Slowing Economy Could Exacerbate Federal Debt Woes

If the economy doesn't pick up soon, our debt could be mcuh bigger than forecast.

Fiscal retrenchment is like driving up a steep, muddy hill in a downpour. If the economy moves too slowly, it might lose traction or even start backsliding as more debt accumulates.


Now, as the fiscal climb begins — unless Congress prolongs stimulus and tax cuts — the apparent economic downshift could make budget progress difficult.


The White House's Office of Management and Budget sees 4% average real GDP growth from 2011 to 2014. But if growth is 3%, OMB says deficits would be $2 trillion higher through 2020 than the $8.5 trillion under its baseline scenario.


A one-percentage-point shortfall in growth each year from 2010 to 2020 would raise deficits by $3.1 trillion.

Instead of a debt-to-GDP ratio of 77% in 2020, as OMB projects, the latter scenario of persistently slower growth would push that to 99%.

Glen Beck on Shirley Sherrod

As Galaxies Collide

God's Endless Creation ...

The Stars Like Dust

Let's Review

From Vanderleun.  Be sure to watch to the end.

The Right Tool for the Right Job

From Vanderleun



For those of you who don't make very good decisions.

Richard Cohen: "Republicans and other evil-doers"

I read his Washington Post column Who is Barack Obama? to the end, waiting for him to show he was saying this tongue in cheek.  Asking why most people don't like what Obama's doing he explains:

 The effects of the health-care act have yet to be felt and the ink is hardly dry on financial reform. Until these measures prove popular, they can be mischaracterized by Republicans and other evil-doers.

He's not kidding

But keep in mind the revelations of the conspiracy of the JournoList, now - more than two years after the presidential campaign and the election - this member of the One-Party-Media asks the question.

But we still don't know him. Before Americans can give him credit for what he's done, they have to know who he is. We're waiting.

I can't imagine a well informed person making this incredibly stupid comment.  It's YOUR JOB, you asshole to have done this BEFORE you helped him get elected.  The rest of us knew this two years ago.

The One-Party Media

Rush Limbaugh has taken to referring to is as the "State run media" but Maimon Schwarzschild has a more correct appalation: The One-party Media.

The usual disillusioned phrase is "mainstream media" or MSM. The problem, of course, is not mainstream-hood. Angrily talking about the "state-run media" is even more misguided: the media were anything but state-run, or state-sympathetic, when Bush was president; and Republican or conservative officials or judges can expect relentless hostility now as much as ever.

What we have is One-Party Media: newspapers, broadcast networks, newsmagazines which represent the views and preoccupations of the Democratic Party and the political left, and consistently denigrate or ignore the views and preoccupations of the political right or centre-right; and which very often systematically ignore any news or information which might reflect badly on the one party, or reflect well on the policies, proposals, or values of the other. (Fox is the exception - and how it is reviled for it! - although in its actual news stories, Fox often, although not always, follows the "narrative" of the other media.) (The Wall Street Journal is the other partial exception, but with the same proviso for many of its actual news stories, and at any rate the Journal is still largely a specialised business paper with a specialised readership. There are essentially no other major exceptions in either print or broadcast news.)

It is extraordinary, and I think unprecedented, that a free press has voluntarily transformed itself into something not very different from the controlled press in an undemocratic country. But that is what has happened. There are, to be sure, alternative sources of information and commentary in the US for anyone who seeks them out. (There are often such sources in undemocratic countries as well: foreign broadcasts, "underground" or samizdat circulation, and so on.) But the mainline, and still collectively very powerful, media are overwhelmingly a One-Party media. It needs to be said plainly.

Scott Johnson on the Powerline blog wrote yesterday about the Justice Department's treatment of the New Black Panther Party case:

I think this should be a big story, and I know it would be viewed as a scandal of epic proportions to which we would be treated on a daily basis if a similar story arose in a Republican administration. It is the sickening double standard of the mainstream media that adds the frisson of disgust to what is otherwise an interesting story in itself.

But this was merely yesterday's example. There are innumerable examples, every day.

If Mamma Grizzlies Acted Like Black Panthers

JournoList: …Yes, But the Reporters at Pravda Weren’t Such Insufferable Assholes

JournoList was a group of about 400 members of the MSM who created a private internet gathering place to coordinate their efforts in creating a media message.  Andrew Breitbart thought it would be a good idea to find out what these "journalists" were saying to each other.  So he offered money.  Now the resutls are coming out, and it isn't pretty.

Journalists love whistleblowers. Just not when the whistle is blown on them.

Journalists love transparency. As long as they’re not the ones being exposed.

No steadfast journalism rule is unbendable when it comes to justifying and protecting the racket that is modern journalism, specifically, political journalism in the United States today. The ends justify the means for the Democrat Media Complex. They lie when they claim to be objective. They lie when they claim to be unbiased, because these so called “truth seekers” are guilty of engaging in open political warfare. And when the whistle is blown, they simply double down. “Journolist” — like Media Matters, but more insidious, if that’s possible — is an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle, technology and “the masses” uncovered the conspiracy

Talk radio and the Internet have allowed outsiders the ability to challenge a multiple generational shift from journalism being about the story, to journalism being crafted toward a partisan end. From Newsweek killing the Lewinsky story to the Swift Boat veterans (until the undermedia pressure got too big) to the Dan Rather implosion to the open attempt to keep the Al Gore masseuse story under wraps to the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter debacle to the Van Jones admission of missing the story to the networks ignoring the ACORN video footage to the media playing up trumped up charges of racism in the Tea Party — while ignoring exculpatory evidence — to the mother of all media-as-political weaponry: the non-vetting of candidate Obama, the mainstream media has shown that it is in an ideological death spiral. And the ground is right here.

American journalism died a long time ago; today Tucker Carlson got around to running the obituary. What The Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy. The scandal predictably involves journalists posing as professors posing as experts. But dressed down they are nothing but street thugs. They deserve the deepest levels of public consternation. We must demand that they do.

And here's the first story; the MSM's successful effort to hide the Reverend Jeremaih Wright. From the Daily Caller:

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

It's still the MSM's favorite way of smearing it's opponents and deflecting inquiry into the Obama administration.   It's the go-to tool for any journalist worth his union card.  Keep in mind, they almost forgot - for a moment - that Obama's black.

Not all that long ago it was asserted that the blogosphere was a parasite of the MSM. After all, they said, what would bloggers talk about if the MSM were not doing its job of uncovering the actual news?  Thanks to pioneers like Matt Drudge and Andrew Breitbart and the folks at Pajamas Media, the answer is becoming clear.  There is less and less "need" for the MSM as a source of information.  As a matter of fact, the MSM has been shown to be one of the main obstacles to the dissemination of information.  Not just a dinosaur, but a dangerous dinosaur.

Richard Fernandez

The age of scribbler is over and the age of the literate practitioner and whistle blower has just begun. Interior debates within the industry, the professions and government will soon become the primary source of news. The primary challenge of reporting in the future will be to find entree into a circle to which one does not belong in order to write a story as an outsider. Absent that the insiders will generate the story on their own.

Was it the MSM that discovered that the Obama/Holder Justice Department was baised against whites? No, it was a whistleblower on the inside; meanwhile the MSM is desperately trying to either ignore that whistleblower or call him a racist.  It doesn't fit the media template, but of course Jeremiah Wright did not either.

Bloggers learn their manners from newspapers

Ever wonder where the intemperate, aggressive name calling comes from on the Internet? Could be newspaper people blogging from their offices.

Let’s face it; the Internet is filled with ad hominem attacks on people, often in the crudest terms. But here’s a perfectly good example that you don’t even have to turn on your computer to find. It’s right there on the opinion column of the Virginian Pilot (link to paid subscribers).

It’s penned by Gene Smith, an editorial writer for the Fayetteville Observer and here’s how he characterizes people who don’t agree with him on the illegal immigration issue:

Still, I’m nostalgic for a time, less than a decade behind us, when we could talk about such things without having civil discussion hijacked by chronically enraged people with heads full of bumper stickers and mouths filled with hateful slogans.

We don’t have to guess what Gene’s position is on illegal immigrants and what to do about them. He’s for something euphemistically called “comprehensive immigration reform” which is an effort by the Left to make all the illegal immigrants in this country citizens. We tried that once and were promised that if laws were passed to allow illegals to become legal citizens, the illegal immigration problem would be solved.

They lied.

So now well over half the country wants to approach the illegal immigrant problem by first stopping more illegal immigrants from entering the country and then working out a solution about those already here.

So now Gene is calling those people, the majority of the country “chronically enraged ... and hateful.” Gene, let me tell you that when you make an argument by insulting your audience, you’re not going to persuade anyone.

But back to intemperate attacks on people, the editors of the Virginian Pilot who reprinted Gene's venom apparently do not consider printing an attack on more than half the people in the country in the vilest terms a problem. So, where do the bloggers who spew venom on the Internet learn their manners? On the editorial pages of their newspapers. Because it’s fun to call your opponents names. Newspaper people learned that hundreds of years ago when they were the only ones allowed to do that. Today’s blogosphere is a mirror of the abuse that the newsboys and girls have been dishing out. Look in the mirror news people, because these people are you.

Update:  Instalance!  Thanks, Glenn

Racism at a Tea Party in Los Angeles.

Via Gatewaty Pundit.

"You're too white to be American."

Video Shows Racism At NAACP Event

/From Andrew Breitbart's Big Government: 

In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.

With video cameras around, it's hazardous for the Left to accuse the Right of racism. Since the MSM lost control of the narrative, charges of racism will have less effect. Of course that means that they will only intensify. It's the only weapon left in the Left's arsenal. But from now on, it's a suicide belt and the accuser will self destruct.

What will Obama do if he loses the House and Senate this fall?

The question was asked what Barack Obama would do if he loses control of the House and Senate after November of this year. It was pointed out that Bill Clinton wanted to be President to meet chicks. It may turn out that Obama wanted to be President to live the good life.

The Big Lie Revisited

Just by living we run into little lies all the time. “I forgot” is replaced by “the check’s in the mail.” Or there’s this one from the Internet you can see every day “If they tried to do that to me, I would punch them out.” It’s the would-be “Macho man” behind a computer keyboard. But these are little lies. Everyone knows that and everyone can see through them.

Glancing through my copy of the Virginian Pilot today I came across an example of the “Big Lie.” The Big Lie is designed to make a political point that isn’t true. It's often the opposite of the truth.  It’s usually part of pattern that is destined to either build up a political view or to destroy a political opponent. The most notorious political propagandist once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

So what’s the big lie of the day in the Pilot? This editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich perpetuates a lie that “Wall Street” opposes the financial reform bill passed by Congress.

That’s a lie.

I know. I work in the financial services business so I have kept track of the bill. And while neither I nor any other person knows all of what’s in this 2000+ page monstrosity, I know one big thing: it’s supported by – and partially written by - the biggest players on Wall Street including the financial behemoth Goldman Sachs.

Goldman gave most of their political contributions to Obama and the Democrats during the last election. Goldman wasn't alone.   Most of the big players on Wall Street skewed heavily to Obama and the Democrats.  The head of UBS in America is one of Obama's financial advisers.  Their contributions are needed for his re-election. Nothing in this bill will seriously inconvenience the big investment houses.  Large institutions will always have a seat at the table when it comes time to draft legislation and they are quite comfortable, thank you, with rules and regulations that drive their smaller competitors out of business.

In the meantime, it’s useful for the present government that people believe the fiction that EEEEVIL Wall Street is raging against this bill, especially when the punch will be landed on Main Street.

And the Pilot’s editors are perfectly happy to play ball and tell the big lie. As a famous actor once said “It’s what I do.”

Speaking truth to power is soooo twentieth century.

Now is the time for healing. For all pulling together for the common good. For putting negativity behind us. Now … that WE are the power.

Now that WE, the ones we have been waiting for are in charge of the Government, who needs watchdogs? Who needs all that adversarial jive when we can make our problems go away by just ignoring them?

Voter intimidation? Check.

Perps the wrong color? Check.

Case dismissed? Check.

Press coverage? Nah.  They're too busy.

From the Washington Post

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

Where was my local paper, the Virginian Pilot?  Don't be silly.  Just because it was all over the Internet and Fox News doesn't mean that it gets covered in the Pilot.  They're still selling Obama souvenir covers.

Presidential pooch gets own private jet to join Obamas on vacation

I have been away from the Internet for a few days, enjoying the joys of sitting down and reading a book instead of surfing the net.

In my absence, not much has changed.  The Gulf coat is still reeling from the pollution caused by the oil spill.  Lots of inaccurate and sensational reporting has compounded the problem by driving tourists away resulting in lost wages.  To put the final nail in the area's coffin, the Obama administration's decision to, in effect, end oil exploration in the Gulf -  may well have a more deleterious and long lasting effect on the area and the country than the BP spill did by itself.  But all that is not unexpected from Team Obama.  It simply validates our worst fears.

Meanwhile Obama used his weekend address to the nation (who listens to those things anyway?) to accuse Republicans of being the party of the rich.  Which made me laugh upon reading that part of the plan for getting the Obamas to their Bar Harbor, Maine, vacation spot involved sending the Obama dog in his own private jet.  I recall vaguely a movie ("Barbarians at the Gates") about wealthy tobacco CEOs who used their corporate jets to fly their dogs around.  I have no doubt that private jets have been used for that purpose.  But in this case, the Obama dog "Bo" was flown around at taxpayer expense.  The irony is delicious.  Can you hear the theme music of "Movin' On Up" swelling in the background?

Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.;

Obamanomics and my Seven Steamy Nights with the Gals from Victoria’s Secret

I'm getting too old for this.

Ann Coulter reviews the law regarding Federal pre-emption of state law. Obama case against Arizona falls flat.

Ann Coulter has done the best job of anyone I know in the media of reviewing Team Obama's case against the Arizona immigration law. She demolishes the Federal pre-emption argument. Read the whole thing.

Excerpt:

In the seminal case, De Canas v. Bica (1976), the court held 8-0 that a California law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants was not pre-empted by federal law.

The court -– per Justice William Brennan -- said that the federal government's supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: (1) a "determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country," and (2) "the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain."

So a state can't start issuing or revoking visas, but that's about all it can't do.

Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants who enter legally or the condition of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they "legal entrants."

Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there's even "a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States." (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)

So there's no "field pre-emption" of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of aliens.

On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona's law is no more pre-empted than the rest of them.

Unless, of course, Obama is right and it's a violation of federal law to enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of Justice's lawsuit.