Fire Hydrant of Freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJnuoq20d6Y&feature=player_embedded

Something like 8 times the experience that candidate Obama had. Served both in the House and Senate. Knocked off (electorally) a sitting Senate Majority Leader.  Married to his (first) wife.  Never socialized medicine.

Watch for conservatives to speak at CPAC this week.

Very funny work their by our moderator! 

JDN, Huntsman, why? "He seems trustworthy and capable." You base that on ...
(maybe answer over on Pres. 2012)

Home school works like this for us:  My daughter loves school so I just threaten home school with Dad all day and any problem is solved.  

My nephew began home school this year.  Bright kid with some learning 'differences' was being left behind by a big public school and testing below grade level.  We will see how that goes.  He hated school so has to get his work done or he goes back.  Choice, competition, alternatives.

The name home schooling understates the resources, curricula and networking that these highly organized moms have in place, as I'm sure the documentary will show.

The education dollar here is about 10k per kid per year, 30 to a classroom and the teacher supposedly makes on average 52k - an almost negligible part of that 300k. If the dollar followed the kid with school choice, two things would happen, marvelous alternatives get funded and the public school sees real incentive to improve.

I remember Jesse Jackson arguing with George Will on 'This Week' against vouchers and how bad that would be for the already failing DC public schools.  Will closed with: we will just have to agree to disagree - see you tomorrow at school.  Their kids were in the same elite Washington private school, same as Sasha and Malia now, as their parents fight against opening up parent choice.  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/22/obama-wrong-on-dc-school-vouchers-and-hypocritical-just-like-congress

Innovation in the public sector, government or education, will begin IMHO the day that public unions are disbanded. http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-03-02/opinion/24643100_1_unions-health-care-public-safety

Just teasin' a little for fun.  I am very appreciative of fact corrections (as well as other opinions).  I remember a pass around email about Oliver North in the 1980s needing security because of threat from Osama bin Laden that was false and I hated that I had retold that false story.  This format is great for the opportunity to get a quick correction before we get headed too far in the wrong direction.  Crafty's story stands fine on its own as a story without the name drop at the end.

Regarding the Science v.God question, if God as a concept is a being far beyond our intelligence or comprehension, why do both sides keep claiming knowledge or definition.  To the most intelligent of the disbelieving scientists I would like to hand them a bucket or basket of molecules and say make me a mammal or a reptile or an ecosystem if it's so easy. 

Science at any point IMO is a very, very primitive human attempt to understand very, very little about God's creation.  But our curiosity and intelligence came from our Creator so we keep on trying.

A few of us have been pointing this out here, but it bears repeating in the face of our President's economic ignorance.

From Nov. 2006 on, the economy faced the promise of increased tax rates on new investment.  Returns follow investment years later so the tax rate facing investment decisions (build a plant, hire people etc) is the future rate, not the present one.  As the Obama Presidency became a reality to join the Pelosi-Reid majorities in congress and pass the tax rate hikes they promised, that impending increase played a big role in the asset and investment selloff of 2008 that tanked this economy.  In order to sell for value, sellers had to get ahead of those increases and ahead of the other sellers and acceleration (if not panic) set in. The selloff, collapse in value and doubling of unemployment delayed the tax hikes for 2 years and the shift back of congress created even more uncertainty with no settlement reached until the final hour temporary deal was struck with the outgoing congress.  That temporary deal means two more years of uncertainty continuing to put the brakes on new investment.  Obama's point is that the rates never went up, but his continuing promise to  raise them does the same economic damage or worse adding in the uncertainty.

The fact check articles list 2 dozen tax hikes under Obama from the healthcare bill, but the real ws damage done by this mismanaged sequence of events, and was largely unreported.  

Government revenues got the worst of both worlds: income lowered by the (impending) increases, but taxed only at the old, lower rate, leaving us trillions short, compounding the uncertainty of the policies going forward.

Uncertainty and unpredictability is what makes third world countries poor.  We gave it a try, suffered badly and learned nothing from it.

BD, Okay interesting. Surprisingly, I disagree with his reasoning and conclusion. 

Usually I stop reading commentary when I reach the first falsehood:

"Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system."

Bullsh*t.

There is also the possibility of fee for service, pay on the spot or mail me a bill, which has worked in almost every other industry since founding of the Republic, and then some.  Fee for service worked fine in health care until government meddling (and other factors) drove costs beyond normal reach.  Insurance does not bring down cost, it smooths out variable costs - at a higher level than they would otherwise be to pay for administration of the insurance and to pay for how the coverage increases usage. Under a nationwide program, more people, not fewer will be taking a free or subsidized ride on the health care system. Is there not any way to arrive at constitutionality without starting with a false premise??

"...confused assertion that what is at stake here is a matter of personal liberty — the right not to purchase what one wishes not to purchase... "

Is that not clearly spelled out in the 9th amendment, almost word for word?    ...competing with the unenumerated power of government to PARTICIPATE in interstate commerce.

Just as the Professor dismisses the view of two judges so far, he will disagree with the Court when this is decided. Delusional IMO to think this is a 9-0 uphold certainty because: "Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce."

There are plenty of people on and off the Court that think that power has already been read too broadly.  Trivialize it as political or "a misunderstanding of the court and the Constitution" if that is expedient, better yet call it a fundamental disagreement in principles.

BD or LT, do you support the constitutionality of mandatory national food insurance, food crossed state lines, and then what is next after that?

GM,  Good questions and I don't have answers or solutions.  That's why I am in the armchair position - available for comment.  8 million Christians are at risk and 80 million Egyptians overall, and no, I don't trust the Obama administration to make sure true consent of the governed happens.  I also don't see a path backwards.  Mubarek is leaving.  We aren't going to install or control a new strong man.  Like leaving Iraq in a fragile democracy, we can have some influence but we have to hope that given the opportunity the people will rise up and keep the extremists in a minority position, busy trying to convince their countrymen that they will be peaceful and inward focused - worthy of the seats they win in the assembly.  We can try to influence that positively and we have to prepare for the other possibility.

I hear your valid concerns, but I also hear people like Ragui Assaad, professor at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs from Cairo that tear at the idea of freedom back home the way we do thinking about our Founders' Declaration.  He is a liberal academic with many friends and family back home including his 80 year old mother who says she would join the protest if she were able.  I don't trust his wisdom, or hers, but I trust their honesty.  Everybody deserves a shot at freedom.  I hate cliches but this toothpaste isn't going back into the tube.  Change is coming in Egypt and we have a Commander in Chief who is an expert on having opponents removed from ballots to represent us to make sure ordinary Egyptians get their say.  Pray for us.  Pray for them, and prepare for war.

From my business background  I understand that risk and uncertainty run in multiple directions.  You have been articulate and correct on the downside risk, which is quite probable and truly catastrophic.  There is upside risk here as well.  Put these people and I mean the peaceful ones in charge of making their own economy function, jobs, food, apartments affordable, and the trains (or camels) running on time.  As they experience their own landmarks and people blown up, sympathy for radicals may diminish and we could find a reasonably good, self governed partner in our own fight against the extremists.

Besides security interests, we need these horribly run third world countries to break out of oppression and poverty.  If achieved, that will have a global security benefit.

A story from my export past: my strongest area  was the Middle East mostly because of the knowledge of the owner who was of Middle East origin, secular, but with one of the those common religious first names.  I had 12 distributors in Kuwait when it fell to Saddam, many in UAE, a distributor in Bahrain that sold throughout the region, etc, even sold to Bin Laden Telecom in the Kingdom.  When Kuwait was rescued we had great successes including the supply contract for a nationwide fiber optic network.  For all the times my boss and I went over country lists and strategies to represent several American manufacturers, every time I brought up selling in Egypt he said don't waste your time.  Business-wise, I'm sure he was right: 80 million people - don't waste your time.

For a shot at freedom though, 80 million people deserve a chance.

(Sounds like Netanyahu is saying something similar.  Like it or not, this spinning ship is going to end up aimed in one of a number of directions.)

Very rarely it seems that a leader tells the truth, straight on.  I did not want to let the U.K Prime Minister's speech of last week go by without mention:  http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100074881/david-cameron-versus-the-islamists-the-prime-minister-throws-down-the-gauntlet-to-a-deadly-enemy/

    We will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries… We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism.

    … And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and as societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms. And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone.
...

    Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some cases part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with. Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement.

    So we should properly judge these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home.

I hedge to write this every time I see a riot video, but in spite of all that is posted, I say we err on the side of trying and supporting democracy in this pathetic third world country. (I think that means i support President Obama on this important question - mark that down!)  If they turn out to be anti-American - so be it.  If they begin to export terrorism, we can start planning now for an effective response to that. 

Everyone seems to agree that foreign oversight will be required to pull off free and fair elections.  Can we please learn from the failed Venezuelan experience and take democratic authentication seriously this time.

BD,  That was beautiful and I had missed it trying to avoid the 14 day pre-game show.

In the context of today, I feel very much like I live in the pre-Declaration United States, ruled with a heavy hand from afar than the model of liberty and limited government that they pledged their lives and fortunes to begin.

" You ready to deal with the toxic aftermath of a broken CFL bulb, Doug?"

Are you insinuating that some laws have unintended consequences?

I have broken at least a dozen so far.  It's actually very simple.  Just contact the local branch office of the federal government and request a superfund toxic cleanup site crew, set up those yellow tapes to keep people back and wait patiently while they rush over.  For the record, I like the energy savings, not the mandate. I install them for tenants as a symbol of going easy on the utilities.  We want their hard earned (taxpayer) money to go more to rent than utilities.   Also as the self insurance company, I like to see lower amperage travel through those old electric wires.

Excellent post Tim.  Brings up many questions, how much is it warming, how much of that is attributable to human excesses, and what is the future of it all.  This issue has been tied to a political agenda, perhaps on both sides and reasonable people are left with very little information to use to determine if what we are doing is harming or threatening nature as we know it. 

Just the Antarctic ice mass as you suggest is quite a subject of controversy.  When it increases, they say because warming causes the additional snow to fall and when it decreases that means warming.  Increasing and decreasing in mass is what ice masses do.  Neither observation in itself tells anything about man's role in it.

"What does the data show from scientists who are not being paid to hedge their research?"

We honestly don't have anything yet to start with on that.  Global temperatures are sampled not measured and they are tweaked with secret, changing algorithms to fit into preconceived notions, unfortunately.  Reports are titled and summarized with an agenda, usually that agenda is political change or just additional funding.  Skeptics are often accused of being funded by coal etc.

We have plenty of information available to back up the theory that warming and cooling on earth goes in cycles, as do the size of glaciers and ice masses.  We know of negative feedback cycles, meaning the more it swings in one direction the stronger the natural forces to swing it back in the other directions.  We have no valid information to back up the theory that warming on earth is continuous or accelerating, which is a key premise of the alarmist theory.

In Consensus theory (unscientific) they ask a vague question, such as are you 90% certain man is contributing to warming.  If one man has one asphalt roof or asphalt driveway where once there was prairie grass, mankind with 90% certainty is contributing to warming.  Question is how much.  Burning a hydrocarbon gives off CO2 with certainty which is a (very minor) greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat in.  Only question again is how much.

Here is a CO2 chart measured at Mauna Loa Hawaii, same one the alarmists use, but with a zero based scale for honest representation of the scope of the change in a molecule that makes up a very minor component of the atmosphere:


If it is land use and not CO2 emissions that make up the man made component, then the current thrust of new regulations get you nowhere.

"Has anyone here seen photos or talked to people or gone to the Alps in France, there isn't nearly the ice there was in many places. The Andes in South America where ice has shrunk over the years, the thawing permafrost in Alaska where old-timers and Natives have lost their lives by the dozens falling through unsafe ice that does not match their experience of what constitutes safe ice at certain times of the year? Why are southern forest pests and diseases spreading north? That does hint at warming. Is all this a left-wing conspiracy? "

Locations and time frames are cherry picked to make a list of examples more dramatic.  Elsewhere Glaciers have grown in western Norway, New Zealand’s South Island, parts of Asia and the Tierra del Fuego in South America, and in areas where complete disappearances were predicted, those predictions have been withdrawn or were mis-characterized in the first place.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8188605/Cancun-climate-change-summit-glaciers-increasing-despite-climate-change.html  Overall, things are warming very slightly, but if I unplug my freezer, I don't find that some parts get warmer while other parts get colder.  The earth is warming, again the question is by how much, and how much of that is from specific, changeable human causes.  The human component of it I think is smaller than our accuracy or error range to measure the warming in the first place.

As GM infers, without humans the earth would be warming or cooling now also, most likely warming, and pine tree beetles would be creeping north or south anyway etc.

Key point besides zero acceleration in warming (acceleration of warming was a false prediction) is that man's use of fossil fuel is but a blip in time on the planet.  Plenty of economists, geologists, etc. contend that we already passed the point of 'Peal Oil' where usage is already poised to decline.  If not we are close, probably within a couple of decades, with or without the latest State of the Union speech.

Some other resources, a 50 page scientific rebuttal to the IPCC from scientists who were kicked off for disagreeing: http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf, many answers to common questions: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/some-global-warming-qa-to-consider-in-light-of-the-epa-ruling/, Rebuttal data to the theory that oceans are rising due to arctic thaw: http://www.physorg.com/news69600618.html ("Arctic Ocean level is decreasing"), are links I found interesting.

I take many steps everyday to limit my energy usage without governmental bans or proven science.  I have bought hundreds of CFL light bulbs, I own several wind-only powered boats, several solar chargers, my summer electric bill is under $20 most of that taxes and fees, I drive a 40mpg car (an old Honda, not a govt sponsored hybrid) when I can and even an 80mpg motorcycle when I have the nerve, I make my daughter combine trips, share rides and I keep my living room cold enough in the winter to refrigerate beer.  I have not plugged in an air conditioner in nearly 20 years. I rarely fly.  Conserving resources is great and having thoughtful discussions is wonderful.  But the thought of having the G*d D*mned know-everything, know-nothing government come down harder on us with an oppressive heavy hand, based on bad information, or worse yet, world government control, mostly because they want to, I find sickening and uncalled for.  Just my humble two cents.    

Interesting story BD.  I was struck by a few things, he spoke to a nearly empty chamber - I guess they aren't required to hear each other ramble on.  Milbank had a pretty funny line that Henry Clay was already eulogized - in 1852, and of course the date of this story - Feb. 2 - perhaps a bit early to know what kind of compromiser Rand Paul will be.  In an example of lousy reporting, the inference is made that Rand's obsession is lower taxes, but there isn't any proposal for that on the table or any word uttered yet that I know of.  Far as I know he is committed to cutting spending first and isn't afraid to cut everything.

Rand Paul was the '1 in a 96-1 vote to ban aiming pointing devices at airplanes (Different story: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/rand-paul-lone-dissenter-in-la.html).  'Paul told reporters after Thursday's vote that he believed the laser-pointer issue was one best handled by the states, not the federal government.'

Like Michele Bachmann and others, Rand Paul will be a mixed blessing for conservatives.  I like that he will be questioning whether things are appropriately a federal issue rather than just vote on what sounds good.

Cutting aid to Israel didn't need to be the first order of business with the turmoil in Egypt, but off he goes on that.  He probably never will vote to raise the debt limit, but they don't need 100 votes to do business.  I wonder if Milbank has done any stories on the compromises of Dick Durbin or Barbara Mikulsky...  Sen. Obama, another non-compromiser, voted against raising the debt limit, against the surge, and against all Presidential picks to the Supreme Court, even against Roberts who won 78 votes in the Senate.  It didn't seem to hurt his career.

I watched a full debate in that KY Senate race.  Rand faced a very moderate, reasonable, articulate opponent.  All Conway had to do to win IMO was say he would organize with the other side, not with Pelosi-Reid-Obama who are not exactly political mainstream in KY.  Conway could have passed for a moderate Republican, but I assume he was beholden to the people who got him there.

The political center of the Senate I think is where the action will be, if there is any, including the list of Dem Senators facing reelection in not very blue states.

Reagan answered a question regarding his criticism of the Carter administration during the change of power in Iran during an Oct 1984 debate that has some parallels with Egypt today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Ae5FRHH0k&feature=player_embedded

FWIW, I would love to see democracy in both places.  I just don't know what road leads there.

Strategically, we probably shouldn't have given Obama the numbers and locations of our arsenal either.  Voters should be able to make one small mistake without losing all their security (and freedoms).  I suppose wikileaks would have found that out too.

First a comment on GM's post on Political Economics: http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/03/coming-soon-a-300-percent-incr "Coming Soon: A 300-Percent Increase in Foreclosures"

I don't buy the conclusion in the title (they do back it up with numbers), but the article has excellent reporting.  Much of the information presented is in clickable links for sourcing.

I would add that lots of people are so-called underwater in value and keep paying because they don't want to move and don't want to default.

Remember, foreclosure is the good part - the contract as the parties originally agreed working as designed to get the asset (and the family leaving) back to the market.  The fact that the borrower quit paying their obligation - that was the bad part and that is well into past by the time foreclosured home hit the market.

In light of the demonstrated failure of programs that slow the foreclosure process to keep people in the wrong home for them, we should consider the opposite, speedier returns to market and fully privatized renegotiations.
-----------------

18.4 million homes are vacant, 11% in Q4 2010 according to Census numbers.  Here on CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/41355854.  I saw that go by on drudge a couple of weeks ago but didn't see it on the forum.  That is a very scary number, though in my business, an 11% vacancy rate or a theoretical 89% collection rate would be a dream.

Remember there are many many bureaucratic barriers to bringing vacant homes back to market depending on where you are and a good number of the foreclosures are in highly regulated municipalities.  In Minneapolis as an example, there is a $1000 fine/fee in addition to the annual rental license fee to bring a house into the rental market, and a far more expensive, complied-with truth-in-housing report required for a sale.  In other words the old 'fixer-upper' 'sweat equity' bargain idea is highly illegal and could trigger something called a 'Code Compliance' order requiring an old house to be brought up to new code, which is financially akin to condemnation in a low end property.
These regulation mean that these properties can be bought only with high-risk cash, not mortgages as they are not insurable, or legal to rent or live in.

Foreclosed homes often have the furnace or even entire kitchen stripped etc. and sold as they leave.  I've bought them with the electrical panel removed and feed wires dangling hot.  As they sit empty the copper pipes get stolen.  Banks rarely will do more than empty and mow to protect their value.  Before the crisis, banks we worked with wanted the property sold at best price / any price usually in less than one day because they didn't want the liability of ownership.  Anyone in the business of buying these properties has got to be tapped out at this point no matter what you started with.

"Baseline Budgeting - IMHO this is one of the most important issues there is when it comes to rolling back spending and establishing honest, sound policies..."

I agree wholeheartedly but it is easier said than done.  I believe this is something Newt promised and could not / did not deliver.  We actually should approach him now on answering this.

In my sales past I had the opportunity to sell office systems to government agencies State and Federal.  There literally were rushes in certain cases to spend up money at the end of fiscal years to avoid having next year's agency or office budget start lower, in other words a reverse incentive from cost savings, efficiency and results.  Now budgets mostly have been squeezed and extra money isn't so freely floating around, but the nature of the beast has not changed.

From my armchair I say we need zero-based budgeting.  You justify your mission, your results, your collateral damage and your budget needs each year starting up from zero.  In the real world, these people can't even be fired or have their pay cut, leases on office spaces have financial commitments, so do computer systems etc.  Still the baseline could be set at zero increase, with some offices, agencies or overlapping functions facing percentage cuts or extinction.  The problem there is political. You have to be able to face the advocates of big government who say the usual, food to the hungry, meds to the elderly etc. 

Zero increase is how far Obama went (with his latest head fake). But he means lock in the trillions of temporary, emergency increases, call it a freeze, then not stick to it for the same reason, fat children could die of starvation or whatever the latest poll tested line is.

Overlapping functions of govt is huge IMO.  Getting the Feds out of many of its current functions and sending it with the money back to the states can get rid of some overlap.

Mostly it is definition of government.  If we asked it do less, key functions that remain would be more manageable.  Of course we are still headed full steam in the opposite direction, see health care flow chart, cash for clunkers, electric car programs, high speed rail, light bulb selection agency, CO2 is a poison program, insulation credits and monitoring, 1099s for lawn mowing, federal auto manufacturing agency, ownership of the private mortgage market, ATM fee control agency, federal utility bill assistance as a compensator for raising your rates with excessive regulations elsewhere, etc, I could go on.

Back to the first point about immovable costs: some end or control of the public employee union phenomenon will necessarily precede any real budget or efficiency improvements or innovations - and no one has proposed that.

"I think the first generation always has one leg in the country of their birth and one in...their adopted country."

Makes sense to me - and to the founders.  What are you trying saying about our President? (just kidding)
-----
JDN,  Nihongo wakarimasu ka?

Remember El Baradei tried to swing the 2004 election in the US with his false report of weapons the Americans failed to secure. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028255.php

El Baradei refers to 'the people who organized the demonstrations' approving of him.  Maybe he could tell us who finds him respected and qualified, and why.

Like Time Magazine honoring Hitler and Khomeini, the Nobel 'Peace Prize' has strange meanings.  A 2009 Nobel winner hosted a State Dinner for the man who holds a 2010 winner in jail, and Arafat the Godfather of modern terrorism won one.

Obama's new vacuous campaign slogan winning the future (equals the not very family friendly initials) definitely belongs under Humor/WTF in this forum. It was Palin who identified the initials (who should have left it to others), but I forgot that was also the exact title of Gingrich's book.  My guess is these speech writers along with the orator have read nothing outside their own cocoon and were copying Clinton's vacuous "Bridge to the 21st Century' the best they could.  Wonder if the new, improved, centrist leaning, results oriented administration will take up any ideas from the title they plagiarized: http://www.americansolutions.com/take-action/2011/01/winning-the-future-for-america-or-for-politicians.php

"# UTILIZE ALL OF AMERICA'S VAST ENERGY RESERVES, including oil, natural gas, wind and solar as well as the vast potential for nuclear power to produce clean abundant energy and American jobs.

# TAX REFORM TO FAVOR JOB CREATION, SAVINGS, INVESTMENT, PRODUCTIVITY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, including eliminating the death tax and capital gains tax.

# GOVERNMENT REFORM TO MAKE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES LEANER, MORE ACCESSIBLE AND MORE EFFECTIVE, including acquisition reform, better use of information technology and changing government work rules to make it easier to reward good workers and fire bad ones.

# EDUCATION REFORM TO EMPHASIZE MATH AND SCIENCE LEARNING by giving tax incentives to those who pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) degrees and allowing professionals using their math and science degrees to teach part time without having to go through the unionized credentialing process.

# JUDICIAL REFORM including tort reform to cut down on frivolous lawsuits and stopping the worrying trend of judges using foreign law as precedent in US cases.

I don't know what to make of this story by the UK Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289686/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html

Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising
The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning “regime change” for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

By Tim Ross, Matthew Moore and Steven Swinford 9:23PM GMT 28 Jan 2011

The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.

The secret document in full: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289698/Egypt-protests-secret-US-document-discloses-support-for-protesters.html

He has already been arrested by Egyptian security in connection with the demonstrations and his identity is being protected by The Daily Telegraph.

The crisis in Egypt follows the toppling of Tunisian president Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali, who fled the country after widespread protests forced him from office.

The disclosures, contained in previously secret US diplomatic dispatches released by the WikiLeaks website, show American officials pressed the Egyptian government to release other dissidents who had been detained by the police.

Mr Mubarak, facing the biggest challenge to his authority in his 31 years in power, ordered the army on to the streets of Cairo yesterday as rioting erupted across Egypt.

Tens of thousands of anti-government protesters took to the streets in open defiance of a curfew. An explosion rocked the centre of Cairo as thousands defied orders to return to their homes. As the violence escalated, flames could be seen near the headquarters of the governing National Democratic Party.

Police fired rubber bullets and used tear gas and water cannon in an attempt to disperse the crowds.

At least five people were killed in Cairo alone yesterday and 870 injured, several with bullet wounds. Mohamed ElBaradei, the pro-reform leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was placed under house arrest after returning to Egypt to join the dissidents. Riots also took place in Suez, Alexandria and other major cities across the country.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, urged the Egyptian government to heed the “legitimate demands of protesters”. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she was “deeply concerned about the use of force” to quell the protests.

In an interview for the American news channel CNN, to be broadcast tomorrow, David Cameron said: “I think what we need is reform in Egypt. I mean, we support reform and progress in the greater strengthening of the democracy and civil rights and the rule of law.”

The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr Mubarak’s regime. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East.

In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for “regime change” to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year.

The memo, which Ambassador Scobey sent to the US Secretary of State in Washington DC, was marked “confidential” and headed: “April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt.”

It said the activist claimed “several opposition forces” had “agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections”. The embassy’s source said the plan was “so sensitive it cannot be written down”.

Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an “unrealistic” plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington. The embassy helped the campaigner attend a “summit” for youth activists in New York, which was organised by the US State Department.

Cairo embassy officials warned Washington that the activist’s identity must be kept secret because he could face “retribution” when he returned to Egypt. He had already allegedly been tortured for three days by Egyptian state security after he was arrested for taking part in a protest some years earlier.

The protests in Egypt are being driven by the April 6 youth movement, a group on Facebook that has attracted mainly young and educated members opposed to Mr Mubarak. The group has about 70,000 members and uses social networking sites to orchestrate protests and report on their activities.

The documents released by WikiLeaks reveal US Embassy officials were in regular contact with the activist throughout 2008 and 2009, considering him one of their most reliable sources for information about human rights abuses.

My first post from the Daily Beast which I thought was more on the Huffington Post end of the spectrum.  While republicans seem to only have second stringers, the incumbent has enormous and countless (at least a dozen) problems of his own.  All of these have validity and a couple of big ones are missing.
--------------
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-28/obamas-reelection-chances-12-reasons-hes-likely-to-lose/

Supporters are as exhausted as Velma Hart, the Tea Party has momentum, and Republicans are now more trusted. Mark McKinnon on why those issues, plus nine others, spell doom for the president’s reelection hopes.

President Obama’s State of the Union was strongly bipartisan and made smart moves to the center, although it missed a chance to really tackle tough fiscal issues like meaningful entitlement reforms. His Arizona speechwas terrific, his favorable ratings are climbing over 50, the economy is showing steady signs of improvement, and the stock market is up. So, how could he possibly lose his reelection bid? Just ask George H.W. Bush, who had an approval rating of nearly 90 percent two years out from his reelection. $#&! happens when you are at the helm of the free world. What could happen? Let us count the ways...

1. Velma Hart Syndrome

Many of Barack Obama’s supporters “are exhausted.” Many defected in the midterms. Independents, suburban residents, college graduates, working-class voters, and even Hispanic voters shifted right. Exit poll analysis by National Journal shows “white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance.” Team Obama will focus heavily on minorities, the young, and women, but voter enthusiasm may be tempered by economic exhaustion. Good news for Team O? Velma liked the speech Tuesday night.

2. The Obama Overexposure Effect

With counsel that he needs to get out more among the people to sell his message, voters may be turned off by the Obama Overexposure Effect. A Pew 2008 weekly survey showed, by a margin of 76 percent to 11 percent, respondents named Obama over Sen. John McCain as the candidate they heard about the most. Close to half said they heard too much about Obama. And by a slight but statistically significant margin, they then had a less favorable view of him. Before the 2012 campaign even kicks off, will Obama fatigue return?

3. Debt Bomb

The national debt reached $10 trillion under President Bush, but deficit spending is at an all-time high under President Obama, with $1.4 trillion added in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010. And the CBO now projects a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year. That means the federal government will borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Bankruptcies loom for many states faced with unfunded public pension liabilities; strong-arm demands for bailouts by unions will threaten Democrats’ credibility. Sixty-eight percent of likely voters already express a preference for smaller government and lower taxes. Talk of more federal spending and the potential for state bankruptcies will increase voter anxiety. As the GOP educates voters about what the exploding debt burden means for future generations, its cost-cutting measures and messaging will resonate.

Article - McKinnon Obama 2012 Tom Williams / Getty Images

4. Voters Aren’t Better Off

In 1980, President Ronald Reagan famously asked: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The answer for many is “no,” with higher unemployment, more debt, record-high home foreclosures, and another housing dip on the way. The long road to economic recovery will continue to frustrate voters. And weekly reminders of rising prices at the gas pump and grocery store, where it hurts most, may cost Obama the election.

5. Ailing Health Care

• Mark McKinnon: 12 Reasons Obama Wins in 2012If “Obamacare” was historic legislation, so too was the House vote to repeal it. Though repeal today may be moot as Senate passage and a presidential veto are unlikely, as the true bottom line becomes known, in terms of increased costs, decreased access to care, and increased government controls, health care once again will be a decisive campaign issue. Efforts to dismantle or defund Obamacare will continue for the next two years. And as the public listens more to the credible Rep. Paul Ryan, the president will be on the defensive daily.

6. Tea Party Momentum

The momentum will not stop. With a majority voice and a mandate, GOP House members, and the increasingly popular Speaker John Boehner, are making all the right moves, with humility and focus on the most important issues: the economy and health care. Fired up by victories in the historic midterm elections, Tea Party, conservative, older, and right-leaning moderate voters will turn out in droves in 2012, challenging the Democrats’ ground game. With 33 Senate seats (23 of which are now held by Democrats), 435 House seats, 11 governorships, and perhaps the ultimate fate of Obamacare still on the line, all politics is turnout.

7. Obama’s Transparency Problem

If House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is effective in questioning mismanagement and opacity in the administration, Team Obama will be forced off-message as the public is reminded daily of the president’s one-time promises of transparency. A bill introduced on the first day of this session that seeks to cut off funding to 39 “czars” appointed without congressional approval may also find its way to the light of day on Issa’s desk. And sunshine tends to disinfect.

8. Congressional Districts Reapportioned

With the reapportionment of congressional districts from the 2010 Census, and with Republican control of more governorships and state legislatures, Obama’s electoral road to reelection is not without a few bumps. Eight states gained at least one congressional district; five of those are traditionally red states, including Texas, which gained four seats. Six of the 10 states to lose a district are blue. And once reliable Democratic states voted Republican in the 2010 midterms. While Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post shows how Obama could survive the challenge, Karl Rove builds a case for the president falling 67 short of what he needs to remain in the White House.

9. The Wars Aren’t Over

President Obama gets credit for continuing George W. Bush’s strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan. And though the public grows weary, the anti-war movement is now strangely silent. The number of voters who believe the terrorists are winning is at its highest level in over three years, and voters continue to believe Obama’s ideas on foreign policy don’t quite match their own. Those concerns, along with growing international threats from Iran, and our increasing economic dependence on China, may push votes into the R column.

10. What About Overregulation?

By moderating his anti-business rhetoric, selecting William Daley of JPMorgan Chase as his new chief of staff, and naming General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the chair of the White House’s new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Obama is sending signals of the administration’s shift toward the center. But without real changes to the overregulation strangling business growth, those signals may be seen as all smoke, no fire. And if private-sector job growth does not improve, voters may punish Obama at the polls.

11. Republicans Are More Trusted

The country yearns for an optimistic leader who believes in America, and who is willing to make hard choices to save future generations from the burden of our mistakes. Many thought that was Obama’s promise. No matter how it may be spun, the midterm elections were a referendum on the president’s performance and platform. And Republicans are now more trusted on all the top issues, including the economy, taxes, and health care.

12. The Vision Thing

Though President Obama has matched his highest job approval rating in more than a year, he is under 50 percent when it comes to the economy, viewed by the public as the highest priority. Trust in his ability to handle health care has dropped to a new low. And only 37 percent of independents would vote to re-elect Obama if the election were held today. A $1 billion campaign fund may not be enough if the GOP’s “Candidate X” presents a compelling and distinctly different narrative, a better vision for tomorrow.

Asked elsewhere: "At the beginning of 1996, Obama was able to get all of his opponents thrown off the ballot." Can you elaborate?  How did he do that and who helped him do this?
----------
Try this link to Chicago Tribune coverage.  The one he attacked was the same one who handpicked him as successor and previously endorsed him. It was impressive how instantly he knew which were the bad signatures in his own precincts on a campaign where he so recently worked.  Asked how removing names off of the ballot served the electorate, he pointed to the result, himself elected, and said they did pretty well. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5693903.story
Obama knows his way around a ballot

By David Jackson and Ray Long Tribune staff reporters
 April 3, 2007

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.

"I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."

Is a typist at 40k for a backroom federal office also serving their country or are they working a job.  If you leave to work in the private sector or a private charity are you serving our country?  Depends on who owns our language. 

The President hit hard on Education in the State of the Union, unfortunately it doesn't happen to be a federal function as pointed out by George Will today: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20110127states_can_handle_school_reform/

In my daughter's public high school, the graduation rate is 99% and the on-to-college rate is 88%; this is a large suburban school district. 

A short distance away in Keith Ellison's urban district run by Obama's ACORN allies pushing 'welfare rights', the dropout rate is 45%: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=638761

Maybe he was reaching out to those kids who were not likely to be listening, but the rest of his agenda has the opposite effect - sending the message constantly that the rich should pay more and the poor should be entitled to more... spread the wealth.

Leftism is the theme in nearly all of the nation's largest cities where high school graduation rates average 50% and a strong work ethic is the theme across most of the rest of the heartland.

The answer is NOT a new federal program.  The answer is find out what is going right in certain neighborhoods - mostly working hard, working smart, intact families, self sufficiency etc., and emulate it.  Find out what is going wrong in the dysfunctional neighborhoods, mostly a victim, assistance and dependency mentality, and stop contributing to it.