enough to enable Democrat Bill Clinton to gain the White House. The Perotistas were people highly distrustful, fed up with Congress and Washington politics which they believed was ignoring them. The Perotistas were in 1992 -- and the Tea Partyers are now -- “kitchen table issue” voters. Healthcare is one of those issues that affects families directly, and most Americans feel strongly enough about it to become politically active. Conservatives are sick and tired of being taken for granted, misrepresented, and talked down to by the same "elite" Republicans in Washington who hopelessly screwed everything up during the Bush years. Congressional job approval remains very low, about 25% according to the latest Real Clear Politics average. As one recent poll found, most Americans believe that their healthcare system will be better if Congress does nothing rather than pass ObamaCare, and believe that members of Congress don’t have a good understanding of the subject. The Republican establishment disdains ideological conservatives. Establishment Republicans among them aren’t helping themselves by ignoring conservative causes and neglecting to campaign to capture the Tea Partyers and the other votes that they can gain with a concerted effort aimed at them. Republicans need to think and act right now on the Tea Partyers’ distrust of government and analyze what else will animate independents, if they want to win starting in 2010!.

(“Republicans Stand Firm on Public Option Resistance, Despite Emergence of Compromise Plans” dated October 25, 2009 published by Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/25/republicans-hold-firm-public-option-resistance/

“Who Are the Tea Partyers?” by Jed Babbin dated October 26, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34120

“5 Messages for ‘Elite’ Republicans” by John Hawkins dated October 27, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/10/27/5_messages_for_elite_republicans )

* 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.

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY