Tuesday, 10 February 2009
THE INFIDEL OFFENSIVE (OOPS, MAKE THAT DEFENSIVE)
The United Kingdom has hit upon a sure-fire way to diffuse the threat of
radical islam. And here it is, courtesy of the UK Guardian, via www.sweetness-light.com:
UK To Muslims: Please Dont Hate
From those tireless defenders of the faith at the
Please dont hate us: UK ad campaign to target
Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday 10 February 2009
Prominent British Muslims are being recruited to
star in a government-backed advertising campaign aimed at preventing people in
Pakistan from engaging in extremist activity, the Guardian has learned.
The three-month public relations
offensive, called I Am the West, consists of television commercials and
high-profile events in regions such as Peshawar and Mirpur. It is being funded
by the Foreign Office which is paying up to 400,000 for a pilot
Starring in the first three adverts are Sadiq
Khan, the communities minister, Jehangir Malik, the UK manager of Islamic
Relief, English cricketer Moeen Ali and the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, Chaudry
Abdul Rashid, who is from Mirpur. Mirpuris represent around 70% of Britains
According to a project synopsis, the target
audience is 15-25-year-old males who are "less than well-educated and worldly
wise, but potentially susceptible to extremist doctrines". If successful, it
will be implemented in Egypt, Yemen and Indonesia
The campaign has four key aims: to
ensure Pakistanis realise the west is not "anti-Islamic", that British society
is not "anti-Islam", to demonstrate the extent to which Muslims are integrated
into British society and to stimulate and facilitate "constructive debate" on
the compatibility of liberal and Muslim values.
Yes. This will work for sure.
Who can doubt it?
Do these geniuses understand what this communicates to radical
islamists? Let me spell it out.
W E A K N
This is the kind of stuff that, if we're lucky, radical islamists
will just laugh at instead of being enraged by.
But since they show no propensity for laughing, and a full
propensity for rage, I think we have a pretty good idea of where it will
In other words, this is utterly devoid of any logic, any reality and
any hope for success.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Dennis Kucinich emigrated to
the UK and became an ad guy.....
THE BAILOUT PLAN: GIVE US THE $$$, THEN WONDER HOW WE'LL SPEND IT
Here, from the AP is why the stock market tanked so badly today:
Stocks plunge as government unveils bailout plan
TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer Tim Paradis, Ap Business Writer
18 mins ago
NEW YORK Investors are
frustrated with the government's latest bank
bailout plan and
showed it by unloading stocks. The major stock indexes fell more than 4 percent
Tuesday, including the Dow
Jones industrial average, which
tumbled 382 points. Financial stocks led the market lower, a sign of how
Street is about
the government's ability to restore the health of the banking industry. Demand
for safe havens like Treasurys and gold
investors complained about what they saw as a lack of specifics from Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner on how the government will direct more than $1
trillion in public and private support to the financial system.
The plan is
aimed at restoring proper functioning to credit markets, which seized up over
worries about bad debt after the September bankruptcy of Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. The
latest plan calls for a government-private sector partnership to help remove
banks' soured assets from their books. It would also boost an effort to unclog
the credit markets that govern loans to consumers and businesses.
news is they are going to spend a trillion dollars, the bad news is they don't
know how," said James Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial
"They built this up as being a panacea," he said. "There was so much
hope pinned on them to do a good job. The expectations have been so high. It's
hard to live up to."
Don't you just love that? "the good news is
they are going to spend a trillion dollars, the bad news is they don't know
Is this what you wanted from the Obama administration? Does this
in any way strike you as intelligent policy? Something you can have
confidence about? Something that will help our economy?
If the answer is "no", and I'm betting it is, then congratulations on how
much you have in common with Wall Street.
THE MURTHA RAIDS
Yes, the corrupt, arrogant john murtha was re-elected to the house last
Yes this is the same murtha who accused eight U.S. marines of murdering
innocent Iraqis in cold blood - and who, after 7 of them were exonerated and the
8th almost certainly will be, has yet to show the courage, or guts, to apologize
Now, finally, the FBI seems to be closing in on his fascinating "friends and
relatives" deals with defense contractors.
ABC News has the details, which are excerpted below (you can read the
entire article by clicking
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Raided Lobbying Firm Connected to
Feds Narrowing In On Companies With Ties To
The FBI raided the offices of a defense lobbying
firm with close ties to Democratic Rep. John Murtha (Penn.), sources tell ABC
The FBI searched the Virginia headquarters of the
PMA Group in November, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity. PMA was founded by former Murtha aide Paul Magliochetti and
specializes in winning earmarked taxpayer funds for its clients.
Good government groups have long criticized
Murtha's cozy relationship with a handful of lobbyists and defense firms, ties
that see millions of dollars in government spending go out from Murtha's office,
and hundreds of thousands in campaign donations come in. Murtha has said his
earmarking has helped revive his economically depressed district.
PMA is the second company with close ties to
Murtha to be raided by federal agents recently. In January, agents from the FBI,
the IRS and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service searched the office of
Kuchera Industries and Kuchera Defense Systems, as well as the homes of the
firms' founders. The companies reportedly have received over $100 million in
earmarks, thanks to Murtha's efforts.
"The FBI is showing a lot of interest in" a lot of
people around Murtha, said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "If I
was in Murtha's camp, I would not be sleeping at night."
I only wish he could have said that "If I was in murtha's skin,
I would not be sleeping at night". But he didn't. Because this
corrupt, obnoxious pant-load probably sleeps like a baby.
May the FBI get to the bottom of murtha's dealings ASAP. And may at
least a few of the Democrats who would like to try George Bush for anything and
everything they can think of, take a few minutes out to go after a genuine
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PRESS CONFERENCE WAS F.O.S. BUT HE SPOKE BEAUTIFULLY
Doesn't President Obama speak beautifully? So much better than
former President Bush.
That's what I hear over and over again from my Obama-loving friends, who seem
to think that elocution is the key to being a great President.
Personally, I'll take a dese/dem/dose type 100 times out of 100, if he/she
has something better to say.
This leads me to Mr. Obama's press conference yesterday. Yes, he spoke
beautifully. But there is a bit of a problem.
The problem is that a lot of what he said was F.O. S. (for those of you who
don't know what that means, the first two words are "full of...". Got
Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com wrote
about Obama's BS this morning and, as usual, does a great job in laying it all
out. See for yourself:
Obama presser: Does Obama pay
posted at 8:18 am on February 10, 2009 by
An oft-repeated aphorism instructs us that we can
have our own opinions, but not our own facts or at least not unless
we get to stand behind the podium at the White House. When Barack Obama
explained his economic package last night to the American people in a prime-time press conference, he made two flat-out false statements regarding his opposition.
He also added a completely incorrect reading of history, one that turns out to
be very instructive about his own economic incompetence.
First, lets start with his lies (and thats not
too strong a word) about Republicans:
As I said, the one concern Ive got on the
stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of whats been
said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who I dont doubt
their sincerity who just believe that we should do nothing. Now, if thats
their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then were
probably not going to make much progress, because I dont think thats
economically sound and I dont think what thats what the American people
expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.
Republicans in both the House and Senate have
offered at least two alternative stimulus packages. None of them demanded
that Obama do nothing. In fact, it was the Congressional Budget Office
and not Republicans that suggested that doing nothing might have a better effect
than the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus bill, as our friends at Power Line point
This lie is particularly egregious, as Nancy
Pelosi locked Republicans out of drafting the bill altogether. Barack
Obama talked about his own initiatives to reach across the aisle by naming three
Republicans to his Cabinet, but what he didnt mention was his and Pelosis
version of bipartisanship in drafting the bill, which amounted to we
won. Had Republicans been given an opportunity to work on the bill, it
would have been somewhat smaller with a different set of tax cuts, but probably
in a range from $450-600 billion, which is what their alternatives proposed
and it would have gotten overwhelming support in Congress.
My administration inherited a deficit of over $1
trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency
since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in ever
even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income
and even greater loss of confidence.
But what I what Ive been concerned about is
some of the language thats been used suggesting that this is full of pork and
this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth. First of all, when I
hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then,
you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I
inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we
have right now.
Obama tried a couple of times to lay the deficit
off on the Republicans, but more than half of that deficit came from the
bailouts of last year, which the Democrats pushed through Congress.
Republicans balked at the massive TARP program, which Obama criticized in his
press conference last night. The Bush administration didnt partner with
Republican leadership to get that passed; they had to get the Democrats
to pass it, and Democrats have controlled Congress for the last two years.
And the economic crisis came from the collapse of the housing market bubble
created by the kind of intervention Obama proposes.
And now the historic illiteracy of Barack
I think that what Ive said is what other
economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that if you delay
acting on an economy of this severity, then you potentially create a negative
spiral that becomes much more difficult for us to get out of.
We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where
they did not act boldly and swiftly enough, and as a consequence they suffered
what was called the lost decade, where essentially for the entire 90s, they
did not see any significant economic growth.
Er, what? Even the New York Times knows
that Japan acted too swiftly, too boldly, and ran up massive
deficits on infrastructure work that never stimulated the economy:
Japans rural areas have been paved over and
filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy
of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn
caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those
nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed
world totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy while failing to
generate a convincing recovery.
In the end, say economists, it was not public
works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined
with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to
Japans Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little
more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for
In other words, Obama gets an F in economic
history despite supposedly having the best and brightest cribbers working on his
staff. He gets an F for honesty as well as an D- on bipartisanship.
Its a lousy start to his four-year class on how to be an executive.
Great job, Barack.
First you build a straw-man argument about the people who say that we should do
nothing (you never name them, of course, because they aren't there).
Then you keep repeating that line about the
national debt. While we agree that Republicans have a lot to do with where it is now, you seem to have forgotten that Democrats
- those folks who have run congress, thus written the budgets for the past two years - have
even more to do with it.
I would have paid money for a reporter to ask Mr. Obama to compare where the
economy was on January 1, 2007, the first day Democrats took over both houses of
congress, versus where we are today.
And I'd have paid double for a reporter to quote Barney Fudd and
Chris Dudd, who head the house Financial Affairs committee and the Senate Banking
Committee respectively, on how solid Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were -- right up to the time
they blew up in our faces. Maybe Mr. Obama could explain why Fudd
and Dudd aren't to blame for the sub-prime mess, not to mention the investors who
lost their shirts by believing their claims.
Mr. Obama could also explain why Democrats did everything they could to
prevent the regulation of Fannie and Freddie when President Bush - you know, the
inarticulate guy - was asking for it in 2001 and then again in 2003.
Finally there is that fraudulent, invented history of
But...But.....he said it so beautifully.
HEALTH CARE UNDER THE STEALFROMUS PACKAGE
Once, during a teachers' strike, I saw a picketer holding a sign that read
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance". I've mentioned that
sign in previous blogs. But it bears repeating now, because of what the
stealfromus ... er, stimulus package will do to health care in this country.
You think health care is bad now? Well, try the health care as envisioned
in this bill.
Betsy McCaughey, who is not much of a politician but a genuine health care
expert, took a look at it and wrote the following analysis for www.bloomberg.com. The bold print is
Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Commentary by Betsy
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are
questioning whether President Barack Obamas stimulus
bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start
Tragically, no one from either party is
objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These
provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the
Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote
against them because they are dangerous to your health.
(Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bills health rules will affect every
individual in the United States (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments
will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical
records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is
beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy,
the National Coordinator of Health Information
Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing
what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.
The goal is to reduce costs and guide your doctors decisions (442,
446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to
what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the
Health-Care Crisis. According to
Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and learn to operate less like solo
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical
findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
Hospitals and doctors that are
not meaningful users of the new system will face
penalties. Meaningful user isnt defined in the bill. That will be
left to the HHS
secretary, who will be empowered to impose more stringent measures of
meaningful use over time (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from
going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is
atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is
intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast
powers to make the tough decisions elected politicians wont make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the
Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research
(190-192). The goal, Daschles book explained, is to slow the
development and use of new medications and technologies because they
are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept
hopeless diagnoses and forgo experimental treatments, and he chastises
Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform will
not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear
Medicare now pays for treatments
deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a
cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board
discussed in Daschles book. This board approves or rejects treatments
using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years
the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often
approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly
patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye
before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost
three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
If the Obama administrations economic stimulus
bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors
in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that
individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part
of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are
treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more
funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air
Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a
stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton
administrations health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to
debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act
quickly before critics mount an opposition. If that means attaching a
health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it, he said. The issue
is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it inexcusable
and irresponsible for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth,
this bill needs more scrutiny.
The health-care industry is the largest
employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nations gross
domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments
do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and
innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This
stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former
lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson
Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
All that, and hundreds of billions of dollars in pork and/or
expenditures which would occur years from now, thus can't possibly stimulate the
economy during the current meltdown.
I don't call this a stimulus package. I call this a stealfromus
package. The reason, as you can see, is because that is precisely what it
Originally, I saw this bill as a monstrosity.
But now that I've read about the health care policies it would put into
place, I realize that it is far, far worse than I originally imagined.
I hope a few senators read Ms. McCaughey's piece and realize it