Views on the News
November 7, 2009
Views on the News*
The Obama administration has failed on nearly every front of significance to the American voter. A year ago, Barack Obama was elected in a wave of hope: for him, the first black president, and for the country, mired in an economic crisis and engaged in a war against Islamic radicalism. The country has been treated to tired rhetoric about new beginnings, increasingly untenable attempts to blame the previous administration for the country’s woes, and ever bleaker budgetary forecasts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the economy grew in the third quarter of 2009 by 3.5%, a figure achieved by claiming inflation was running at only a 0.8% annual rate, despite a sharp drop in the dollar, a spike in commodity prices and record highs for gold. Unfortunately about half that growth came from the Cash for Clunkers program which transferred into the third quarter auto sales revenue that would have occurred later. The expiring tax credit of $8,000 for first-time homebuyers stimulated some house sales. Most of the impact of the $787 billion stimulus package, we are told by the Obama White House, has already been felt. There were few signs in the new data that the private sector will be able to sustain that growth once the government pulls back. Obama's fundamental problem has been and continues to be the lack of job creation. He has pretended that such a thing as "jobs saved" is real, can be measured, and is actually demonstrating tremendous recovery potential in the still lackluster workplace. Given that there is no legitimate way the number of jobs saved can be counted, it needs to be understood that this tactic is a classic canard designed to throw those of us watching off the trail and to ask us to believe an unbelievable idea: that a recovery can happen without job creation. When the full-blown unemployment number is at 10.2%, we get one piece of the picture. But when we add in the fact that nearly double that number of Americans have settled for underemployment, and are thus unable to truly provide completely for the needs of their families, we see the fuller picture. By 2-to-1, Americans continue to believe that Congress should address the deficit first, then health care. Yet the best that Congress has come up with to address our entitlement and fiscal crisis is to create a costly new open-ended entitlement. On health care, his administration is willing to spend upwards of $17,000 per breathing individual in the nation, to offer universal health care coverage to those people who could purchase it for less than $6,000 per year. In the process he is willing to bankrupt the competitive nature of health care by running private insurance out of business. In addition, he is also attempting to pass on the single largest tax increase ever allocated against the poor in this nation through his dastardly “cap-and-trade” legislation. Through smoke and mirrors he pretends to punish corporations, but companies never pay taxes. Corporations will either pass the cost on to their customers, or they will go bankrupt. Additional tax burdens, wasteful use of stimulus funds, and merely creating more government control are exactly the opposite of things any administration should be doing when needing to create more jobs. Unfortunately a dangerous thing for Obama has been happening: Hope is turning into cynicism and disappointment and he is viewed as just another politician, ensnared by petty arguments, obsessed with politics instead of leadership, and often paralyzed by decision-making. American voters got an early chance Tuesday to pass judgment on Obama and the results say they don’t like what they see. 12 months since his election and Obama’s economic grade is sadly a D minus, and that is probably more affirmative action than he should be afforded.
(“Why Hope & Change Isn’t Working Economically” by Kevin McCullough dated October 31, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/10/31/why_hope__change_isnt_working_economically
“Hold the Champagne: Happy Days Aren’t Here Again” by Michael Barone dated November 2, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2009/11/02/hold_the_champagne_happy_days_arent_here_again
“Just Another Politician” by Monica Crowley dated November 2, 2009 published by The Daily Beast at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-02/just-another-politician/
“Health Reform Faces Moment of Truth” by Tom Coburn and Paul Ryan dated November 3, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=511167
“The Obama Revolution Is Over” by Matt Gurney dated November 4, 2009 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/04/the-obama-revolution-is-over-by-matt-gurney/ )
The “war” on Fox News, Glenn Beck, and "conservative" talk radio in general has attracted a fair amount of attention of late, with a number of people, including the eldest of White House correspondents Helen Thomas calling it a serious mistake. There is a significant reason why this "war" is happening, and it reflects on the nature of Barack Obama, the nature of the modern left, and, what is happening in the media in general. The problem begins with the fact that, at bottom line, Mr. Obama was and is an empty suit. He is able to play the con man, but he is incapable of governing, and has essentially zero leadership ability. His campaign on how he was going to benefit everyone and make government transparent was for all practical purposes a fraud. His sole agenda was to turn the government over to the radicals in Congress and his equally radical assistants to run in an essentially authoritarian fashion. Barack Obama, like many politicians, is unable to take responsibility for his failures and for his lack of competency. He has to blame someone else, which is proof of his immaturity and inability to lead. The intense level of public pressure derailed virtually the entire statist agenda proposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Next, infighting broke out in the Democrat Party, and the once overwhelming majority lost its cohesion and effectiveness. Fox News, along with Glenn Beck and his crew, has played a major vehicle in exposing this and other cases of duplicity in the Obama administration, as well as in Congress. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, which is why the folks in Washington DC are trying to keep it out, since they don't want the public to know the truth. The public, provided with information by a host of radio sources plus Fox News were the spearhead behind the Tea Party organizations, the Town Hall meeting protests, etc. The fact that the ratings for Fox News are climbing while those for CNN, MSNBC, et al. are falling shows that the public is hungry for the information not appearing on these networks. It also shows the level of public distrust for certain programming and those presenting it. Fox has become the trusted source for a large portion of the public and that portion is acting on it. The liberal political establishment knows that the truth is dangerous to its power. It knows that as long as the public is aware of information that “Big Brother” doesn't want them to have, it will be impossible for them to act unopposed. When a government does not respect the public, or believes that it knows best and that the public should submit to its wishes without question, it eventually becomes a tyranny. Tyrannical governments cannot abide challenges or dissent, thus, anyone who disagrees becomes an enemy. Because the Internet has become a focal point for organizing the government power holders want to shut it down too, at least to the extent it can provide information to and opportunities for the opposition. Not satisfied in his attempt to suppress the alternative media, Obama has embarked on a campaign to threaten scientists who disagree with his climate change hoax and its underlying “junk science.” The authors of the Constitution knew why they needed a free press; to alert the public when their liberty is in danger.
(“Why Fight With the Press?” by Steven D. Laib dated November 1, 2009 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/01/why-fight-with-the-press/
“More ‘Work’ for the President” by Patrick J. Michaels dated November 5, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjNDEyYWRlN2ZlMmY5Mzc2NjBlMGE5MzBlM2JlNDI= )
Barack Obama stands out as the first American President whose every instinct is contrary to America's essence. Our American essence can be defined as follows: American individuals are free from control by, and fear of, their own government, and the American nation is free from control by other nations. At home, every single one of Obama’s initiatives is directed at increasing government control, with a corresponding decrease in individual liberty. Of course, not all of these Obama dreams will become reality. The White House arrogance on display in denying that Tuesday's election results were a repudiation of President Barack Obama's radical agenda is of a piece with its arrogance in attempting to advance this agenda against the people's will. His health care initiative is struggling, he's trying to flush his civilian security force theory down the memory hole, he's humiliated himself in his battles with Limbaugh and Fox, and he's generally doing a fancy dance by which he tries to hide his authoritarian impulses. What he wants to do, what his desires are vis à vis the American people, is clearly antithetical to the American essence since he wants to limit or destroy individual liberties. When it comes to America's role abroad, Obama's impulses are also all antithetical to liberty and American independence. According to Obama, America is no longer the symbol of liberty around the world. When Obama deals with the world outside America, he denies America's essence, which has so long marked her as the symbol of and standard-bearer for freedom. Since the overwhelming number of Barack Obama's desires and actions are antithetical to America's essence, you can conclude that he is in fact anti-American. He's not merely making little changes around the edges, but instead, both at home and abroad, Barack Obama is trying to destroy America's essence, that commitment to liberty that makes her unique in this world, and that makes her uniquely American.
(“Is Barack Obama Anti-American?” by Bookworm dated November 1, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/is_barack_obama_antiamerican.html
“White House Postelection Arrogance” by David Limbaugh dated November 6, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/11/06/white_house_postelection_arrogance )
Liberals have worked very hard to infiltrate key influence areas of our society as an insidious technique to indoctrinate and control immature and weak minded Americans. No institution was more instrumental than the university in shaping the minds and behavior of the young. Students schooled in the writings of radical revolutionaries such as Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, and lesser-known malcontents like Alinsky, Zinn, and Chomsky, spread their noxious fumes throughout the halls of academia. The Port Huron Statement in 1962 and the founding of SDS formed the initial assault on the staid halls of higher learning. Academia, unable to contain or even properly challenge this misguided agenda, floundered in its response. University indoctrination has grown and infected future leaders to prey upon unsuspecting minds, inculcating them with a sense of guilt, radical redress and egalitarian fervor. Those infected with this radical new virus could now expand their activities to include law schools. New radical lawyers imbued with this bubonic sickness attacked our nation's laws at the principal level. Judicial activists unleashed a torrent of bad constitutional law that would make any radical proud, and the links that bound us to our founding were now severely strained. The lessons learned in higher education could now be spread to the more basic levels of education. Rather than parents teaching their children tolerance and good moral underpinnings, the Hard Left would give no quarter in acceptance of gay lifestyles and gay marriage, wealth redistribution, equality of outcome, and disparagement of conservatism. These became staples in the indoctrination of the very young. The Hard Left could now attack the entertainment industry, since the poor, limp, listless minds of this industry were ripe for the picking. What could be more important than compassion for the poor, not getting involved in military conflict, and equality for all who had suffered under the dreaded capitalist state? The film industry offered itself in humble prostration to these noble ideas and films depicting the evils of capitalism and the inadequacy of the free market spawned a whole new generation of useful idiots to spread the biblical word. The news media was the last pillar of indoctrination to be co-opted and has proven to be one of the most important. Walter Cronkite was the first to leverage his reputation reporting the facts in the news to inject his subjective opinions masquerading as news. The infection of the newsroom continues unabated today reporting a brand of news so skewed to the Left that "embarrassing" would be its most flattering description. These are the multiple pillars that Liberal Progressives have safely ensconced in their method of attack on America. We must confront Liberals on their ground and fight the bankrupt ideas of socialism in academia through the media.
(“The Pillars of Liberal Progressivism” by Pete Morin dated October 31, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_pillars_of_liberal_progres.html )
Nancy Pelosi’s version of health care “reform” -- the Orwellian-titled “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R. 3962) -- is a shell game hiding a massive tax and spend program designed to force everybody into the caring hands of Dr. Ezekiel “let the senior citizens die” Emanuel and Nancy “Nurse Ratched” Pelosi. The health bill Nancy Pelosi unveiled may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced. This Democrat “reform” bill would create a whopping 111 new "federal bureaucracies,” including: a Health Choices Commissioner, a Health Benefits Advisory Committee, a Health Insurance Exchange; the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; the Public Health Investment Fund; the Public Health Workforce Corps; an Assistant Secretary for Health Information; the Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health; grant programs for alternative medical liability laws, infant mortality programs and other issues; and about 100 other government-sponsored creations. After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: 2%. On the surface this statistic is damning since so few takers negates the justification and need to create a public option. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. House Democrats claim their bill would cost just $894 billion, around $400 billion less than the CBO actually projected. The sleight of hand used to make this bill attractive is to separate the costs into two 5-year sections: the total theorized deficit reduction of $104 billion is equal to the deficit reduction of just the first 5 years of the bill, because there is no deficit reduction in the second 5 years; and the reason for that is that the bill’s tax hikes take effect immediately while the so-called health care “reforms” are not instituted until 2013 or 2014. The CBO estimates that the H.R. 3962’s provisions would cut $229 billion from Medicare payments to doctors over 10 years, as well as cutting $170 billion from the Medicare Advantage program, but every year since 2003, Congress has acted to prevent cuts in Medicare spending which were mandated in 1997. Beyond the first ten years, the CBO assumes those Medicare savings will increase faster (in percentage terms) than the cost of expanding coverage. So while the CBO estimates that the coverage expansions in the House Democrats’ legislation would trigger about $1 trillion of new federal spending over ten years, the actual cost of those coverage expansions is more like $2.5 trillion. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics. Americans for Tax Reform have plowed through the Pelosi bill and uncovered thirteen new, separate tax hikes to generate $572 billion in additional tax revenues. Barack Obama promises that if the Democrats’ health-care plan is passed, Americans will enjoy wider and better insurance coverage without: 1. being forced out of their current insurance; 2. being subject to government rationing, including the outright denial of life-saving care; 3. spending themselves and future generations into deeper debt. The Democrats’ program deserves to be rejected because conditions 1, 2, and 3 are not going to be met — and because the Democrats know it and are doing their best to hide that fundamental and important fact from the American people. It is amazing how little media coverage was given to the 25,000 Americans who traveled to Washington, DC on Thursday to ask their Congressmen to “Kill the Bill!” This latest Pelosi “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R. 3962) is so bad that resistance may be sufficient to defeat this “Borg-like” health care nationalization monstrosity.
(“After All the Fuss, Public Health Plan Covers Few” dated October 31, 2009 published by The New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/31/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Public-Plan.html?_r=3
“The Worst Bill Ever” dated November 1, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
“PelosiCare’s Costly Formula” by Ross Kaminsky dated November 2, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34220
“House Republicans Find 111 New ‘Bureaucracies’ in Health Care Bill” dated November 3, 2009 published by Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/house-republicans-new-bureaucracies-health-care/
“The $1.5 Trillion Fraud” by Michael F. Cannon dated November 6, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU0NGRhY2FhNDAyZDA4MzAzMDBlZTJiZjM3ZjA4NDM=
“Three Strikes against ObamaCare” dated November 6, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTQ2ZTI4MzcwMzNmZDY0MzRjNzgwNGY0NjQ2NGI1YTY= )
Harry Reid has unintentionally provided the best solution for Americans to deal with the massive liberal government that the Obama administration is inflicting on the American people. The OPT-OUT option, proposed in the health insurance legislation pending in Congress, is a bi-partisan solution Americans to provide feedback on government legislation. To completely embrace the idea, the OPT-OUT concept must apply to all federal programs - everything and anything the federal government involves itself in. The OPT-OUT option overcomes issues regarding the constitutionality of these programs. Quite simply, it won't matter if social security, health care, cap and trade, or any other federal program is constitutional or not; the individual can choose to fund or not fund a program for whatever reason. If you believe the general welfare clause of the Constitution is a broad grant of powers authorizing the federal government to fund and implement virtually any program Congress deems necessary, then fund all of the government programs. Likewise, if you believe, the role of government is truly limited to the powers delegated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, then do not fund programs that exceed those constitutional powers:
· An OPT-OUT option for Social Security would allow the individual to choose whether he wants to be responsible for his own retirement or let the government take care of it.
· An OPT-OUT option for Medicare would allow the individual to choose whether she wants to be responsible for her health insurance coverage or she wants to enroll in the federally run Medicare program.
· An OPT-OUT option on a federal program-by-program basis allows the individual to determine where he wants his tax money spent.
· Simply add a new Internal Revenue Service tax form itemizing the programs and allow the individual to determine which programs his taxes can be applied to.
This places responsibility firmly upon the individual, as he can determine which programs he wants to fund and which programs not to fund. Citizens no longer need to rely upon Congress to make these decisions for them; they basically direct the money to the appropriate programs and the programs either fund themselves or they do not. This eliminates the arbitrary process of Congress, federal government agencies, or bureaucrats deciding where and how to spend your hard-earned money. Furthermore, I'd suggest an OPT-IN option for those that believe in more taxation. They can voluntarily contribute additional monies to the federal government and direct those funds to programs they support. Essentially, the OPT-OUT concept is a referendum on responsibility. People possess the capacity for compassion; governments do not. Confiscating one's liberty and property against her will through coercion so that some bureaucrat can arbitrarily decide how to spend her money isn't compassion; rather, it is a form of thievery and a violation of property rights. An across-the-board OPT-OUT choice is a viable solution for both sides, delivering a participatory democracy while allowing personal responsibility, liberty, and property rights.
(“OPT-OUT is the Solution” by Scott Strzelczyk dated November 1, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/optout_is_the_solution.html )
Obama has successfully stalled international progress all over the world, and does not appear to have a coherent strategy to get back on track. Despite America’s best efforts, President Hamid Karzai is the declared winner after the runoff election was canceled Monday, leaving little hope for a legitimate government in Afghanistan. Despite Washington’s pressures, Israeli and Palestinian leaders can’t agree on terms to resume negotiations. In ten months the administration has managed to offend and demoralize Israelis and Palestinians, lose the support of Arab governments, and reduce previously excellent relations with the government of Israel to levels unmatched since the James Baker days. Despite reasonable negotiating efforts by the Obama administration, Iran rejects the very fair idea of sending most of its uranium abroad to be turned into medical research chips for Iran. President Obama can hardly forget about an Iraq where the country seems headed again toward civil war, as U.S. troops continue their withdrawal as mandated by the Iraqis. Barack Obama has arrived at a terrible moment of truth in foreign policy, since he has done little to make these four crises less critical. Americans knew that electing Obama, a man without any real experience in foreign affairs, was a risk. We are dealing with people in all these and other cases who hate their fellow citizens and/or the United States so much that they’d much rather kill each other and destroy themselves than accept America’s genuine attempts to improve their lives and give peace a chance. Obama has to learn that Washington’s sweet reason means almost nothing to such people. If the various leaders of these countries and movements are determined to persist in their murderous, corrupt, and self-destructive ways, Obama’s overwhelming logic won’t convince them otherwise. Maybe these last nine months have taught Obama something about international realities. The United States can not walk away from these problems, since futility and neo-isolationism are contrary to American interests.
(“Stalled Out All Over the World” by Leslie H. Gelb dated November 1, 2009 published by The Daily Beast at http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-01/stalled-out-all-over-the-world/?cid=hp:mainpromo2
“Next, Locust?” by Elliott Abrams dated November 16, 2009 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/187pwixc.asp )
Obama has benefited from a liberal media in his campaign so far, but now finds himself handcuffed by the leftist media who want him to lose the war in Afghanistan – and the military pays the price. Obama's quandary is that he is a liberal Democrat who opposes most military engagements, even though this war appears to be winnable. We lost Vietnam through the liberal media. We nearly lost the Cold War because of the liberal media. We are withdrawing in Iraq because of the media. We are eager to appease the crazies in Iran because of the feckless media, and we are going to leave the Israelis to deal with the genociders over there because of the media. We are therefore risking the first nuclear martyrdom cult in history -- all because of the liberal media. Now we know what Karl Marx meant by saying, "First, Conquer the Organs of Propaganda!" The left is now trying to make comparisons to Vietnam, in order to demoralize the American public and turn public support against a military presence in Afghanistan. The Taliban obviously think that Obama can be scared into appeasement by killing American soldiers. In his slick PR fashion, Obama's answer to the charge that he is "dithering on Afghanistan" is to feed the hungry media a military photo op of his saluting a US Soldier's flag-draped casket coming back from Afghanistan. The darker news is that General McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan is now more than two months old, and the enemy isn't dithering. The Taliban are attacking, and the Afghans caught in the middle are losing their faith in US protection. Weakness kills; strength saves lives; everybody knows that but the Left.
(“O isn’t dithering on Afghanistan! It’s a Harvard Law Seminar!” by James Lewis dated November 1, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/o_isnt_dithering_on_afghanista.html
“Obama’s Hesitation on Afghanistan” by Rachel Alexander dated November 6, 2009 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/06/obamas-hesitation-on-afghanistan/ )
The wide American mainstream is broadening to include fiscal conservatives, some of whom have all sorts of opinions on social issues, but they are united in their concern about the growing size and scope of government. The American voter is desperate for political leadership and is not seeing it in the Republican Party, and unless leadership emerges equal to the new world voters see they have fallen into, volatility in America's election returns is going to be the norm for a long time. Sarah Palin compiles conservative esteem and argues with deep philosophical references to conservative ideals. According to a recent Gallup study, 40% of Americans view themselves as conservative, 36% call themselves moderate, and only 20% fall into the liberal category. 72% of Republicans identify themselves as conservative. Bottom line is that the Republicans Party is deeply conservative while America is predominantly conservative. It is the party label that has trouble, not the philosophy which was once its driving force. The growing revolt against Washington is an enormous opportunity for the GOP. The American people see the GOP leadership and establishment every bit as much a part of the problem as the Democrats. Palin’s political support of Doug Hoffman in New York was not a product of a focus group. If there had remained any doubt that Dede Scozzafava was the wrong candidate for Republicans in New York’s 23rd Congressional District and her decision to endorse Democrat Bill Owens after leaving the race closes the book on that question. Palin evokes Ronald Reagan, mentioned the importance of establishing sharp contrasts with opponents, and stressed the primacy of principle over party. Palin continues to be the antithesis of the trivial politician. She has that unique ability to convey the highest sense of personal honor without ever projecting any of the usual political pomposity. You can never get enough of authenticity. Palin has chosen Facebook, not YouTube, as her preferred mode of communication, at least for now. Free markets, individual liberty, small government, strong national defense, and low taxes are the constant themes she invokes. Along with those values, she makes constant mention of the two political giants of the 20th century who embodied them, championed them, and communicated them tirelessly: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Palin is bringing us back to the principled, universal roots that Reagan shared with the Founders. None of us knows what Sarah Palin has in mind for 2012 and beyond, but if she is the force that helped us regain the confidence of conservative convictions, then she will have given us a gift beyond repayment. TEA Party activists and conservatives feel betrayed by Republican leaders. Just about everything the TEA Partiers have been asked to do, they’ve done with relish — the Tax Day protest, the angry crowds at congressional town-hall meetings this summer, the 9/12 rally on the Mall in Washington. The TEA Party movement, like Reaganism, is the real big tent. A recent Gallup poll shows that in America, conservatives outnumber liberals by two to one. We know from history that conservatives can win landslide elections, but conservatives need to be confident to be resurgent. Being opposed to expanding government and raising taxes is not an ultra-right litmus test, but instead is a sign of mainstream Republican Party and increasingly mainstream American. Tuesday’s election results were a big confidence builder, and maybe the “mainstream” media will rethink how mainstream America thinks about the liberal over-reach underway in this country.
(“Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich: The Visionary and the Hack” by Claude Sandroff dated November 1, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/sarah_palin_and_newt_gingrich.html
“Is the Republican Label Irrelevant?” by Bay Buchanon dated November 2, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/BayBuchanan/2009/11/02/is_the_republican_label_irrelevant
“Hoffman and the GOP” dated November 2, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDEzZjcwMjkyODgzYmEyYjEzZDA3OWFiZjhjNjY3YzY=
“American Mainstream Is Looking More Like Republican Mainstream” by Mary Kate Cary dated November 2, 2009 published by US News & World Report at http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2009/11/02/american-mainstream-is-looking-more-like-republican-mainstream.html
“Tea Party Activists Are the New GOP” by Richard Viguerie dated November 3, 2009 published by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/viguerie/tea_party_gop/2009/11/03/280803.html
“Voters Are Desperate for Political Leadership” by Daniel Henninger dated November 5, 2009 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/05/voters_are_desperate_for_political_leadership_99032.html)
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Individual issue updates this week include:
· Environment at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/environment.php