Friday, 27 February 2009
GUEST COMMENTARY: LARRY KUDLOW ON OBAMANOMICS
Here, from www.cnbc.com, is Larry
Kudlow's take on President Obama's economic policies. See if it makes as
much sense to you as it does to me:
Obama Declares War on Investors,
Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
Friday, 27 Feb 2009 | 4:39 PM ET
Let me be very clear
on the economics of President Obamas State of the Union speech and his budget.
declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations,
and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no
sense at all either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our
economys long-run potential to grow.
the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the
private funds is a function of Obamas left-wing social vision, and a
repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping
government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal
outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10
This is nearly double the
government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich
Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending
levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this
after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend
more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it
wrong on both counts.
far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obamas cap-and-trade program will
be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including
unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will
prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and
power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will
recover. But Obamas rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years
of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed
and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. Thats
one of the messages of the falling stock market.
Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic
party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to
the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House
Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant
fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters
especially hedge-fund types who voted for change are becoming disillusioned
with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
is a growing sense of buyers remorse.
then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
Expect to see a lot more Kudlow-esque commentaries in the coming
HILLARY WHO? HILLARY WHOEVEROBAMAWANTSMETOBE
This comes to us from Marcia Kramer of wcbstv news in New York City:
Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel
Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of
State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know
Hillary Pressuring Israel To Speed Up Aid To
NEW YORK (CBS) ―
I've asked this many times before, and
it bears repeating now: Why in the world would any
intelligent person believe a word Hillary Clinton says? How could anyone be
taken in, when her history of lying is so pervasive?
And why would anyone believe the man who appointed her, Barack Obama, when
he lied to supporters of Israel ongoingly throughout his entire election
Even as Mr. Obama was assuring us of his undying support, he was
stacking his campaign staff with virulent Israel haters. I've written a
dozen or more blogs about them over the past year. They include
Robert Malley, Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Joseph Cirincione, etc. etc. etc.
Then there was that stirring speech to AIPAC (The American Israeli Political
Action Committee) in which Mr. Obama guaranteed an undivided Jerusalem --
but then said the exact opposite one day later. Here are his verbatim
To AIPAC on Wednesday, June 4: Any agreement with the
Palestinian people must preserve Israels identity as a Jewish state, with
secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of
Israel, and it must remain undivided..
To CNN on Thursday, June 5, upon being asked if his comments meant Arabs had
no claim to any part of Jerusalem: Well, obviously its
going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues...my belief
is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute
Twenty Four hours, 180 degree turnaround.
But because a) Mr. Obama had the fawning adoration of so many people, very
much including supporters of Israel and b) our wonderful "neutral" media
carefully downplayed this obvious reversal, it somehow didn't count.
Well, does it count now? Does it count when, through Hillary Clinton, President Obama is attacking
Israel and demanding that it facilitate the rebuilding and resupplying of
people sworn to destroy it?
According to the exit polls, about 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama.
Presumably most of them support Israel. I hope they're happy with what
Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I'm not. And that
goes double for Hillary Clinton.
OLBERMANN AND GARAFALO: TURDS OF A FEATHER
Here, courtesy of Brad Wilmouth at www.newsbusters.org, is another of the
countless demonstrations that keith olbermann - and janeane garafalo - are
unhinged, hate-filled losers:
Olbermann & Garofalo See
Self-Loathing Black Guy Michael Steele, Limbaugh Compared to
On Thursdays Countdown show, left-wing actress and comedienne
Janeane Garofalo appeared to talk about a recent poll finding that Rush Limbaugh
is substantially less popular with women than with men. Evoking laughter from
host Keith Olbermann, Garofalo remarked that "the type of female that does like
Rush is the same type of woman that falls in love with prisoners." After
mentioning serial killers Richard Ramirez and Charles Manson,
she then compared women who like Limbaugh to Adolf Hitlers girlfriend, Eva
Braun: "Eva Braun, Hitlers girlfriend. That is exactly the type of woman that
responds really well to Rush."
After mentioning that former CNN anchor Daryn
Kagan used to date Limbaugh, Garofalo cracked that Kagan has Stockholm Syndrome,
which she also attributed to RNC Chairman Michael Steele, with Olbermann
agreeing that Steele suffers from "self-loathing":
Below is a transcript of relevant comments from
the Thursday, February 26, Countdown show on MSNBC:
JANEANE GAROFALO: But the type of female that
does like Rush is the same type of woman that falls in love with prisoners.
[KEITH OLBERMANN LAUGHS] You know what I mean? They like Richard Ramirez or
Squeaky Fromme is a
good example. I think Charles Mansons Eva Braun, Hitlers girlfriend. That
is exactly the type of woman that responds really well to Rush. And there will
be some Eva Brauns, Squeaky Frommes out there that will respond really well to
this cattle call right now.
GAROFALO, REFERRING TO DARYN KAGAN: She dated him, so either she
suffers from Stockholm Syndrome a lot like Michael Steele, whos the black
guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means
you try and curry favor with the oppressor.
OLBERMANN: Yes, you talk about
GAROFALO: Yeah, and theres, any female or
person of color in the Republican party is struggling with Stockholm
Pathetically, this is what passes for intelligent political dialogue at
MSNBC. Believe me, olbermann's hateful, smallminded intolerance is hardly
unique to the network.
Maybe it is why, after all these years, olbermann still can't come close to
the viewership achieved by Bill O'Reilly, the man he hates most of all.
And maybe it is why janeane garafalo was such a flop as a talk show host.
Playing can-you-top-this with sickening, race-based vomit may wow 'em
at moveon.org, the dailykos.com, crooksandliars.com, buzzflash.com and some
of the regulars at the local Democratic club. But to most people,
it's just sickening race-based vomit, period.
And they're right.
CHARLES W. FREEMAN JR. & 9/11
This will be my third blog about charles w. freeman jr., whom
President Obama just selected to head our National Intelligence
The first two showed how much freeman hates Israel. This one shows what
he thinks of our responsibility (that's right, our responsibility) for
9/11. It comes to us from John Hinderaker at www.powerlineblog.com. I have put
the 9/11 comments in bold print:
We wrote here and here about President
Obama's appointment of Saudi shill Charles Freeman to chair the National
Intelligence Council. Freeman's loyalty to Saudi Arabia and his
outside-the-mainstream views on the Middle East make him a strange choice for
the post, to say the least. But now even more explosive information about
Freeman has emerged.
Check out this April 2002 program in which Freeman participated, sponsored by the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy. Freeman's contributions included a tribute to the government
of Saudi Arabia that began:
I urge anyone who has not done so to read the
most profoundly self-reflective speech by a political leader that I have seen
in the last quarter-century: Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah's December
2001 address to the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Muscat.
Freeman went on:
Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were shocked by the
level of ignorance and antipathy displayed by Americans toward them and toward
Islam after September 11. The connection between Islam and suicide bombing is
a false connection. Kamikaze pilots were not Muslims.
Freeman's fealty to the Saudis was so striking
that when it came time for questions from the audience, Michael Stein of the
Washington Institute said:
It has been a long time since I read Alice in
Wonderland, but I must say there has been a through-the-looking-glass quality
to some of the things we have heard here. The Saudis have eliminated 5 percent
of their educational material. What of the other 95 percent? What of the
Saudi-financed madrassas that teach hatred of the West? I read the newspapers
avidly, and I have yet to see a report from an objective journalist coming out
of Saudi Arabia. By the way, I served in the navy in World War II; I seem to
recall that even kamikaze pilots attacked military targets, not civilians.
Perhaps I am not reading the program correctly; I wonder whether Ambassador
Freeman was the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, or the Saudi ambassador to
What was really shocking about Freeman's comments,
however, were his references to the September 11, 2001 attacks:
And what of America's lack of
introspection about September 11? Instead of asking what might have caused the
attack, or questioning the propriety of the national response to it, there is
an ugly mood of chauvinism. Before Americans call on others to examine
themselves, we should examine ourselves.
[I]t is very
difficult for me as an American to go to the region and hear such high levels
of skepticism about the facts of September 11. I have a lot of confidence,
more confidence than Hassan, in our institutions, and I accept that al-Qaeda
and Osama bin Laden almost certainly perpetrated the
September 11 attacks. Fifteen of the hijackers probably were recruited in
Saudi Arabia. I accept that, but I can tell you, it is not accepted in the
Arab region. The polls show that overwhelming numbers of people do not accept
the official U.S. explanation of September 11.
I'm not sure whether Freeman's approval requires
Senate confirmation or not. If so, one would hope that Republican Senators will
ask him whether he still believes the September 11 attacks should have been an
occasion for self-examination to determine "what might have caused the attack,"
and what "cause" he had in mind. Further, he should be asked whether it is still
his view that al Qaeda "almost certainly" perpetrated the attack, what grounds
for doubt he is aware of, and the identity of those, other than al Qaeda, whom
he considers possible suspects.
Is this the man you want in charge of our national intelligence
estimates? Is this the man you want in charge of anything with the word
intelligence in it? Is this the man you want in charge of anything at
Well, enjoy him, because he's our guy. Thank you Barack Obama, and
thank you to all the folks - dupes and non-dupes alike - who put Mr.
Obama in charge so that he could elevate this pathetic swine to a
position of importance.
RACIST JERK WATCH
This Associated Press article says it all:
Mayor who sent watermelon e-mail says he'll
LOS ALAMITOS, Calif. (AP) The mayor of a small
Southern California city says he will resign after being criticized for sharing
an e-mail picture depicting the White House lawn planted with watermelons under
the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."
Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose issued a statement
Thursday saying he is sorry and will step down as mayor at Monday's City Council
Grose came under fire for sending the picture to
what he called "a small group of friends." One of the recipients, a local
businesswoman and city volunteer, publicly scolded the mayor for his
Grose says he accepts that the e-mail was in poor
taste and has affected his ability to lead the city. Grose said he didn't mean
to offend anyone and claimed he was unaware of the racial stereotype linking
black people with eating watermelons.
Located in Orange County, Los Alamitos is a 2
1/4-square-mile city of around 12,000 people.
dean grose was unaware of the racial stereotype linking Black people with
eating watermelons? Unaware? Yeah, ok.
The term "racist" is tossed around a lot these days; sometimes for ridiculous
reasons. Sadly, however, there are many times when it fits 100%. And
this is one of them.
I'm glad dean grose had enough after-the-fact sense to apologize.
But, much more importantly, I'm relieved that he resigned as mayor.
To paraphrase that great Ray Charles song:
"Hit the road, dean, and dontcha come back no more, no more, no more, no
IRAQ: THE BUSH/OBAMA STRATEGY
In 2007, President Bush became convinced that a troop surge would be greatly
beneficial to our effort in Iraq. At that time, Barack Obama stated that
he was not persuaded it would help at all, and believed it would have an
opposite effect. His exact, complete statement was:
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional
troops is going to solve the violence there. In fact, I think it will do the
"I think it is fair to say that the President
has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course
that we've been on for several years now. It is a course that will not
succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American
people and our troops."
"We can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000
more troops; 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any
military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is
going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the
President Bush did not take the advice of General Obama. He ordered the
surge anyway. And, as just about everyone now agrees (including Mr.
Obama), it was immensely successful. That success has continued and
grown right up to the present.
Largely because of how successful the surge was, we are no longer
fighting a war in Iraq at all.
Do you see any news in the paper or on the networks about battles being fought?
Of soldiers being engaged in more than sporadic, minor
Most of our wonderful "neutral" media have not reported it as such, but
these days we are far more involved in the continued training of Iraqi
forces and in maintaining what we have accomplished than we are in fighting of
What a great opportunity for President Barack Obama!
Remember, it was then-candidate Obama who pledged that if he were elected
President he would remove all troops from Iraq in 16 months. He said it
very specifically and repeated it over and over again to anyone who would
Well, now he's President, and the country is almost completely
pacified. So it's a piece of cake to remove those troops, right?
Er, if you just agreed with that last sentence I urge you to read this article by Steven Thomma of the McClatchey newspaper
Obama to extend Iraq withdrawal
timetable; 50,000 troops to stay
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON Amid complaints from
has own party that he's moving too slowly to end the war in Iraq, President
Barack Obama will announce Friday that U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by
Aug. 31, 2010, but that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain
until the end of 2011.
Obama will announce his plans during a visit with
troops at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where he'll also visit with Marines who are being
deployed to Afghanistan, senior administration officials said.
As he moves to draw down the war in Iraq after six
years and more than 4,200 U.S. dead, he's also moving to escalate the U.S.
military presence in Afghanistan.
The 18-month timetable for withdrawing combat
troops from Iraq is two months longer than he promised during his campaign.
Aides who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak frankly said that military
commanders wanted the extra time. "The president found that compelling," said
one senior administration official.
The pace of the drawdown will be left to
commanders and determined by events on the ground as well as politics in
Washington. Although U.S. and Iraqi casualties have dropped sharply, and recent
provincial elections were held without major incidents, it's not clear whether
Iraq's rival factions and their militias have abandoned violence or are merely
biding their time.
A key factor in the pace of the U.S. drawdown will
be making sure that there are sufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to assure that
national elections scheduled for December are peaceful, officials said. Another
will be the speed with which Iraqi military and security forces gain the ability
to maintain order without American help.
Under Obama's plan, a force of between 35,000 and
50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and
advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on
counterterrorism. They'd remain until Dec. 31, 2011, the date on which the Bush
administration agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq.
That number, too, could depend on conditions in
Iraq and on the need for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, where the
Taliban have made significant gains, and where national elections also are
The plan to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq
after August 2010 upset several top Democrats in Congress, who want far fewer
troops left after the August date.
"I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense
and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher
number than I had anticipated," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
before meeting with Obama at the White House.
Obama started reviewing options in mid-December,
aides said, then "really began in earnest" after taking office. He met on Jan.
21 with top commanders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Navy Adm.
Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Army Gen. David
Petraeus, the commander of the U.S. Central Command; and Army Gen. Ray Odierno,
the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.
What did President Bush say he would do? He said that, as Iraqi forces
became more capable of securing the country, he would draw down troops to a much
lower level. He said that eventually we would have a residual force there,
with the Iraqi army predominantly in charge of military responsibilities.
Does that sound anything like what President Obama is
now proposing? Like exactly, precisely and totally the same
No wonder the left is in such an uproar. Apparently Barack Obama
doesn't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. So, at least as of
now, he is operating from the Bush blueprint - which, you can bet, he will
try to take credit for as time goes on.
Who would have thought it. Maybe we should start calling him Barack