Liberals are on their high horses about a single audience member at CNN's Republican debate whom they believe wanted a hypothetical man without health insurance in a hypothetical coma to die — hypothetically. (Democrats want people in comas to die only when they are not hypothetical but real, like Terri Schiavo.) I concur with the audience member who shouted “Yes!” This has nothing to do with any actual people in comas — the people Democrats want to kill — it's just a big “screw you” to the moderator. Following up on Brian Williams' showboating questions at last week's Republican debate about the execution of the innocent and starving children with distended stomachs, this week, CNN's Wolf Blitzer launched his question about an imaginary comatose man without health insurance. As Rep. Ron Paul began to discuss the pitfalls of collectivism, Blitzer kept interrupting him, concluding with, “But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” That's when an audience member yelled out “Yes!” — allowing liberals to luxuriate in self-righteousness, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jersey Girls demanded a Homeland Security Department be created because their husbands died. Normal people are sick of liberals' emotional stories that play to soccer moms, but always seem to pave the way for disastrous social policies that benefit only left-wing special-interest groups. Whenever liberals start loftily insisting on our obligation to our fellow man with these tear-jerkers, you know some heinous public policy is coming. As soon as the dust settles, you won't see any innocent victims being helped, only trial lawyers, government employees and other Democratic constituencies. Obama campaigned for his national health care bill with a sad story about a campaign supporter who died of breast cancer soon after his election because — he said — she couldn't afford health insurance, so she didn't get a breast cancer scan in time to stop the disease. He somberly told embarrassed audiences: “She insisted she is going to be buried in an Obama T-shirt.” (As it looks like we all will, unless we get a new president next year.) Apart from the fact that free breast cancer screening was available right in his supporter's hometown of St. Louis, she undoubtedly would have been able to afford excellent health insurance … except the government outlawed affordable health insurance. Thanks to accumulated government mandates on insurance companies at that time, imposed by both the state and federal government, Obama's Missouri supporter was allowed to buy health insurance only provided it covered: chiropractors, speech therapists, hearing therapists, psychologists, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists (Missouri), as well as mental health benefits, unlimited hospital stays for newborns and mothers, and reconstructive surgery after mastectomy (federal). When starting her own business and struggling to make ends meet, the Obama supporter might have been better served by a cheaper policy that covered only, say, actual medical problems. But the government didn't permit her that option. Obama's poster-child for government-run health insurance was a victim of government-micromanaged health insurance. It would be as if the government prohibited us from buying cars unless they were Lexus SUVs, fully loaded with every possible option. Then, when most Americans couldn't afford to buy a car, the Democrats could demand we pass “ObamaCar.” Wolf could have asked: “A healthy 30-year-old young man decides, 'I'm not going to spend $100,000 or $200,000 for a car because, you know, I don't need it.' But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay if he needs a car to escape a hurricane, for example? Who pays for that?” Why are the only two options always a behemoth government program or the guy dies? The subject is a baby kitten, but the real beneficiaries are the people with great government jobs, fantastic pensions, long vacations, and self-paced and self-evaluated working environments. As for Brian Williams' grandstandy question to Gov. Rick Perry about Texas' execution rate (“Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?”): There is no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been executed in this country since at least 1950. There is, however, a lot of evidence that innocent people have been killed when murderers were not executed. Indeed, one of the most infamous cases of a former death row inmate being released and then killing again comes from Texas. Kenneth McDuff had been given three death sentences for kidnapping and murdering three teenagers, repeatedly raping one. But he was sprung from prison after the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty in 1972 and then Texas began releasing inmates to relieve prison overcrowding. McDuff went on to kill more than a dozen people, provably eight more. He was finally executed by Gov. George Bush in 1998, two decades after his post-death row rape and murder spree began. Someone ought to calculate the carnage liberals foisted on this country beginning in the late-'60s with their “compassionate” approach to rapists and serial killers like McDuff — consequences that liberals were fully immunized from in their safe, ivory tower neighborhoods. Let's ask Michael Dukakis to run the numbers. Regarding Williams' baby seal question about starving children in Texas with distended stomachs: No one is starving in this country. The only bloated stomach problem affecting America's poor is a medical condition known as “obesity.” According to the General Accounting Office, in 2008, the federal government had 18 separate food programs that spent $62.5 billion each year to feed the poor. And that was before the Food Stamp President assumed office. I would venture to guess that the only children in America who have ever suffered from kwashiorkor, the condition that causes distended bellies, were victims of child abuse — at the hands of the sort of monsters Williams is so opposed to executing. People aren't buying the left's emotional appeals about imaginary victims anymore. The audience member's “Yes!” was a way of laughing in the moderators' faces for trying to pull that crap.
Continue reading …Funeral of Bakhat Khan, a tribal leader opposed to the Taliban, targeted by bomber in ‘revenge’ attack near Afghan border A suicide bomber has attacked the funeral service of a Pakistani tribal leader opposed to the Taliban, killing at least 20 people. The blast took place in the Lower Dir region close to the Afghan border, and is the second such attack in days. About 200 mourners were attending the open-air funeral of Bakhat Khan when the bomber struck, police said. Many were wounded and were taken to hospital. Bakhat, who died of natural causes on Wednesday, was a member of a local “lashkar” or militia opposed to Taliban rule in the region. Tribesmen in the north west have formed a number of militias for which they receive limited government funding. They have had some success in stopping militant infiltration but are routinely hit by revenge attacks. Many of the bloodiest bombings of the last three years have targeted lashkar members or their families. On Monday Taliban gunmen killed four children as they returned from school close to the main north-western city of Peshawar. Islamist insurgents said the attack was aimed at stopping locals supporting a tribal militia. Pakistan Taliban Afghanistan Global terrorism guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Talk of federalism is back, as European leaders search for answer to loss of nerve over financial crises In a damp Brussels garden one evening last week, the dreamers who have long fantasised about a United States of Europe sipped champagne and discerned a silver lining in the EU’s worst ever crisis. “Federalism is back,” observed Guy Verhofstadt, the liberals’ leader in the European parliament. “We can talk about federalism again.” Prime minister of Belgium for nine years, Verhofstadt was unable to construct an enduring Belgian federation. By Friday the country will have gone 460 days without a proper government and may yet fall apart. Undaunted, Verhofstadt has turned to bigger ambitions. “A European fiscal union, an economic union, a political union, this is what the markets want.” Seldom has the political climate seemed so unsuited to such vaulting vision. Almost two years of sovereign debt crisis in Greece and elsewhere have plunged the EU into helpless defeatism, its leaders exhausted and feuding, struggling to assert themselves as masters of Europe’s destiny . The mood is one of mistrust, foul tempers, division between north and south, big and small, while Brussels-bashing has long since ceased to be a specifically British sport. But Verhofstadt and the champagne crowd at the Union of European Federalists bash are not as lonely as they were before the crisis befell the EU. In the past couple of weeks, four German cabinet members, all in Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, have called for a federal Europe as the answer to the EU’s loss of nerve. The European commission chief, José Manuel Barroso, never tires of urging “political union” on the EU, most recently in a despairing speech to the European parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday. Six former heads of European governments, gathered in a German billionaire’s brains trust and including Tony Blair, have just delivered a plea for a federalised EU. Gerhard Schröder, Merkel’s predecessor as German chancellor, proposed a European government answering to a beefed-up European parliament. Jean-Claude Trichet of France, the outgoing head of the European Central Bank, is calling for a European finance minister. His successor, Mario Draghi of Italy, sees the EU’s salvation in a “quantum leap in economic and political integration”. Just a few years ago, such notions of “ever closer union” appeared dead and buried after the gruelling nine-year failure to agree a European constitution palatable to European voters. An expanding union of 27 countries had rubbed up against the limits of integration. Politicians such as Verhofstadt were seen as fringe fanatics. Not any longer. “The best opportunity in a generation for a united Europe,” maintains the Belgian. “Now these people are coming out of the woodwork again. They’re making the running,” says a senior national diplomat in Brussels. “If they get their way, you would have a single government in Europe setting fiscal policy, macro-economic policy for all of the eurozone. Individual countries would be reduced to the status of regions. It’s such a huge step. I’m very sceptical.” Major questions attend this emerging campaign to build a united political Europe – issues of mandate, democratic legitimacy, loss of sovereignty. Above all, what, as the central player, does Germany want. Despite the clear aversion in Berlin to bailing out the eurozone’s collapsing economies, there is little sign that the Germans have turned anti-European. They want Europe, but the question is what kind of Europe. “Despite her rhetoric, Merkel will be ready to proceed towards a solution, stronger European macro-economic government, with strict parameters set,” says Pawel Swieboda, head of demosEUROPA, a Polish thinktank. This embryo European government is already taking shape. In the summer Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, agreed to summits at least twice a year of the 17 countries using the euro, with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, put in charge. In all likelihood, there will be a new “secretariat” created to support him. From 2013 there will be a permanent eurozone bailout fund. There is much talk of a European debt agency, a European monetary fund, of eurobonds whereby the 17 countries pool their debt and issue common paper. The latter is deeply unpopular in Germany, albeit supported by the finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble. The Germans and the French also recently agreed to establish “common” corporate taxation systems and “enhanced economic convergence”, which will exert a magnetic pull on the rest of the eurozone, and to levy a “Tobin tax” on bank transactions even though the British, for one, will not take part. Much of this is to be finessed and argued over at an EU summit next month. And by the end of the year there will be demands to re-open the Lisbon Treaty to unblock barriers to some of these integrationist steps. The Franco-German call for eurozone economic government is broadly seen as a victory for Sarkozy and a concession from Merkel who may now try to water down her commitment in the nitpicking over detail. The Germans will also exact a high price in dictating the terms of common budget, economic, and fiscal policies if they are to take part. That may be too much for some to stomach. “This may not be politically feasible,” says Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform thinktank. “A fiscal union and eurobonds could help, but it will mean the southern countries giving up economic sovereignty. Berlin could destroy the euro if it goes on like this. “Its over-zealous discipline and austerity medicine is not going to work. Besides all this economic government stuff is irrelevant to the euro crisis. It’s now a crisis of growth, of banking, with liquidity drying up.” The senior diplomat points out that the ambitious plans for European economic government will take years. Time, meanwhile, is not on the EU’s side given the daily gyrations on the bond markets and the plunging fortunes of gamechanging Italy. “The eurozone has been completely incapable of doing anything in an orderly way so far in this crisis. October is the moment when the eurozone government stuff gets real. The plan is to stagger through until the summit and then set the long-term strategy. But the whole Greek situation could spin out of control before then,” says the diplomat who is involved in preparing the summit. There are other big problems. The plans for economic government and ultimately political union apply to the 17 countries using the euro, leaving 10 EU member states outside, although some of them will eventually join if the currency survives. Merkel has always opposed a “two-speed Europe”, not least because the balance of power in the eurozone tilts south towards France and the Mediterranean countries away from Berlin. But she now reluctantly concedes that there is no alternative to closer eurozone government. The decisions will be made here, meaning that Britain and other non-euro countries will be out of the loop. The Cameron government appears to accept this, with George Osborne arguing for the “remorseless logic” of eurozone fiscal union, while scheming to put greater distance between the UK and the EU. There will be inevitable clashes, with Britain objecting to eurozone policy decisions and being told to get out of the way. UK-EU estrangement will become more entrenched. And in a time of growing euroscepticism across the EU, with populist parties hostile to Brussels making big gains at the ballot box in a string of countries from Austria to Finland, the surrender of sovereignty over national budgets entailed in economic or political union will struggle to secure voter support. “The legitimacy question is the issue that will come back to haunt EU leaders if they don’t address it properly,” says Swieboda. “It won’t be sovereignty as we’ve known it with the freedom to shape your national budget while observing the euro rulebook. Getting citizens on board for these new solutions won’t be easy.” But given the Greek experience, the new regime taking shape is almost certain to include provision for kicking countries out of the euro if they persistently flout the rules. Last week the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, became the first eurozone head of government to propose this. “Greece can always choose to leave,” says Grant. “As long as all this is between freely consenting adults, it’s not that undemocratic.” The damage done to European cohesion by the sovereign debt crisis has been immense, leaving deep scars. The poor southern countries are disillusioned by the hectoring and the bullying from their creditors in the north. The wealthier countries footing the bills for the bailouts are failing to make the case to their tax-paying voters. Three governments, in Ireland, Portugal, and Finland, have fallen as a result of the debt crisis. Merkel has lost a string of regional elections in Germany, partly because of the same issue. The newer eurozone countries such as Slovakia, Slovenia or Estonia cannot believe they are having to fund wealthier western countries after going through hell in the 1990s to reform their post-communist economies. All the big surges in European integration of the past 20 years, from the Maastricht Treaty to monetary union to the admission of eight east European countries in 2004, were born of strong EU political leadership largely pulling in the same optimistic direction. That energy has gone. Europe’s key leaders are acting out of fear rather than hope, worried that the EU could unravel if there is not another big adventure in “ever closer union”. The senior diplomat thinks there will be a bit of both. “Some integration and some disintegration.” Germany Europe Angela Merkel Europe European Union European debt crisis European banks Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …New commissioner of Metropolitan police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, calls in force to examine evidence from Operation Weeting Durham police have been called in by the new commissioner of the Metropolitan force to review the ongoing phone-hacking inquiry, Scotland Yard confirmed on Wednesday. Bernard Hogan-Howe made the decision to ask for another force to examine the evidence gathered in Operation Weeting when he was appointed acting deputy commissioner of the Met in the summer following the departure of assistant commissioner John Yates and commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. His role on this appointment was to take charge of the Operation Weeting inquiry and it was revealed on Wednesday that he had decided as a result of the sensitive nature of the investigation that a review should be carried out. The Guardian understands the review was not commissioned as a result of the arrest of a 51-year-old officer on the inquiry on suspicion of leaking details. The officer remains on police bail on suspicion of misconduct in a public office. Talking to the Evening Standard on Wednesday Hogan-Howe said: “I have asked another force to have a look at the inquiry to reassure us we are going in the right direction and I think we are.” Scotland Yard added: “We can confirm that the Metropolitan police service has asked an outside police force to conduct a review of Operation Weeting. A review of this kind is considered best practice in a sensitive inquiry of this nature and was instigated by Bernard Hogan-Howe as acting deputy commissioner during the summer. The review team is led by Durham chief constable Jon Stoddart who will report to the Metropolitan police service in due course.” A spokesman for Durham police said: “The Metropolitan Police Service has requested that an independent review of Operation Weeting be undertaken and we can confirm that Jon Stoddart, chief constable of Durham constabulary, has agreed to undertake the review. The review team will be taken from a number of forces outside the MPS.” Operation Weeing was begun in January and is investigating claims into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. The senior detective leading the phone-hacking inquiry, deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, told the home affairs select committee in July that there were 4,000 possible victims of phone hacking listed in the pages of private eye Glenn Muclaire’s notebooks. She said these individuals were being contacted “as quickly as possible”. Akers’s investigation team consists of 45 officers, many of whom have been seconded from homicide teams. Akers is also overseeing a separate investigation into alleged bribes of police officers. This is being shared with the Met’s directorate of professional standards and overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World Police Sandra Laville guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Protests against criminalisation of squatting expected in London • Campaigners target justice secretary’s home • “Cardboard city” flashmob expected outside DCLG 2.55pm: Journalist Diane Taylor has just sent this through on the protest on top of Ken Clarke’s roof. It seems small, 10 people so far, but they are expected to join up with flashmobbers later in the day: Two of them clambered onto the porch roof of Clarke’s terraced house in a quiet residential street a stone’s throw from parliament just before 1.30pm to draw attention to the government’s plans to criminalise squatters. They unfurled banners declaring ‘housing is a human right’ and served a mock six-month eviction notice on him. There was no sign of any police officers while the activists protested on Clarke’s porch roof. Phoenix, one of the activists involved in today’s protest, is a veteran squatter. He has been involved in hundreds of direct action protests, beginning with the anti-roads protest in Twyford Down in 1992 and has lost count of how many buildings he has scaled to draw attention to a variety of causes. The activists barged into a TV interview with Alastair Darling on College Green and demanded to know whether or not he was backing the government’s proposals to toughen up anti-squatting legislation. He declined to respond. They then visited the recently vacated Lib Dem HQ and made a failed attempt to squat it. “It’s now an empty property. It would make a perfect community centre,” said Phoenix. 2.33pm: We’re already getting a report from journalist Diane Taylor that activists have target the house of justice secretary Ken Clarke. They climbed on to his roof of his house in Oval an hour-and-a-half ago with one activist giving him a mocked up six month eviction notice.The crowd has now moved on to another target and it was all over very quickly. A full update and pictures are expected soon. 2.06pm: Welcome this afternoon to our live blog on housing protests which are due to take place around London today. We understand that various campaign groups are going to hold protests outside of government buildings including the Department of Communities and Local Government which has responsibility for housing. It’s still a little hush hush but we will update as events come through. They are making noise about a number of issues. The first is the imminent eviction of Dale Farm in Essex in which travellers are expected to be removed in the coming week from a plot of land which they own but do not have planning permission to erect dwellings on. The second issue is the criminalisation of squatting . After after a spate of vacant central London town houses were squatted, including that of Guy Ritchie , the justice secretary Ken Clarke, along with housing minister Grant Schapps decided to make squatting a criminal offence. Currently if you enter a house which has been abandoned and unsecured and claim it as your abode, it is treated by courts as a civil offence. The third issue is that of council’s planned evictions of tenants whose family members were involved in last August’s riots. The first known example of this was Wandsworth council , in London who have already served one family with a notice of planned eviction. And finally, there are of course the cuts to housing benefits. What has most riled activists are the shift from so called subsidised rents which housing associations currently provided when compared to the full market value. The £500 a week housing benefit cap is also a source of concern in London where rent is especially high. Stay tuned for further updates this afternoon. Housing Housing benefit Communities Crime Protest Dale Farm Shiv Malik guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Rep. Peter King, one of the biggest national security blowhards in Congress, who was widely criticized for holding controversial anti-Muslim hearings, knows a thing or two about supporting terrorists. Yes, he was a huge booster for the IRA. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army . “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.” So it was a bit surprising that the British asked him to testify in front of their Parliament: British Parliament will hold a hearing on the “ roots of violent radicalisation ” in the Muslim community in that country. The first witness before the committee will be Rep. Peter King (R-NY). King will reportedly be the first member of Congress to ever address a committee of Parliament. While there is nothing wrong with hosting a hearing examining violent radicalization among British Muslims — just as the British government is probing radicalization among the far-right in Britain — it is a serious error in judgment to invite King. The congressman has been both a vocal supporter of anti-British terrorism in the past and conducted one-sided terror hearings in the U.S. more intended to paint all Muslims with a broad brush than delve into the roots of radicalization. Peter King was questioned by Labour MP David Winnick about his past support and love for the IRA and was characterized as a terror apologist . He responded by saying he was just trying to put the IRA in its proper context. Huh? That’s what he said and that’s not what he’s been saying in the U.S. Justin Elliott has more: It was the longtime Labour MP David Winnick , who was first elected to the House of Commons in 1966, who confronted King. “There’s been some surprise in the United States but also in Britain that you have a job looking into and investigating into terrorism,” said Winnick. King, the MP added, “seems to be an apologist for terrorism.” Winnick cited a King quote from 1982: We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry. And another from 1985: If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it. “Do you stand by that?” Winnick asked King. “I stand by it in the context of when it was said,” King responded, without hesitation. He later added that those quotes were designed to “put [the conflict] in a perspective” for an American audience that was too often exposed to anti-I.R.A. points of view. He then offered this lengthy defense of the role he played during the conflict in Ireland. Conspicuously missing from it is any denunciation of, or expression of regret for, I.R.A. terrorism. I stand by it in the context of when it was said. … I can cite you Tony Blair, as recently as March of this year, put out a long statement defending my record both in the 1980s and throughout the Irish peace process. I was just out in the hallway and Baroness Kennedy came up to me to thank me for the work I did in the Irish peace process. Paul Murphy came by last evening. What I was saying — and I stand by it — is that the situation in northern Ireland — there were loyalist paramilitaries and obviously Republican paramilitaries — and I believe that, I had gotten to know Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. And I was very confident that if the Republican movement could get to the table, you would see a peace process. And I believe the United States had a very significant role to play as an honest mediator, as an honest broker. And I worked very closely with Bill Clinton, I was very much involved in the Good Friday agreements , I was very involved in getting Gerry Adams’ visa, but also involved in getting loyalists into the United States. I felt that when it was on the table, that Adams and McGuinness would be able to, if you will, control the republican movement. And it’s worked. Tony Blair said I made invaluable contribution to peace, Bill Clinton has cited me in his memoirs as a person who was very much involved. It was never my position as an Irish-American, whether or not Ireland was united, to me there were injustices in the north. There were good people on both sides. I spent a lot of time meeting with the loyalist community, the unionist community, at the same time, and I came away from that convinced that there was a role for the U.S. to play. What I was saying with those quotes, I was also trying to put in perspective. All of the quotes were anti-I.R.A. in the United States, no mention [ever] made of the UVF or the UDA or the Red Hand Commandos or whatever. I was trying to put it in a perspective to show that there were people — that this is not just the terrorist mayhem it was made out to be — that there were significant leaders on the Republican side. It’s also worth noting here that this year King defended his support for the I.R.A. to the New York Times by claiming that the group had “never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States.” He did not repeat that explanation to the parliamentary committee. Winnick followed up on the exchange by asking about British use of torture against the I.R.A. being used as a recruiting tool, and whether there is a parallel to post-9/11 U.S. torture policies. King said he did not believe there was. He was also called out about our use of torture and waterboarding under Bush which I will have up at another time.
Continue reading …Only hours after launching a smear-fighting campaign website, President Obama's latest campaign tactic has already become a widely-mocked target of conservatives. As explained at Hot Air , Not only are major papers running headlines about the site becoming a laughingstock , even respected liberals are admitting that they would have flipped out had Bush tried something similar. Do you think Attack Watch will weather the PR beating? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. The website was launched with an email from Obama for America campaign manager Jim Messina, who wrote that he is looking for people to report “phony attacks” on the president. Here's the deal: We all remember the birth certificate smear, the GOP's barrage of lies about the Affordable Care Act and the string of other phony attacks on President Obama that we've seen over the past few years… There are a lot of folks on the other side who are chomping [sic] at the bit to distort the president's record. It's not a question of if the next big lie will come, just when — and what we're prepared to do about it. Attack Watch has already criticized GOP frontrunners Gov. Rick Perry and former Gov. Mitt Romney, with Messina explaining the site can “nip [their] attacks in the bud before they show up on the airwaves and in emails.” Many feel the site feels too much like Big Brother to be taken seriously. Twitter users especially have taken to mocking the site , taking over the #attackwatch hashtag to hurl humorous insults to the campaign. At just over a year out from the 2012 presidential election, it is already clear that negative attacks are going to be a central part of campaigns. Do you think Attack Watch will weather it out to 2012?
Continue reading …New York Times White House reporter Jackie Calmes and Binyamin Appelbaum reported Wednesday on Obama’s latest big-spending “stimulus” proposal, “ Bigger Economic Role for Washington ,” enthused that the chance of some of it coming law “could have a substantial effect on economic growth and unemployment….could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month over the next year, according to estimates from several of the country’s best-known forecasting firms.” Calmes had consistently hyped the administration’s stream of vague, liberal spend-now-pay-later economic “plans,”only to see the proposals die in Congress. This front-page headline from her July 20 story captures her typical cheerleading tone: “ Bipartisan Plan For Budget Deal Buoys President – House Republicans Face Intensifying Pressure to Avoid Isolation .” (It has not aged well.)
Continue reading …New York Times White House reporter Jackie Calmes and Binyamin Appelbaum reported Wednesday on Obama’s latest big-spending “stimulus” proposal, “ Bigger Economic Role for Washington ,” enthused that the chance of some of it coming law “could have a substantial effect on economic growth and unemployment….could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month over the next year, according to estimates from several of the country’s best-known forecasting firms.” Calmes had consistently hyped the administration’s stream of vague, liberal spend-now-pay-later economic “plans,”only to see the proposals die in Congress. This front-page headline from her July 20 story captures her typical cheerleading tone: “ Bipartisan Plan For Budget Deal Buoys President – House Republicans Face Intensifying Pressure to Avoid Isolation .” (It has not aged well.)
Continue reading …Comedian and musician Bill Bailey and his band perform Gary Numan’s electro-pop classic Cars. With ‘appropriate’ instrumentation. In French Andy Gallagher Ben Kape Ken Macfarlane Alice Salfield
Continue reading …