Monday, August 30, 2010
Imam promoter of Ground Zero mosque is publicly subsidized landlord with a record of rats, leaks, no heat and bedbugs
The Muslim cleric at the center of the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero is also a New Jersey landlord who got more than $2 million in public financing to renovate low-income apartments and has been beset for years by tenant complaints and financial problems.
Imam Feisal A. Rauf won support for his Hudson County projects from powerful politicians, among them Robert C. Janiszewski, the disgraced former county executive. He also was awarded grants from Union City when U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez was mayor.
The proposed $100 million development two blocks north of Ground Zero has sparked a firestorm of emotions. Menendez recently added his name to the list of prominent supporters, which includes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Rauf forged ties with Fred Daibes, the prominent waterfront developer and bank chairman. Additionally, Rauf is a onetime business ally of a Daibes associate who sued the imam for alleged mortgage fraud. The 2008 suit was quietly settled in June.
The revelations about Rauf, who lives in North Bergen, add another dimension to the public profile of a man both lauded as a builder of bridges between diverse religions and cultures and vilified as being insensitive to the survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack by proposing a mosque near the World Trade Center site.
Best known as the religious face of the controversial proposal, called Park51, Rauf, the revelations show, has had some success navigating the realm of secular power — in this case the rough-and-tumble world of Hudson County government.
In conjunction with others, Rauf is now taking on the largest project of his life with a track record showing that, despite government subsidies, he has had trouble maintaining small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City.
Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water.
Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City — a longtime tenant of Rauf’s — said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”
She finds it hard to believe Rauf’s going to build a world-class Islamic community center, with fitness facilities, auditorium, restaurant, library, culinary school and art studios, as well as a Sept. 11 memorial and space for Muslim prayer services.
“He can’t even repair the bells in the hallway. He doesn’t take care of his properties. But he’s going to take care of a mosque?”
Rauf is traveling in the Middle East on a tour funded by the State Department and could not be reached for comment; he was in Bahrain last week.
Imam Feisal A. Rauf won support for his Hudson County projects from powerful politicians, among them Robert C. Janiszewski, the disgraced former county executive. He also was awarded grants from Union City when U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez was mayor.
The proposed $100 million development two blocks north of Ground Zero has sparked a firestorm of emotions. Menendez recently added his name to the list of prominent supporters, which includes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Rauf forged ties with Fred Daibes, the prominent waterfront developer and bank chairman. Additionally, Rauf is a onetime business ally of a Daibes associate who sued the imam for alleged mortgage fraud. The 2008 suit was quietly settled in June.
The revelations about Rauf, who lives in North Bergen, add another dimension to the public profile of a man both lauded as a builder of bridges between diverse religions and cultures and vilified as being insensitive to the survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack by proposing a mosque near the World Trade Center site.
Best known as the religious face of the controversial proposal, called Park51, Rauf, the revelations show, has had some success navigating the realm of secular power — in this case the rough-and-tumble world of Hudson County government.
In conjunction with others, Rauf is now taking on the largest project of his life with a track record showing that, despite government subsidies, he has had trouble maintaining small apartment buildings in North Bergen, Palisades Park and Union City.
Page after page of municipal health records examined by The Record show repeated complaints ranging from failure to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water.
Cynthia Balko, 48, of Union City — a longtime tenant of Rauf’s — said she’s had to live with rats, leaks and no heat: “I don’t have anything nice to say about the man.”
She finds it hard to believe Rauf’s going to build a world-class Islamic community center, with fitness facilities, auditorium, restaurant, library, culinary school and art studios, as well as a Sept. 11 memorial and space for Muslim prayer services.
“He can’t even repair the bells in the hallway. He doesn’t take care of his properties. But he’s going to take care of a mosque?”
Rauf is traveling in the Middle East on a tour funded by the State Department and could not be reached for comment; he was in Bahrain last week.
Where the money goes can determine a nation's destiny
"In the past several decades, the country paid for increases in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending through cuts in defense spending relative to the size of the economy. That approach is not feasible in the future." CBO, March 8, 2010.
"If you really want to see when an empire is getting vulnerable, the big giveaway is when the costs of serving the debt exceed the cost of the defense budget." Niall Ferguson.
How to skewer the NYT and the ruling class in one short piece
Sex. Drugs. Violence...and $44 sea bass. It's a fight for the ages, brought to you by the New York Times as it struggles to keep the nation safe for the ruling class. Call it Sarah Palin, The Sequel. Except we're talking about the Republican senatorial candidate in Connecticut, Linda McMahon.
You can say the same thing about McMahon that Charles Hurt of the New York Post said about Palin, "that one of the most appealing things about [her] is the people who hate her." From the moment McMahon announced her run for the United States Senate, the New York Times has led the Northeast political and media elites in an effort to stop the self-made millionaire and former World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO from winning the Republican primary and then, now that she has won, stop her from succeeding in her quest to replace retiring Democratic Senator Chris Dodd in Connecticut.
The media and political elites, led by the New York Times, hate her -- this...this...this "Yankee Doodle Daffy," this "truly humiliating" excuse for a political wannabe who dares to challenge the Times and its Connecticut cohorts with ideas originating from a lifetime spent successfully building a company and creating jobs. She created and built WWE into a $1.1-billion cable entertainment powerhouse. As she tells American Thinker, "I know what it's like to earn a living, to create jobs, to run a company. More and more people are realizing that we need real people who have worked in real businesses in Washington."
But not at the influential New York Times. Times columnist Gail Collins explains the view from media and insider central: McMahon's entrepreneurial savvy is good only for its "entertainment value," as business experience means nothing when it comes to public service. What's the big deal about a billion dollars, Times writers ask? After all, Times publisher and chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger moved that and billions more in shareholder value, too, although in the other direction. Sure, she "made a mint," but off...wrestling?! "Seedy and small-town," Collins declares.
Besides, McMahon is running against a New York Times darling: Richard Blumenthal, an ultra-liberal Democrat whom the Wall Street Journal labeled an "aggressively anti-business" state attorney general, a graduate of both Harvard and Yale who prides himself on being a "big, from-Washington-to-Hartford, I-know-them-all insider," and an activist who has used the courts to push a global warming agenda. Just what Connecticut needs in the U.S. Senate, Times writers enthuse: an insider with transformative ideas who has spent his life in government.
"I believe in people keeping their own money," McMahon tells American Thinker from her campaign headquarters outside -- and not inside -- the state capitol. "I believe that, if left alone, people will build businesses, create jobs, and provide employment. We need to keep government off their backs -- it's their money, their lives."
(snip)
But "other people's money" is what it's all about for the Times. That's why Collins, when McMahon asked to meet with her and "just let her know more about me," insisted that McMahon drive down from Connecticut and meet her at a restaurant just on the other side Central Park from her home.
As Bart Simpson says, "Woo Hoo!" Sistina, where each week they "fly in most of our ingredients directly from Italy and the Mediterranean, where the wine cellars feature "the most prestigious labels in the world." Home of the $44 sea bass, the $27 meatball (singular) appetizer, and $100 wine. Times shareholders fed Collins...well, very well. That's what they do at the Times. Expense accounts, you know, other people's money -- it's a ruling class thing.
And they say wrestling is sleazy.
You can say the same thing about McMahon that Charles Hurt of the New York Post said about Palin, "that one of the most appealing things about [her] is the people who hate her." From the moment McMahon announced her run for the United States Senate, the New York Times has led the Northeast political and media elites in an effort to stop the self-made millionaire and former World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO from winning the Republican primary and then, now that she has won, stop her from succeeding in her quest to replace retiring Democratic Senator Chris Dodd in Connecticut.
The media and political elites, led by the New York Times, hate her -- this...this...this "Yankee Doodle Daffy," this "truly humiliating" excuse for a political wannabe who dares to challenge the Times and its Connecticut cohorts with ideas originating from a lifetime spent successfully building a company and creating jobs. She created and built WWE into a $1.1-billion cable entertainment powerhouse. As she tells American Thinker, "I know what it's like to earn a living, to create jobs, to run a company. More and more people are realizing that we need real people who have worked in real businesses in Washington."
But not at the influential New York Times. Times columnist Gail Collins explains the view from media and insider central: McMahon's entrepreneurial savvy is good only for its "entertainment value," as business experience means nothing when it comes to public service. What's the big deal about a billion dollars, Times writers ask? After all, Times publisher and chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger moved that and billions more in shareholder value, too, although in the other direction. Sure, she "made a mint," but off...wrestling?! "Seedy and small-town," Collins declares.
Besides, McMahon is running against a New York Times darling: Richard Blumenthal, an ultra-liberal Democrat whom the Wall Street Journal labeled an "aggressively anti-business" state attorney general, a graduate of both Harvard and Yale who prides himself on being a "big, from-Washington-to-Hartford, I-know-them-all insider," and an activist who has used the courts to push a global warming agenda. Just what Connecticut needs in the U.S. Senate, Times writers enthuse: an insider with transformative ideas who has spent his life in government.
"I believe in people keeping their own money," McMahon tells American Thinker from her campaign headquarters outside -- and not inside -- the state capitol. "I believe that, if left alone, people will build businesses, create jobs, and provide employment. We need to keep government off their backs -- it's their money, their lives."
(snip)
But "other people's money" is what it's all about for the Times. That's why Collins, when McMahon asked to meet with her and "just let her know more about me," insisted that McMahon drive down from Connecticut and meet her at a restaurant just on the other side Central Park from her home.
As Bart Simpson says, "Woo Hoo!" Sistina, where each week they "fly in most of our ingredients directly from Italy and the Mediterranean, where the wine cellars feature "the most prestigious labels in the world." Home of the $44 sea bass, the $27 meatball (singular) appetizer, and $100 wine. Times shareholders fed Collins...well, very well. That's what they do at the Times. Expense accounts, you know, other people's money -- it's a ruling class thing.
And they say wrestling is sleazy.
The welfare state - the only state that thrives on liberalism
WASHINGTON — Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.
More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.
"Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.
The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.
More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.
Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.
"This program has proven to be incredibly responsive and effective," says Ellin Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center.
Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.
More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.
As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.
The steady climb in safety-net program caseloads and costs has come as a result of two factors: The recession has boosted the number who qualify under existing rules. And the White House, Congress and states have expanded eligibility and benefits.
More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.
"Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.
The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.
More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.
Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.
"This program has proven to be incredibly responsive and effective," says Ellin Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center.
Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.
More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.
As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.
The steady climb in safety-net program caseloads and costs has come as a result of two factors: The recession has boosted the number who qualify under existing rules. And the White House, Congress and states have expanded eligibility and benefits.
As conservatism rises at home, liberals posture abroad
PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Weekly Standard's report supports TheRightFieldLine's argument that Americans are on strike against the Obama crew
The economy, it turns out, grew at an annual rate of only 1.6 percent in the second quarter, rather than 2.4 percent as originally estimated. That means that the growth rate in the most recent three quarters has dropped steadily, from 5.0 percent at the end of 2009 to 3.7 percent and 1.6 percent in the first two quarters of this year.
Both consumers and businessmen are sitting on the sidelines. The July drop in sales of new (-32 percent year-on-year) and existing homes (-26 percent) to record-low levels exceeded even the gloomiest expectations, and can no longer be blamed on the expiration of the Homebuyer Tax Credit. Low mortgage rates seem to be offset by tighter credit standards, job insecurity is being fuelled by rising initial claims for unemployment insurance, and buyers feel it pays to wait because prices will be lower tomorrow.
Potential homebuyers are not the only squeamish economic actors. Capital goods orders, excluding defense spending and the 76 percent increase in the volatile aircraft segment, fell 8 percent, the biggest drop since January 2009. This “highlight[s] the risk of a significant slowdown of investment spending,” concludes Bernd Weidensteiner of Commerzbank. American corporations seem to be using some of their $2 trillion in idle cash to return to the acquisitions market, bad news for job seekers since successful acquisitions usually mean lay-offs in the acquired companies -- “efficiencies” and “cost savings” are the preferred description.
Add to this bad news an even more powerful drag on the economy: uncertainty. Bernanke says the Fed is loading its monetary policy gun by keeping its balance sheet from shrinking, but no one knows whether or when he will pull the trigger. Besides, even if he does, recent history suggests that the Fed can’t lure enough money from the wallets of debt-burdened consumers or from corporate treasuries to put the economy on a solid growth path. Mike Dude, CEO of vaunted retailer Wal-Mart, says, “The slow economic recovery will continue to affect our customers, and we expect they will remain cautious about spending.” Students are being made to do with their old PCs, and affluent fashionistas are eyeing lower-priced editions of their favorite designers’ lines.
My take: This supports my blog post of Aug. 23, under the headline: "Why the economy refuses to recover: Americans are on strike against Obama's anti-American, big-government policies," in which I wrote this:
Hoist by his own petard.
That's President Barack Obama.
Having assumed office with an illusory mandate to "transform America," he tossed aside public opinion, ignored voters' traditional preference for moderate, not radical, change, and set out to impose his vision of dominant government and a citizenry willing to say, okay, when a designated bureaucrat tells them their time has come to die. In doing so, Obama's minions bribed lawmakers to vote for measures opposed by a majority of voters and made a mockery of the legislative process.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be an unduring symbol with her call for Congress to pass a bill cobbled by insiders so that rank and file members could find out what's in it.
As the nation's debt grew by trillions of dollars, voters recoiled in horror while Obama remained unfazed, and perhaps unwitting. There is, after all, little evidence that Obama has any understanding of economics aside from the obvious fact that many of America's corporate elite will throw money at radical politicians so long as those politicians protect and nurture their corporate interests.
As a leftist nurtured in marxist truisms, he is, of course, dedicated to Keynesian economics, a dressed up ideology that encourages politicians to pay off voting blocs and interest groups that share their aspirations in the guise of "stimulus."
Now, 19 months into his presidency, Obama expresses puzzlement at the stubborn refusal of the American economy to recover despite more than a trillion dollars in "stimulus" spending. Speculation is rife that the economy will turn down again, producing a dreaded double-dip recession.
What's going on?
Sane America has gone on strike against the Obama administration's obsessive effort to impose rule by a leftist elite, including "czars," that has seized control of government and uses it to impose policies that most Americans oppose.
To counter this bizarre assault on American values, individuals, families, small businesses and large corporations are reasserting their individuality and desire for freedom by hoarding cash, withholding spending to thwart a government that some regard as wayward, and many view as their enemy.
Both consumers and businessmen are sitting on the sidelines. The July drop in sales of new (-32 percent year-on-year) and existing homes (-26 percent) to record-low levels exceeded even the gloomiest expectations, and can no longer be blamed on the expiration of the Homebuyer Tax Credit. Low mortgage rates seem to be offset by tighter credit standards, job insecurity is being fuelled by rising initial claims for unemployment insurance, and buyers feel it pays to wait because prices will be lower tomorrow.
Potential homebuyers are not the only squeamish economic actors. Capital goods orders, excluding defense spending and the 76 percent increase in the volatile aircraft segment, fell 8 percent, the biggest drop since January 2009. This “highlight[s] the risk of a significant slowdown of investment spending,” concludes Bernd Weidensteiner of Commerzbank. American corporations seem to be using some of their $2 trillion in idle cash to return to the acquisitions market, bad news for job seekers since successful acquisitions usually mean lay-offs in the acquired companies -- “efficiencies” and “cost savings” are the preferred description.
Add to this bad news an even more powerful drag on the economy: uncertainty. Bernanke says the Fed is loading its monetary policy gun by keeping its balance sheet from shrinking, but no one knows whether or when he will pull the trigger. Besides, even if he does, recent history suggests that the Fed can’t lure enough money from the wallets of debt-burdened consumers or from corporate treasuries to put the economy on a solid growth path. Mike Dude, CEO of vaunted retailer Wal-Mart, says, “The slow economic recovery will continue to affect our customers, and we expect they will remain cautious about spending.” Students are being made to do with their old PCs, and affluent fashionistas are eyeing lower-priced editions of their favorite designers’ lines.
My take: This supports my blog post of Aug. 23, under the headline: "Why the economy refuses to recover: Americans are on strike against Obama's anti-American, big-government policies," in which I wrote this:
Hoist by his own petard.
That's President Barack Obama.
Having assumed office with an illusory mandate to "transform America," he tossed aside public opinion, ignored voters' traditional preference for moderate, not radical, change, and set out to impose his vision of dominant government and a citizenry willing to say, okay, when a designated bureaucrat tells them their time has come to die. In doing so, Obama's minions bribed lawmakers to vote for measures opposed by a majority of voters and made a mockery of the legislative process.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be an unduring symbol with her call for Congress to pass a bill cobbled by insiders so that rank and file members could find out what's in it.
As the nation's debt grew by trillions of dollars, voters recoiled in horror while Obama remained unfazed, and perhaps unwitting. There is, after all, little evidence that Obama has any understanding of economics aside from the obvious fact that many of America's corporate elite will throw money at radical politicians so long as those politicians protect and nurture their corporate interests.
As a leftist nurtured in marxist truisms, he is, of course, dedicated to Keynesian economics, a dressed up ideology that encourages politicians to pay off voting blocs and interest groups that share their aspirations in the guise of "stimulus."
Now, 19 months into his presidency, Obama expresses puzzlement at the stubborn refusal of the American economy to recover despite more than a trillion dollars in "stimulus" spending. Speculation is rife that the economy will turn down again, producing a dreaded double-dip recession.
What's going on?
Sane America has gone on strike against the Obama administration's obsessive effort to impose rule by a leftist elite, including "czars," that has seized control of government and uses it to impose policies that most Americans oppose.
To counter this bizarre assault on American values, individuals, families, small businesses and large corporations are reasserting their individuality and desire for freedom by hoarding cash, withholding spending to thwart a government that some regard as wayward, and many view as their enemy.
Sign of the times: Nation's only new bank operates out of a second-hand double-wide trailer on a church parking lot
LAKE CHARLES, La. — The only new start-up bank to open in the United States this year operates out of a secondhand double-wide trailer, on a bare lot in front of the cavernous Trinity Baptist Church. A blue awning covers the makeshift drive-through window.
Called Lakeside Bank, it is run by a burly and balding former tackle for Louisiana State’s football team named Hartie Spence, who doles out countrified humor along with deposit slips and the occasional loan.
“This is the one place where the cause of death is mildew,” he quipped, standing outside the trailer in withering heat.
Asked how his bank in this steaming town of oil refineries and oversize casinos managed to win over federal regulators, Mr. Spence, 70, said, “I’m still thinking it’s my looks that did it.”
The dearth of new banks follows a particularly wrenching period for the industry. As the financial crisis deepened, hundreds of banks and thrifts closed and thousands more were saddled with bad loans and credit card defaults, costing the industry billions of dollars.
As a result, the number of investor groups applying to start a new bank from scratch has dropped precipitously. And for the intrepid few who have tried, regulators — sharply criticized for lax oversight in recent years — are being particularly stingy in granting approval.
So far this year, Mr. Spence holds the privilege of opening the only truly new federally insured bank. (In seven other instances, investors received regulatory approval to buy an existing bank, usually one that had failed, and reopen it).
Of course, many of the nation’s biggest banks were bailed out by the government, and have since rebounded. But since January 2008, more than 280 smaller banks and thrifts have been closed, and many community banks are struggling to recover from the real estate collapse.
Those bank failures have cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s fund roughly $70 billion, and not surprisingly, the agency’s regulators are now giving greater scrutiny to new bank applications, according to bankers and industry officials.
Technically, banks obtain charters from their primary regulatory agency, either state banking regulators or, for national banks, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. But the charters are contingent on the applicants’ obtaining deposit insurance from the F.D.I.C.
The F.D.I.C. said the reduction in charters simply reflects the effects of the recession on new businesses. “There was considerable interest in forming banks before the economy deteriorated,” said an agency spokesman, David Barr. “In today’s climate we are seeing very little interest.”
Called Lakeside Bank, it is run by a burly and balding former tackle for Louisiana State’s football team named Hartie Spence, who doles out countrified humor along with deposit slips and the occasional loan.
“This is the one place where the cause of death is mildew,” he quipped, standing outside the trailer in withering heat.
Asked how his bank in this steaming town of oil refineries and oversize casinos managed to win over federal regulators, Mr. Spence, 70, said, “I’m still thinking it’s my looks that did it.”
The dearth of new banks follows a particularly wrenching period for the industry. As the financial crisis deepened, hundreds of banks and thrifts closed and thousands more were saddled with bad loans and credit card defaults, costing the industry billions of dollars.
As a result, the number of investor groups applying to start a new bank from scratch has dropped precipitously. And for the intrepid few who have tried, regulators — sharply criticized for lax oversight in recent years — are being particularly stingy in granting approval.
So far this year, Mr. Spence holds the privilege of opening the only truly new federally insured bank. (In seven other instances, investors received regulatory approval to buy an existing bank, usually one that had failed, and reopen it).
Of course, many of the nation’s biggest banks were bailed out by the government, and have since rebounded. But since January 2008, more than 280 smaller banks and thrifts have been closed, and many community banks are struggling to recover from the real estate collapse.
Those bank failures have cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s fund roughly $70 billion, and not surprisingly, the agency’s regulators are now giving greater scrutiny to new bank applications, according to bankers and industry officials.
Technically, banks obtain charters from their primary regulatory agency, either state banking regulators or, for national banks, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. But the charters are contingent on the applicants’ obtaining deposit insurance from the F.D.I.C.
The F.D.I.C. said the reduction in charters simply reflects the effects of the recession on new businesses. “There was considerable interest in forming banks before the economy deteriorated,” said an agency spokesman, David Barr. “In today’s climate we are seeing very little interest.”
Book: "Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life"
Terence P. Jeffrey is the author of Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life. The former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential campaign now writes a column for Creators Syndicate and serves as editor-in-chief of CNSNews.com and editor at large of Human Events.
Jeffrey recently agreed to answer 10 questions about his new book and other topics of interest for The Daily Caller:
1.) Why did you decide to write this book?
I believe the liberal worldview and policies examined in “Control Freaks” threaten not only our prosperity but our freedom. Americans of my generation have a duty to give the Americans of my children’s generation a country both prosperous and free and we are at risk of failing in that mission.
2.) Your book is subtitled ‘7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life.’ Give me the topic heads of the 7 ways and do you think that liberals are intentionally seeking to ruin people’s lives or doing so out of misguided ideology –and does the distinction even matter?
Liberals, I argue in the book, are seeking to increase the power of government over individuals to control 1) our movement, 2) our retirement income, 3) our health care, 4) our private property, 5) our speech, 6) whether we live or die, and 7) our consciences.
If there’s a distinction, it makes no difference to the victim. The city planners of New London may have thought they were constructing a better city by seizing and bull-dozing the homes of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, but they were nonetheless willfully ruining at least a part of the lives of the families whose homes they targeted. I have no doubt the government-protected abortionist knows he is ruining the life of the little girl he kills — even if he is the true-believing disciple of a political creed that holds that the world would be better if we killed more babies.
Jeffrey recently agreed to answer 10 questions about his new book and other topics of interest for The Daily Caller:
1.) Why did you decide to write this book?
I believe the liberal worldview and policies examined in “Control Freaks” threaten not only our prosperity but our freedom. Americans of my generation have a duty to give the Americans of my children’s generation a country both prosperous and free and we are at risk of failing in that mission.
2.) Your book is subtitled ‘7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life.’ Give me the topic heads of the 7 ways and do you think that liberals are intentionally seeking to ruin people’s lives or doing so out of misguided ideology –and does the distinction even matter?
Liberals, I argue in the book, are seeking to increase the power of government over individuals to control 1) our movement, 2) our retirement income, 3) our health care, 4) our private property, 5) our speech, 6) whether we live or die, and 7) our consciences.
If there’s a distinction, it makes no difference to the victim. The city planners of New London may have thought they were constructing a better city by seizing and bull-dozing the homes of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, but they were nonetheless willfully ruining at least a part of the lives of the families whose homes they targeted. I have no doubt the government-protected abortionist knows he is ruining the life of the little girl he kills — even if he is the true-believing disciple of a political creed that holds that the world would be better if we killed more babies.
Obamacare: Looking for job growth in all the wrong places
Come September, National Journal will host a policy summit titled “Prescription For Growth,” funded by Eli Lilly, that will probe “the potential impact of recently passed health care reform as an economic engine” and ask whether “health care reform [will] serve as a jobs creator and accelerate growth in health-related industries?”
Oy, where to begin?
I suppose I could start with how a news organization that bills itself as “the leading source of nonpartisan reporting” could lend ObamaCare a positive gloss by calling it “reform” — a term that even NPR declines to ascribe to actual legislation (for that reason).
Next, there’s this inane question of whether ObamaCare will spur job growth in the health care sector. With two new health care entitlements and maybe a trillion dollars of new health spending…gosh, d’ya think?
But then there’s the presumption that creating new health care jobs is a good thing. You’d think it would be. After all, unemployment is near 10 percent. But one of our biggest health care problems is that there are too many health care jobs. The Dartmouth Institute’s Elliot Fisher has quipped, “In theory, we could send a third of the U.S. health care workforce to Africa and improve the health of both continents.” ObamaCare will just make this country’s health care sector even more bloated and inefficient.
Wrap your head around all that this summit aims to accomplish. It could give a boost to an unpopular and low approval rating on the economy — never mind that ObamaCare is stifling the right kind of job creation.
Of course, I may have this summit all wrong. It may give all these issues a fair hearing.
Did I mention the summit’s sponsor is one of the biggest special-interest beneficiaries of ObamaCare? (Tim Carney, call your office.)
Oy, where to begin?
I suppose I could start with how a news organization that bills itself as “the leading source of nonpartisan reporting” could lend ObamaCare a positive gloss by calling it “reform” — a term that even NPR declines to ascribe to actual legislation (for that reason).
Next, there’s this inane question of whether ObamaCare will spur job growth in the health care sector. With two new health care entitlements and maybe a trillion dollars of new health spending…gosh, d’ya think?
But then there’s the presumption that creating new health care jobs is a good thing. You’d think it would be. After all, unemployment is near 10 percent. But one of our biggest health care problems is that there are too many health care jobs. The Dartmouth Institute’s Elliot Fisher has quipped, “In theory, we could send a third of the U.S. health care workforce to Africa and improve the health of both continents.” ObamaCare will just make this country’s health care sector even more bloated and inefficient.
Wrap your head around all that this summit aims to accomplish. It could give a boost to an unpopular and low approval rating on the economy — never mind that ObamaCare is stifling the right kind of job creation.
Of course, I may have this summit all wrong. It may give all these issues a fair hearing.
Did I mention the summit’s sponsor is one of the biggest special-interest beneficiaries of ObamaCare? (Tim Carney, call your office.)
Saturday, August 28, 2010
When liberals lose an argument, they call adversaries names
If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.
What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:
Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . .
What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:
Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . .
New York test makers glorify Islam, portray Christians as louts
State testmakers played favorites when quizzing high-schoolers on world religions -- giving Islam and Buddhism the kid-gloves treatment while socking it to Christianity, critics say.
Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.
"There should have been a little balance in there," said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.
"To me, this was offensive because it's just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor," he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle's "A World History: A Cultural Approach," observers said.
The passage reads: "Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom."
Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that "idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed," and "Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples" -- and built with free Indian labor, to boot.
"I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed," said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. "Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?"
At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes' conquest of Mexico -- which he said portrayed him as a "choirboy" rather than a "conquistador."
"It's quite a whitewash," he said.
Teachers complain that the reading selections from the Regents exam in global history and geography given last week featured glowing passages pertaining to Muslim society but much more critical essay excerpts on the subject of Christianity.
"There should have been a little balance in there," said one Brooklyn teacher who administered the exam but did not want to be identified.
"To me, this was offensive because it's just so inappropriate and the timing of it was piss-poor," he added, referring to the debate over the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
The most troubling passage came from Daniel Roselle's "A World History: A Cultural Approach," observers said.
The passage reads: "Wherever they went, the Moslems [sic] brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western Christendom."
Meanwhile, an excerpt listing the common procedures used by Christian friars to introduce the religion in Latin America stated that "idols, temples and other material evidences of paganism [were] destroyed," and "Christian buildings [were] often constructed on sites of destroyed native temples" -- and built with free Indian labor, to boot.
"I can see why some people might see these questions as skewed," said Mark MacWilliams, a religious-studies professor at St. Lawrence University in upstate Canton. "Why does the exam seem to have only documents that portray Islam as a religion of peace, civilization and refinement, while it includes documents about Christianity that show it was anything but peaceful in the Spanish conquest of the Americas?"
At the same time, MacWilliams criticized the presentation of Hernando Cortes' conquest of Mexico -- which he said portrayed him as a "choirboy" rather than a "conquistador."
"It's quite a whitewash," he said.
Pocketbook issues will be decisive; other issues not so much
Watching the news, Americans could be forgiven if they thought the November elections were a referendum on the New York mosque controversy.
Before the mosque took center stage, the elections were centered on Charlie Rangel's scandal, gay marriage, the immigration debate, the BP oil spill. Next week it will be something else.
So many headlines, so little real impact. Actually, there's nothing special about the way 2010 is leaning. It is a classic, pocketbook-hurting, message-sending midterm election.
How could it be otherwise? With millions unemployed, millions more under-employed, a vicious recession in the recent past and a possible double-dip underway, people are focused on the bread and butter of their lives.
Even if Democrats are blameless for these affairs, they are the party in power. Voting against them is a logical, time-honored response from weary, unhappy citizens who have run out of patience. Whatever you think of the stimulus bill, health care reform, and cap-and-trade, the main cause of Democratic distress isn't promoting liberal legislation but simply being in charge when bad things are happening to the nation's economy.
Goodness knows, the election won't signal that voters have fallen in love with the Republicans. Every poll shows that Americans don't like or trust either party right now.
People don't want to reward the Democrats for what they see as underperformance after overpromising on the economy. At the same time, most Americans have no desire to put the Tea Party-influenced Republicans in charge. So people will let the parties fight it out in D.C. by giving each side some turf.
Americans know what they're getting with split-party control. Since Dwight Eisenhower took the White House in 1952, one party has been fully in charge of the executive and legislative branches for just 20 of the 58 years. Obama was lucky enough to have swollen Democratic majorities for his first two years as President, and he has legislative accomplishments to show for it. It's a good thing for him, too, because even if he serves two terms, the President will almost certainly never have the party margins to do much again.
Before the mosque took center stage, the elections were centered on Charlie Rangel's scandal, gay marriage, the immigration debate, the BP oil spill. Next week it will be something else.
So many headlines, so little real impact. Actually, there's nothing special about the way 2010 is leaning. It is a classic, pocketbook-hurting, message-sending midterm election.
How could it be otherwise? With millions unemployed, millions more under-employed, a vicious recession in the recent past and a possible double-dip underway, people are focused on the bread and butter of their lives.
Even if Democrats are blameless for these affairs, they are the party in power. Voting against them is a logical, time-honored response from weary, unhappy citizens who have run out of patience. Whatever you think of the stimulus bill, health care reform, and cap-and-trade, the main cause of Democratic distress isn't promoting liberal legislation but simply being in charge when bad things are happening to the nation's economy.
Goodness knows, the election won't signal that voters have fallen in love with the Republicans. Every poll shows that Americans don't like or trust either party right now.
People don't want to reward the Democrats for what they see as underperformance after overpromising on the economy. At the same time, most Americans have no desire to put the Tea Party-influenced Republicans in charge. So people will let the parties fight it out in D.C. by giving each side some turf.
Americans know what they're getting with split-party control. Since Dwight Eisenhower took the White House in 1952, one party has been fully in charge of the executive and legislative branches for just 20 of the 58 years. Obama was lucky enough to have swollen Democratic majorities for his first two years as President, and he has legislative accomplishments to show for it. It's a good thing for him, too, because even if he serves two terms, the President will almost certainly never have the party margins to do much again.
If you're outspokenly critical of America, the White House may send you as an ambassador on a tour of the Middle East
Among the prime planners of a $100 million Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero, it's not just Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is visiting the Middle East this summer at U.S. taxpayer expense. The State Department is also about to send Rauf's wife and Cordoba Initiative fellow director, Daisy Khan, on her own taxpayer-funded "public diplomacy" trip to the United Arab Emirates. Khan is scheduled to visit the UAE from Aug. 29 to Sept. 2, overlapping there with Rauf, for whom it will be the final leg of a three-country trip including Bahrain and Qatar.
The U.S. Embassy in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi has posted on its website an announcement of the impending visit by this husband-wife team. Rauf and Khan will be there, the announcement says, "to engage foreign audiences and build people-to-people ties" and to "discuss their experiences as Muslims living and working in the United States."
What might their discussions entail? Rauf, since his Cordoba Initiative's Ground Zero mosque project triggered a national uproar, has spent the summer as an enigma. Before embarking on his State-sponsored tour, he walled himself off for weeks in Malaysia, where he has longstanding ties and keeps an office. His Cordoba website now features a note that Rauf could not be available (apparently not even by phone) to explain himself to the people of New York because "he travels the world in his life-long endeavor to bring the message of moderation, peace and understanding to both Western and Islamic countries."
In Rauf's absence, Daisy Khan has been speaking prolifically from New York about the Cordoba House mega-mosque project (which the developer recently re-dubbed Park 51, and the Cordoba House is now describing as a "community center"). Her message, like the name of the project, has been morphing at speed. When Rauf and Khan won approval for their 15-story mosque-topped Cordoba House from a Manhattan community board this spring, they advertised their project as all about doing their part for harmony and healing near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.
When it turned out that a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans generally, think this project is more like rubbing salt in a wound, Khan shifted focus. She's now talking about the Cordoba project as a test of American religious tolerance. If a majority of Americans--cognizant that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by Muslims, in the name of Islam--think it's inappropriate to stage that test near the edge of Ground Zero, Khan's retort is that they must be bigots. In an interview last week with the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, she lamented: "When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?"
On Sunday, interviewed on ABC TV's This Week by Christiane Amanpour, Khan ratcheted up her complaints. Amanpour asked, "Is America Islamophobic?"
Khan replied, "It's not even Islamophobia, it's beyond Islamophobia. It's hate of Muslims."
The U.S. Embassy in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi has posted on its website an announcement of the impending visit by this husband-wife team. Rauf and Khan will be there, the announcement says, "to engage foreign audiences and build people-to-people ties" and to "discuss their experiences as Muslims living and working in the United States."
What might their discussions entail? Rauf, since his Cordoba Initiative's Ground Zero mosque project triggered a national uproar, has spent the summer as an enigma. Before embarking on his State-sponsored tour, he walled himself off for weeks in Malaysia, where he has longstanding ties and keeps an office. His Cordoba website now features a note that Rauf could not be available (apparently not even by phone) to explain himself to the people of New York because "he travels the world in his life-long endeavor to bring the message of moderation, peace and understanding to both Western and Islamic countries."
In Rauf's absence, Daisy Khan has been speaking prolifically from New York about the Cordoba House mega-mosque project (which the developer recently re-dubbed Park 51, and the Cordoba House is now describing as a "community center"). Her message, like the name of the project, has been morphing at speed. When Rauf and Khan won approval for their 15-story mosque-topped Cordoba House from a Manhattan community board this spring, they advertised their project as all about doing their part for harmony and healing near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.
When it turned out that a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans generally, think this project is more like rubbing salt in a wound, Khan shifted focus. She's now talking about the Cordoba project as a test of American religious tolerance. If a majority of Americans--cognizant that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out by Muslims, in the name of Islam--think it's inappropriate to stage that test near the edge of Ground Zero, Khan's retort is that they must be bigots. In an interview last week with the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, she lamented: "When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?"
On Sunday, interviewed on ABC TV's This Week by Christiane Amanpour, Khan ratcheted up her complaints. Amanpour asked, "Is America Islamophobic?"
Khan replied, "It's not even Islamophobia, it's beyond Islamophobia. It's hate of Muslims."
As Obamanomics flounders, market-friendly Hayek is reborn
Peter J. Boettke, shuffling around in a maroon velour track suit or faux-leather rubber shoes he calls "dress Crocs," hardly seems like the type to lead a revolution.
But the 50-year-old professor of economics at George Mason University in Virginia is emerging as the intellectual standard-bearer for the Austrian school of economics that opposes government intervention in markets and decries federal spending to prop up demand during times of crisis. Mr. Boettke, whose latest research explores people's ability to self-regulate, also is minting a new generation of disciples who are spreading the Austrian approach throughout academia, where it had long been left for dead.
To these free-market economists, government intrusion ultimately sows the seeds of the next crisis. It hampers what one famous Austrian, Joseph Schumpeter, called the process of "creative destruction."
Governments that spend money they don't have to cushion downturns, they say, lead nations down the path of large debts and runaway inflation.
Eight decades ago, in the midst of the Great Depression, the Austrian school and its leading scholar, Friedrich A. von Hayek, fell out of favor relative to the more activist theories of John Maynard Keynes. The British economist's ideas, which called for aggressive government spending during recessions, triumphed then and in the decades since, reflected most recently in measures like the $814 billion stimulus package. Austrian adherents were marginalized, losing influence in prominent journals and among policy makers.
But as the economy flounders, debt mounts and growth—revised downward Friday—flags, Mr. Hayek and his Austrian-school adherents like Mr. Boettke are resurgent as their views resonate with more people.
"What I'm really worried about is an endless cycle of deficits, debt, and debasement of currency," Mr. Boettke says. "What we've done is engage in a set of policies that's turned a market correction into an economy-wide crisis."
Mr. Boettke got hooked on economics as a student at Grove City College. His commitment to economics is "always on," says his wife.
Others seem to agree. Mr. Hayek's 1944 classic, "The Road to Serfdom," became the top-selling book in June on Amazon.com. The Austrian think tank Foundation for Economic Education had to turn students away this summer from its overflowing seminars.
But the 50-year-old professor of economics at George Mason University in Virginia is emerging as the intellectual standard-bearer for the Austrian school of economics that opposes government intervention in markets and decries federal spending to prop up demand during times of crisis. Mr. Boettke, whose latest research explores people's ability to self-regulate, also is minting a new generation of disciples who are spreading the Austrian approach throughout academia, where it had long been left for dead.
To these free-market economists, government intrusion ultimately sows the seeds of the next crisis. It hampers what one famous Austrian, Joseph Schumpeter, called the process of "creative destruction."
Governments that spend money they don't have to cushion downturns, they say, lead nations down the path of large debts and runaway inflation.
Eight decades ago, in the midst of the Great Depression, the Austrian school and its leading scholar, Friedrich A. von Hayek, fell out of favor relative to the more activist theories of John Maynard Keynes. The British economist's ideas, which called for aggressive government spending during recessions, triumphed then and in the decades since, reflected most recently in measures like the $814 billion stimulus package. Austrian adherents were marginalized, losing influence in prominent journals and among policy makers.
But as the economy flounders, debt mounts and growth—revised downward Friday—flags, Mr. Hayek and his Austrian-school adherents like Mr. Boettke are resurgent as their views resonate with more people.
"What I'm really worried about is an endless cycle of deficits, debt, and debasement of currency," Mr. Boettke says. "What we've done is engage in a set of policies that's turned a market correction into an economy-wide crisis."
Mr. Boettke got hooked on economics as a student at Grove City College. His commitment to economics is "always on," says his wife.
Others seem to agree. Mr. Hayek's 1944 classic, "The Road to Serfdom," became the top-selling book in June on Amazon.com. The Austrian think tank Foundation for Economic Education had to turn students away this summer from its overflowing seminars.
Unsurprisingly, 88% of tv media money goes to Democrats
Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.
The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.
The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.
Friday, August 27, 2010
ACORN-like outfit submits thousands of phony voter registrations; by coincidence, warehouse full of evidence burns
A few days ago we blogged how the Houston voter registrar had a press conference announcing widespread voter fraud and thousands of illegal and phony voter registrations submitted by an ACORN-like organization called "Houston Votes." Those stories are here and here.
Harris County Tax Assessor Collector [and voter registrar] Leo Vasquez accused the group of submitting thousands of bogus voter registration applications in recent months in what he said appears to be a campaign to taint the voter rolls.
Well this morning Mr. Vasquez's warehouse containing all of the voting machines, supplies and equipment burned to the ground. A note of caution: obviously law enforcement officials in Harris County will get to the bottom of this. We are posting this because, for now, Harris County is going to have a mess of an election in November because all of their equipment and supplies have been destroyed.
UPDATE: Every voting machine for Houston is destroyed.
Earlier story:
Today, the King Street Patriots, a group of citizen-volunteers in Harris County, Texas, announced their discovery of thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of incomplete, inaccurate or false voter registrations. The group, represented by Liberty Institute, uncovered hundreds of properties, including vacant lots and nonexistent addresses, where six or more people claim to live.
"It's apparent that King Street Patriots discovered voter fraud in Harris County, though we don't know just how extensive it is," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO for Liberty Institute and a constitutional scholar. "King Street Patriots is double-checking all registrations leading up to the election, and will be releasing information each week on what they've uncovered. There are those who are trying to intimidate King Street Patriots by attempting to vandalize their office and vehicles and monitoring the location of their offices and work. It is unfortunate that our clients are now the focus of intimidation tactics. No one should be intimidated or punished for being a good citizen."
King Street Patriots released statements today following Harris County's news conference announcing their discovery of what they called "voted fraud." The group, which works to ensure fair and free elections, found evidence suggesting that deputy voter registrars completed registration forms incorrectly, even registering some people without their permission who have not signed up to vote in the past ten years.
"If our elections are not fair, we are not truly free," said Catherine Engelbrecht, president of King Street Patriots. "Our True the Vote volunteers are working night and day to ensure that elections in Harris County are accurate and that no one's vote is stolen."
Harris County Tax Assessor Collector [and voter registrar] Leo Vasquez accused the group of submitting thousands of bogus voter registration applications in recent months in what he said appears to be a campaign to taint the voter rolls.
Well this morning Mr. Vasquez's warehouse containing all of the voting machines, supplies and equipment burned to the ground. A note of caution: obviously law enforcement officials in Harris County will get to the bottom of this. We are posting this because, for now, Harris County is going to have a mess of an election in November because all of their equipment and supplies have been destroyed.
UPDATE: Every voting machine for Houston is destroyed.
Earlier story:
Today, the King Street Patriots, a group of citizen-volunteers in Harris County, Texas, announced their discovery of thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of incomplete, inaccurate or false voter registrations. The group, represented by Liberty Institute, uncovered hundreds of properties, including vacant lots and nonexistent addresses, where six or more people claim to live.
"It's apparent that King Street Patriots discovered voter fraud in Harris County, though we don't know just how extensive it is," said Kelly Shackelford, president/CEO for Liberty Institute and a constitutional scholar. "King Street Patriots is double-checking all registrations leading up to the election, and will be releasing information each week on what they've uncovered. There are those who are trying to intimidate King Street Patriots by attempting to vandalize their office and vehicles and monitoring the location of their offices and work. It is unfortunate that our clients are now the focus of intimidation tactics. No one should be intimidated or punished for being a good citizen."
King Street Patriots released statements today following Harris County's news conference announcing their discovery of what they called "voted fraud." The group, which works to ensure fair and free elections, found evidence suggesting that deputy voter registrars completed registration forms incorrectly, even registering some people without their permission who have not signed up to vote in the past ten years.
"If our elections are not fair, we are not truly free," said Catherine Engelbrecht, president of King Street Patriots. "Our True the Vote volunteers are working night and day to ensure that elections in Harris County are accurate and that no one's vote is stolen."
Can an obsequious U.S. military win in Afghanistan?
My take: Here's a superb look at the absurd, obsequious posture of the U.S. military in Afghanistan by Diana West. Pay attention to the comments, some written by veterans who are appalled by the scene.
Winning hearts and minds means losing your own. It involves teaching defenders of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to “respect” an Islamic tribal culture (as advocated by Admiral Mullen — below — and other leaders) that subjugates women, girls, boys and non-Muslims (assuming there are any of the last left in the country), while increasingly assuming its customs – from troops adopting native dress to a US admiral involving himself in the ritual slaughter of sheep, to redefining our very perceptions of reality.
Now, it’s part of basic training.
From the Des Moines Register staff blogs (thanks to a vigilant Marine mom):
Camp Shelby, Miss. – Sgt. Eric Campbell did almost everything right in his first try at greeting an Afghan community leader, but he forgot about the gloves.
The Iowa National Guard cavalry sergeant walked confidently into a mock-up of an Afghan police office, where he warmly greeted a commander in a blue uniform shirt and red head scarf. He asked permission to take off his body armor and helmet, and he politely set down his rifle. Then he sat cross-legged on the carpet with his counterpart and an interpreter.
May I be permitted to take off my body armor and helmet?
During a 15-minute conversation, he maintained proper eye contact with the commander, and he used an interpreter to ask appropriate questions about the man’s family and his police force’s needs.
Needs. The continuing theme. Strike that — the eternal theme — of the Great Society in A-Stan.
“We need a lot of training for these people,” the commander replied in Dari, one of Afghanistan’s main languages. “We want lots of soldiers, too.” The previous American unit in town sent over a junior officer who never could deliver on his promises, the commander complained.
At what point — who knows? — does the role-playing commander start to believe this?
Campbell listened patiently and promised to do all he could to help the local police. Then he added, “God willing.”
That would be, “Inshallah.” Allah willing. Redolent of Islamic concepts of pre-destination and all that. Why is an American non-Muslim being steeped in Islamic conventions even as he’s giving away the US store?
In the end, the commander seemed satisfied. “You need to come here often, often,” he said.
“And bring more stuff,” he should have added.
Campbell, 29, of Sioux City, had never done this sort of thing before. He was going through his first exercise in “key leader engagement” during a training session at Camp Shelby.
Engagement? The term implies a measure of equality that is absent in this demeaning training exercise.
Think of it: The young guardsman is trained to enter the Afghan police station, beg permission to doff his armor, ask all the right (read: obsequious) questions of the Afghan police officer, allow the Afghan police officer to run down the guardsman’s American predecessor as a liar, and then offer unconditional aide — that is, utterly fail to extract concessions of any kind, or make aid contingent on anything whatsoever. Who’s the supplicant here — the American benefactor and protector, or the Afghan drag and recipient?
And the critique is (below) that the American didn’t show more ritualistic deference.
One of his soldiers, Spec. Broderick Miller of Sioux City, took notes. Seven other squad members watched, then critiqued the session.
One of the soldiers pointed out that Campbell forgot to take off his gloves before shaking the Afghan commander’s hand, which could be seen as disrespectful. Campbell made a little grimace as he recalled the incident.
A camp instructor, Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Payne, agreed Campbell should have taken his gloves off. But he said overall, the session went well.
“It may not always be that easy,” he warned. “There may be some tension. Sometimes, there may be a lot of tension.” It could take months to build rapport with a community leader, he said. Sometimes, it could prove impossible….
Sometimes.
Some comments by commenters:
KristineFromNYC
Winning hearts and minds does not win wars. It did not work in Vietnam, Iraq, or any other war known to Mankind. Clauswitz had it right, you fight till your enemy has neither the means or the will to fight on. That means killing the enemy, destroy the warmaking capacity, and letting the enemy know that you are the victor. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used as community organizers and allowing another Shiara Muslim country to recover and continue the fight against the west. Instead of the above scenario, the Officer should have been trained to go into the Afghani Police office as a soldier to make sure the police officer is doing his job or suffer the consequence.
GayboDGaylord
Wow thats a lot different then I remember. We were trained to try and not offend them deliberately but if they made a threatening move to drop them where they stand.
Guess there was early evidence of this nonsense. The Marine sniper that was disciplined for shooting the koran. The Army Officer kissing a copy of it in apology. No wonder they think we are bullsht now, look at how we submit to them at every turn.
Here's an off topic question, where the hell are these northern warlords we had take out the Taliban in the beginning of the war? Why aren't they protecting their border from them anymore?
attila_the_pun
Somewhere, General Patton weeps.
The country is doomed if this kind of garbage continues.
Winning hearts and minds means losing your own. It involves teaching defenders of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to “respect” an Islamic tribal culture (as advocated by Admiral Mullen — below — and other leaders) that subjugates women, girls, boys and non-Muslims (assuming there are any of the last left in the country), while increasingly assuming its customs – from troops adopting native dress to a US admiral involving himself in the ritual slaughter of sheep, to redefining our very perceptions of reality.
Now, it’s part of basic training.
From the Des Moines Register staff blogs (thanks to a vigilant Marine mom):
Camp Shelby, Miss. – Sgt. Eric Campbell did almost everything right in his first try at greeting an Afghan community leader, but he forgot about the gloves.
The Iowa National Guard cavalry sergeant walked confidently into a mock-up of an Afghan police office, where he warmly greeted a commander in a blue uniform shirt and red head scarf. He asked permission to take off his body armor and helmet, and he politely set down his rifle. Then he sat cross-legged on the carpet with his counterpart and an interpreter.
May I be permitted to take off my body armor and helmet?
During a 15-minute conversation, he maintained proper eye contact with the commander, and he used an interpreter to ask appropriate questions about the man’s family and his police force’s needs.
Needs. The continuing theme. Strike that — the eternal theme — of the Great Society in A-Stan.
“We need a lot of training for these people,” the commander replied in Dari, one of Afghanistan’s main languages. “We want lots of soldiers, too.” The previous American unit in town sent over a junior officer who never could deliver on his promises, the commander complained.
At what point — who knows? — does the role-playing commander start to believe this?
Campbell listened patiently and promised to do all he could to help the local police. Then he added, “God willing.”
That would be, “Inshallah.” Allah willing. Redolent of Islamic concepts of pre-destination and all that. Why is an American non-Muslim being steeped in Islamic conventions even as he’s giving away the US store?
In the end, the commander seemed satisfied. “You need to come here often, often,” he said.
“And bring more stuff,” he should have added.
Campbell, 29, of Sioux City, had never done this sort of thing before. He was going through his first exercise in “key leader engagement” during a training session at Camp Shelby.
Engagement? The term implies a measure of equality that is absent in this demeaning training exercise.
Think of it: The young guardsman is trained to enter the Afghan police station, beg permission to doff his armor, ask all the right (read: obsequious) questions of the Afghan police officer, allow the Afghan police officer to run down the guardsman’s American predecessor as a liar, and then offer unconditional aide — that is, utterly fail to extract concessions of any kind, or make aid contingent on anything whatsoever. Who’s the supplicant here — the American benefactor and protector, or the Afghan drag and recipient?
And the critique is (below) that the American didn’t show more ritualistic deference.
One of his soldiers, Spec. Broderick Miller of Sioux City, took notes. Seven other squad members watched, then critiqued the session.
One of the soldiers pointed out that Campbell forgot to take off his gloves before shaking the Afghan commander’s hand, which could be seen as disrespectful. Campbell made a little grimace as he recalled the incident.
A camp instructor, Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Payne, agreed Campbell should have taken his gloves off. But he said overall, the session went well.
“It may not always be that easy,” he warned. “There may be some tension. Sometimes, there may be a lot of tension.” It could take months to build rapport with a community leader, he said. Sometimes, it could prove impossible….
Sometimes.
Some comments by commenters:
KristineFromNYC
Winning hearts and minds does not win wars. It did not work in Vietnam, Iraq, or any other war known to Mankind. Clauswitz had it right, you fight till your enemy has neither the means or the will to fight on. That means killing the enemy, destroy the warmaking capacity, and letting the enemy know that you are the victor. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used as community organizers and allowing another Shiara Muslim country to recover and continue the fight against the west. Instead of the above scenario, the Officer should have been trained to go into the Afghani Police office as a soldier to make sure the police officer is doing his job or suffer the consequence.
GayboDGaylord
Wow thats a lot different then I remember. We were trained to try and not offend them deliberately but if they made a threatening move to drop them where they stand.
Guess there was early evidence of this nonsense. The Marine sniper that was disciplined for shooting the koran. The Army Officer kissing a copy of it in apology. No wonder they think we are bullsht now, look at how we submit to them at every turn.
Here's an off topic question, where the hell are these northern warlords we had take out the Taliban in the beginning of the war? Why aren't they protecting their border from them anymore?
attila_the_pun
Somewhere, General Patton weeps.
The country is doomed if this kind of garbage continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
