One Nation, Two Deficits

The nation faces a nasty dual deficit problem: a painful jobs deficit in the near term and an unsustainable budget deficit over the medium and long term. This month, the Senate will be debating an issue with significant implications for both — what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether. Ideally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it.

Why does this combination make sense? The answer is that over the medium term, the tax cuts are simply not affordable. Yet no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned.

Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt. And since financial markets don’t seem at the moment to view the budget deficit as a problem — take a look at the remarkably low 10-year Treasury bond yield — there is little reason not to extend the tax cuts temporarily.

A benign bond market, however, is a luxury we won’t enjoy forever if we fail to tackle our long-term fiscal problem. What’s more, losing the confidence of the bond market could prove painful, since it is widely known that our fiscal trajectory is unsustainable and market sentiment may therefore shift quickly and unpredictably. In any case, as the economy recovers, the dominant problem will move from depressed demand to excessive budget deficits.

Despite a dire fiscal outlook, many progressives want to make the tax cuts permanent for all but the very highest earners. Many conservatives are even worse: they’d make the tax cuts permanent for the likes of Warren Buffett, even though he’d prefer they didn’t. Making all the tax cuts permanent would expand the deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next decade.

Both approaches lock us into a budget scenario out of which there are few politically plausible routes of escape. Although hardly anyone wants to admit it, we’re not going to solve our budget problem over the next decade unless revenue is part of the equation.

Let’s look at the facts. The projected deficit for 2015 is 4 percent to 5 percent of G.D.P., depending on whose assumptions you use. A sustainable level is more like 3 percent or lower. So we need deficit reduction of 1 percent to 2 percent of G.D.P., or about $200 billion to $400 billion a year by 2015. These figures are uncertain, but they’re the best we have (and they may well turn out to be too optimistic).

How much savings is plausible on the spending side? Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will account for almost half of spending by 2015. Even if we reform Social Security, which we should, any plausible plan would phase in benefit changes to avoid harming current beneficiaries — and so would generate little savings over the next five years. The health reform act included substantial savings in Medicare and Medicaid, so there aren’t further big reductions available there in our time frame.

The other half of the budget is mostly net interest (which is not negotiable unless we renege on our debt) and discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is split roughly equally between defense and non-defense spending. The defense component already assumes a phase-down in both Iraq and Afghanistan; saving an additional 5 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget would be a substantial accomplishment and would yield about 0.2 percent of G.D.P. Cutting 5 percent out of non-defense discretionary spending, a stretch politically, would save about as much.

It would be tough, then, to squeeze more than a half percent of G.D.P. from spending by 2015. Additional revenue — in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 percent of the economy — will therefore be necessary to reduce the deficit to sustainable levels.

How would we do this?

One possibility would be to establish a new source of revenue, perhaps through revenue-increasing tax reform, and possibly including a modest value-added tax (that is, a V.A.T. of 5 percent to 6 percent). This approach has many potential benefits, including the opportunity to improve our tax code by cutting back on loopholes and shifting toward a consumption-based tax system. It is also politically impossible, at least in the era of the 60-vote Senate. Those who fear a V.A.T. have little reason to worry — the votes aren’t there.

The beauty of extending the tax cuts for only two years is that canceling them doesn’t require an affirmative vote. It happens by default, so Congressional deadlock works in its favor. And it would essentially solve our medium-term deficit problem, reducing the deficit by $200 billion to $350 billion a year from 2015 to 2020.

Like all plans, this one isn’t perfect. Some may complain that higher marginal tax rates, even if deferred until 2013, will cripple small businesses and economic activity. It’s hard to believe, however, that effectively returning the tax code to its 1990s form would lead to economic catastrophe, especially when many leading Republican economists — including Alan Greenspan and Martin Feldstein — agree that we can’t afford to continue the tax cuts forever. More troubling, middle-class and lower-class families would be saddled with higher taxes. That’s a legitimate concern, but also a largely unavoidable one if we are to tackle the medium-term fiscal problem.

Finally, a key part of this deal is actually ending the tax cuts in 2013 — and that will surely require a presidential veto on any bills to extend them after that. (Failing to follow through would be particularly problematic if the high-income tax cuts are made permanent — at a 10-year cost of more than $700 billion.) Minimizing this risk requires as much upfront clarity and commitment as possible, including a strong and unambiguous veto threat from the president.

Senate Democrats and Republicans almost never come together anymore. This month, they should fight the dual deficits rather than each other. Let’s continue the tax cuts for two years but end them for good in 2013. – Peter Orszag @ NYTimes

Some Dems Campaign Against ObamaCare While Others Stay Mum
September 7, 2010
FoxNews.com

While President Obama touts the new health care law everywhere he goes, some members of his party are saying just the opposite in re-election ads, making sure their constituents know they voted against the unpopular overhaul. Other Democratic lawmakers are choosing a silence-is-golden approach on the campaign trail.

But off Capitol Hill, a Democrat-led advocacy group called the Health Information Center is launching a $2 million national ad campaign to promote the law’s early insurance changes.

The center began rolling out the ads last week highlighting how, starting Sept. 23, the new law will prevent insurers from denying coverage to children under 19 who have pre-existing conditions.

Some political observers believe Democrats should stake their political fortunes to the health care law.

“I think a lot of the battle lines in this election are going to be over which party can do the best to help a struggling middle class. And I think it would be smart for Democrats to sell the health care plan they’ve already implemented better than they have,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of the progressive think tank NDN and a former campaign adviser for President Clinton.

If what the Democrats have promised happens, that 10 of millions of more people will be covered, the deficit will be reduced and people’s health care will be better, then the Democrats will be fine,” he said “If those things don’t happen, then the current discontent around the legislation will continue.”

But some Democrats, gripped by fears that their party’s support for the unpopular overhaul will cost them their jobs in the midterm elections just 56 days away, are making clear their opposition to it.

One Democratic lawmaker says she’s thinking about her family as well as her constituents.

“It’s why I voted against all the bailouts – and the trillion-dollar health care plan,” said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D. “It wasn’t right for South Dakota, Zachary or any kids’ future.”

Other Democrats are running not only against the health care law but also against the president, as well as Democratic leaders.

Ads for Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Glenn Nye of Virginia, and Bobby Bright of Alabama features voters or narrators praising the lawmakers for their independent streak.

Other lawmakers appear to be running as fast as they can from the overhaul, as if the law never happened.

Ryan Rudominer, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, disputed the notion that Democrats are running away from health care.

“The top issues in these races are going to be the economy and jobs,” he told FoxNews.com. “Health care is nowhere near the top of the list relative to jobs and the economy. So our members are not proactively talking about health care. They’re not running away from it either. It’s going to come up in debates and they’ll be questioned about it.”

Rudominer said the Democrats who are campaigning on their opposition to health care “shouldn’t come as a surprise.”

“Our members are independent voices,” he said, adding that they will vote in ways they reflect their district. “It’s not going to be a referendum on health care this election.”

Rudominer added that when the debates happen, Democrats will have “a very strong counterpunch” to make against Republicans who favor repealing the law.

Many Democrats who opposed the health care law obviously think that their opposition will endear them to voters, and for good reason. The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey released Monday found 56 percent of likely U.S. voters favor repeal of law, including 45 percent who strongly favor repeal. Thirty eight percent oppose repeal, including 30 percent strongly opposed.

“We polled every week since it became law and every single week a majority of voters have said, ‘yes we want it repealed,’” Scott Rasmussen said.

Another Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, wants the states to be able to go their own way – to get a waiver from the federal law in order to fashion their own health care reforms.

Wyden inserted the waiver provision in the new law. It permits any state to craft its own plan as long as it covers just as many people, provided at least the same level of care and is just as affordable as the federal plan would be. And that is popular across the political spectrum.

“Early on in the process, we did a lot of polling about should states have the option to opt out of this,” Rasmussen said. “And overwhelmingly, the answer was yes.”

The state waiver provision doesn’t take effect until 2017, but Wyden has legislation to move it forward to 2014. He thinks some states might want to establish a single-payer system. Others, like Oregon, might want a public option. In any case, states with waivers would be writing their own version of health reforms, in place of the new federal ones.

Philly:

The city of Philadelphia is known for many things: The Liberty Bell, cheesesteaks, water ice, and Santa Claus-booing Eagles fans. But if research that I conducted in 2006 is still accurate today, Philadelphia should also be known for all-inclusive voting — that is, voting regardless of whether one has a pulse or is otherwise eligible to cast a vote.

Every two years, states are required to provide data to the Election Assistance Commission regarding their compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (the section of that statute which ensures voter lists are up-to-date and free of ineligible voters). In 2005, their data collection for Pennsylvania revealed that 102.5% of the citizen voting age population was registered to vote on Election Day 2004.

One might reasonably wonder how it was possible that more people were registered to vote than existed. My 2006 analysis of the city of Philadelphia’s voter list provided some possible answers to that question.

In the spring of 2006, I reviewed portions of the city of Philadelphia’s 2005 voting list. I found that underaged voters, deceased voters, and incarcerated felons were registered to vote and had remained on the voting list, despite the fact that none of them were eligible to vote in Pennsylvania (or, in most cases, anywhere else).

In Pennsylvania, a voter must be 18 or older as of the date of the election to be eligible to vote. Yet at least 130 voters on the list were under the age of 18. Thirty-four of whom had a birth year of 2004 — the year of the election. And 215 voters on the list had a birthdate of: “00-00-00.”

Just looking at the years of birth for the registered voters, I found 54 voters listed with years of birth ranging from 1825 – 1899. While it is possible that a voter born in 1899 could still be alive in 2004 (he or she would be 105), it is clearly impossible that someone born in 1825 would. – CONTINUE READING @ PJM

Holder’s agenda:

As the saying goes: if you want a job done right, you have to do it yourself. If Americans don’t want dead and ineligible felons participating in elections, they will have to clean up the mess themselves, as Attorney General Eric Holder won’t do his job by enforcing the integrity protections in the “Motor Voter” law passed in 1993.

Motor Voter struck an important balance — it sought to increase voter registration, as well as ensure voter integrity. Welfare offices and motor vehicle offices became voter registration centers. But the law also required states to conduct list maintenance to ensure ineligible names don’t pollute the voting rolls. Dead people, ineligible felons, and people who moved away must be removed from the rolls by state election officials.

The attorney general was given the power to enforce both provisions of Motor Voter, yet Eric Holder is only interested in enforcing one. This attorney general simply won’t do his job and enforce the list integrity requirements.

During the Bush administration, the Justice Department enforced both Section 7 (the welfare office registration provisions) as well as Section 8 (the list integrity provisions). Section 7 cases were investigated and brought against multiple states, including Illinois and Arizona. Section 8 cases were investigated and brought against multiple states, like Missouri and Maine.

The decision of the Holder DOJ to ignore the integrity provisions of Section 8 is deliberate and corrupt. In November 2009, political appointee Julie Fernandes told [1] the entire assembled DOJ Voting Section that the Obama administration would not enforce the list maintenance provisions of Section 8. Section 8 “doesn’t have anything to do with increasing minority turnout,” Fernandes said. “We don’t have any interest in enforcing that part of the law.” End of story.

At the same time, Fernandes stressed that the DOJ would vigorously enforce the welfare agency registration provisions of Section 7.

She made these lawless instructions in front of me and dozens of other shocked Voting Section lawyers. The DOJ has never once denied that Fernandes gave these instructions, nor has the DOJ countermanded them.

This lawless policy couldn’t have a partisan motivation, could it? – CONTINUE READING @ PJM

CHICAGO (CBS) ― If there is any place President Obama is going to get the benefit of the doubt, it’s here in his hometown. Yet public opinion polls show that even here, confidence has slipped. Though they’re a bit hesitant to talk about it.

When one resident was asked how Mr. Obama was doing, the answer was not very convincing.

“Don’t ask me that question.”

On Monday the president was just 90 miles away in Milwaukee, unveiling yet another $50 billion infrastructure improvement package. That’s in addition to what’s already underway in Chicago and around the nation.

“Our infrastructure’s pathetic; especially the railroads,” said Chicagoan Paul Keck, adding the money would be well spent to improve things like roads, bridges and railways.

Tonight CBS 2 spoke with people power shopping the Magnificent Mile, relaxing in Bucktown and stocking up at a South Side supermarket.

“You have to consider where we were,” Chicagoan T’oni Gray said, “He walked into an office that was already messed up.”

Illinois residents polled by the Chicago Tribune indicate that while 62 percent voted for him in 2008, and 59 percent approved of the job he was doing a year ago, his approval rating here has now fallen to 51 percent.

Though it’s hard to get people here to criticize him.

“I’m not goin’ there; he’s our president,” Irving Jacobson said. “You gotta stand behind him.”

But when pressed a bit, he added: “I don’t like the programs he’s putting through.”

Why not?

“Because I dont think it’s going to lead to things getting better for anyone, anytime soon.”

While the stimulus program unveiled Monday won’t produce any new jobs for months, we found people who say they owe their jobs his efforts. Keisha found a new job, Corey was called back to his.

“They brought everybody back,” Corey said. “They’re hiring more people,” added Keisha.

In Milwaukee today, the president criticized Republicans, who’ve already pledged to fight his new plan.

“Hopefully, Washington will decide to work together instead of fighting each other,” Sonia Vega, visiting from Minnesota, said, “And that they’ll remember they’re working for us and that they should be trying to help us and not each other.”

People we spoke with are sick and tired of partisan battles in Washington. They understand President Obama didn’t create the crisis; he inherited it. But they wish his policies would yield results, sooner. What they don’t agree on is when, or if, they will.

Obama Campaigns for Democrats on New Infrastructure Investment Plan
September 6, 2010
FoxNews.com

In a speech that was part Democratic campaign push, part policy prescription, President Obama on Monday proposed a $50 billion investment in long-term infrastructure projects that he claimed will stimulate the flailing economy, create jobs and refill the exhausted federal highway trust fund.

Speaking to a crowd of union employees at Laborfest in Milwaukee, the president offered a six-year, front-loaded plan to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads, lay 4,000 miles of railways and restore 150 miles of airport runways.

The proposal also calls for a strategy to build a national high-speed rail network and create an “infrastructure bank” that uses competitive measures to determine which projects receive funding rather than earmarks and grants.

The president said the project will be paid for — assuming congressional support — with tax hikes on oil and gas companies and will cut waste and bureaucracy by consolidating more than 100 duplicative programs.

“This will not only create jobs immediately, it’s also going to make our economy hum in the long-run,” the president said. “It’s a plan that history tells us can and should attract bipartisan support. It’s a plan that says even in the still-smoldering aftermath of the worst recession in our lifetimes, America can act to shape our own destiny, to move this country forward, to leave our children something better — something that lasts.”

But based on the rest of the president’s speech — and congressional Republicans’ early reactions — it is likely to be a tough sell.

“Americans are rightly skeptical about Washington Democrats asking for more of their money — and their patience,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “After all, they’re still looking for the ‘shovel-ready’ jobs they were promised more than a year ago. A last-minute, cobbled-together stimulus bill with more than $50 billion in new tax hikes will not reverse the complete lack of confidence Americans have in Washington Democrats’ ability to help this economy.”

A senior official acknowledged before the president’s speech that the administration can’t estimate how many jobs might be created.

“It would obviously (be) a substantial number of jobs. But just as important is that this would be a sustained program with increased investment over six years so it would be a sustained increase in jobs as well as America’s productivity,” the official said.

The GOP response shouldn’t surprise Obama, who used much of his speech to accuse Republicans of rejecting plans to strengthen the middle class and rebuild the economy.

“Even on things we usually agree, they say no,” Obama said of the GOP. “They just think it’s better to score political points before an election than to solve problems.”

In a combative tone, the president pointed specifically to House Minority Leader John Boehner as he laid into Republicans for objecting to a package last month that sent $26 billion to the states to keep teachers on the payroll and pay for police officers by sending additional Medicaid money so states could redirect that cash for salaries. The bill was paid for with cuts to expanded food stamp payments and higher taxes on multinational corporations.

“You know how we paid for it? By closing one of these ridiculous tax loophole that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas,” Obama said. “Even a lot of America’s biggest corporations agreed that this loophole didn’t make sense, agreed that it should be closed, that agreed that it wasn’t fair — but the man who thinks he’s gonna be speaker, he wants to re-open this loophole.”

Obama said he doesn’t want to re-live the past when Republicans led Congress, arguing that not only does the GOP not have new ideas, but the party wants to return to past policies that put the country on a downward spiral.

“These are the folks whose policies helped devastate our middle class. They drove our economy into a ditch. … And then they’ve got the nerve to ask for the keys back,” Obama said.

But Republicans offered a few reminders for voters as well. Boehner issued a statement recalling that the Obama administration said if the $814 billion stimulus bill passed, unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. It now stands at 9.6 percent, its 19th consecutive month above 8 percent and 16th consecutive month above 9 percent.

“If we’ve learned anything from the past 18 months, it’s that we can’t spend our way to prosperity,” Boehner said in a statement. “We don’t need more government ‘stimulus’ spending — we need to end Washington Democrats’ out-of-control spending spree, stop their tax hikes and create jobs by eliminating the job-killing uncertainty that is hampering our small businesses.”

President Obama strayed from his prepared remarks at a Labor Day rally Monday to accused his opponents of talking about him “like a dog.”

Obama was in Milwaukee to speak at the Milwaukee Laborfest, attended by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. He used the speech to promote his $50 billion infrastructure plan and to criticize Republicans ahead of crucial midterm elections.

“Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” he told the union crowd.

The president isn’t known to stray off prepared remarks, and also took a more aggressive tone in the speech.

“They’re betting that between now and November, you’ll come down with a case of amnesia,” Obama said. “They think you’ll forget what their agenda did to this country. They think you’ll just believe that they’ve changed. These are the folks whose policies helped devastate our middle class and drive our economy into a ditch. And now they’re asking you for the keys back.” – The Hill

Voters in Ohio are angry. Unemployment is 9th worst in the nation and has hovered over 10% all year.

Labor argues that in this 2010 midterm election the anger is best directed at the Bush administration for what the left calls “failed GOP policies of the past.” Polls in Ohio and nationwide however suggest the anger is being aimed at Democrats.

The governorship of Ohio is a highly prized political office and both parties pour millions into controlling it – particularly in advance of presidential campaigns.

Incumbent governors routinely have their states strongest political machines and that is the case with Ohio Democrat Ted Strickland.

However Strickland trails GOP challenger and former congressman John Kasich by 12 points in the latest Columbus Dispatch poll conducted just before Labor Day by mail.

Pre-Labor Day polls are fickle but snail-mail polls take time and effort and tend to be taken by serious voters.

Strickland has a formidable Ohio machine, and he is aggressively working on early voting to bank as many ballots in advance as his best hope of survival.

But the Dispatch Poll indicates by a 3-1 margin, GOP voters are more motivated than Democrats.Strickland’s current lieutenant governor, Lee Fisher is leaving the statehouse to seek the U.S. Senate, but Fisher trails by 13 percent behind popular former congressman and Bush administration official Rob Portman.

Several incumbent House Democrats are also in trouble. In the Buckeye State’s first congressional district (Cincinnati), Democratic freshman Steve Driehaus is in a rematch against former Republican Congressman Steve Chabot. Driehaus beat Chabot in 2008. Before that Chabot, who won the seat in the 1994 GOP revolution, had held it for 14 years. Chabot is now favored to return to D.C. and pickup the seat for the GOP.In Ohio’s 15th congressional district (Columbus) freshman Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy is also facing a rematch and in trouble. Republican state Senator Steve Stivers, a lieutenant colonel in the Ohio National Guard, served two tours of duty in Iraq prior to 2005. In 2008 Stivers won the GOP nomination but lost, this time he’s favored.

In the 16th district (Canton) incumbent Democrat John Boccieri is also in trouble, facing Republican businessman and former Wadsworth mayor Jim Renacci.

All three House Democrats are under fire for their votes on health care reform, financial regulation, stimulus spending and the Obama agenda. Labor may want voters to blame the Bush administration for what it DID…but polls say voters are unhappy about what the Obama administration is DOING. – FOX News

(H/T BK)

Chandlers Watch.com
September 6, 2010

On the eve of the 9th anniversary of 9-11, the stupid among us, i.e. liberals, degenerate street media as well as other assorted yahoos still don’t get the reality and fact that our Islamic enemies want to cut the throats of any American wherever and whenever they can. And that includes our children. The following is excellent information on what we as a nation are fighting against.

Most religions respect the truth and forbid lying. However Islam is different.

Allah is ‘the best of deceivers’ (Koran 3.54), and since the highest goal of Islamic ethics is to spread Islam by any means whatsoever, it is hardly surprising that lying and deceit should be quite acceptable if carried out for the benefit of Islam.

“War is Deceit”, said Muhammad, and Islam is always at war with the infidel until Islam dominates.

This ‘Holy Lying’ is known as taqiyya (sometimes spelled taqiya or taquiya) – This may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Infidel while rejoicing with fellow Muslims.

Here are some of the ploys, arguments, logical fallacies and diversionary tactics used by taqiyya tacticians:

“Islam is the Religion of Peace!”

[1] Taqiyya about taqiyya.
Muslims deny that taqiyya exists, or that it is used to deceive infidels. ‘There is no such thing as Taqiya’ (or ‘Taqiyya is something I never heard of and I had to go and look it up’) See here and here for refutations.

[2] Playing the race card and guilt by association.
An accusation of racism is such a trump card that Jihadists will play it whenever they can. Despite Islam not being a race, any criticism of Islam immediately gets the knee-jerk retaliation of ‘racism’.
For example; ‘You are expressing the same views about Islam as racists, therefore you are a racist.’ This is similar logic to to ‘Communists believe two and two make four. You believe two and two make four. Therefore you are a Communist’.

Godwin’s Law

[3] Godwin’s Law
- a special (and inevitable) version of guilt by association with racism used in online discussions, whereby the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis wins the argument. The ‘logic’ is something like:

CRITICISM OF ISLAM = RACISM = NAZISM

Therefore, if you criticise Islam you are a Nazi.

[4] Circular reasoning
‘The Koran says it is the word of God. So whatever it says must be true. Therefore it is true that the Koran is the word of God because it says so’

[5] The infidels’ quotes from the Koran are always taken out of context.
For example ‘Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them’ is taken out of context, and really means ‘Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them setting fire to your house’ – or something similar.

[6] Infidels can’t understand the original Arabic of the Koran.
So ‘Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them’ is actually a Medieval Arabic expression meaning ‘Help old ladies across busy streets and remember to feed the birds in winter’.

7] Tu Quoque (you also).
‘We blow people up/ behead them but you do the same,’ – Normally used in attempts to refute arguments that Islam is intrinsically violent. Often refers back to the Crusades, Inquisition etc. Also ‘There are equally nasty bits in the Bible’. Yes, there are violent episodes in the Bible, but the Bible is descriptive of battles and massacres long ago, whereas the Koran is prescriptive of battles and massacres yet to come.

[8] ‘Abrahamic/monotheistic faith’ false kin argument.
This scam usually take the form of ‘Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic/ monotheist faith.’

Of course it isn’t! Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea. (Mark 9:42). In Islam stoning of women is still a major spectator sport, whereas Jesus forbade it (John 8:7). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam.

[9] Quoting abrogated verses from the Koran in order to appear moderate.
A favorite one is ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion’. This verse and many like it are actually null and void and disregarded by all Muslims (though not by gullible infidels). They are peaceful Meccan verses which are competely cancelled by later and much more violent Medinan verses.

[10] ‘You owe us a debt of gratitude because Islam is the basis of Western civilisation’.
This sort of statement is usually backed up by revisionist arguments that Muslims invented everything and were responsible for the Renaissance (Sheikh Speare was a Muslim playwright etc).

In some ways this is a rather pathetic quest for significance. Muslim culture has been moribund for the past 600 years, whereas the West has forged ahead. Muslims now want a stake in the success story by claiming they were somehow responsible for the West’s development.

[11] ‘A third of the world’s population believe in Islam, so it deserves respect.’
- But not so long ago a third of the world’s population believed the earth was flat. Numbers don’t mean anything, especially when the Islamic population is the most backward and illiterate on earth. Muslims are very keen on ‘respect’, but someone should tell them that respect needs to be earned.

[12] ‘We are victims of Islamophobia’.
Muslims are always playing the victim, if not of racism then of the even more heinous thought-crime of ISLAMOPHOBIA. Of course there is no such thing as Islamophobia, since a phobia is an irrational fear, whereas fear of Islam as a clear and present danger is a totally rational reaction from any infidel.

…and, let’s make it a baker’s dozen…

[13] Sufis are non-violent
This is an example of the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. Sufis portray themselves as being a kind of Buddhist version of Islam: peaceful, mystical and generally fluffy and New Age. Well-meaning Westerners are attracted by Sufis in the hope that they have finally found examples of the elusive Moderate Muslims.

Unfortunately, this is clutching at straws. Sufis are just as violent and supremacist as the rest of them. See links under Sufis at Everything you need to know about Islam.

A particularly good example of the Sufi Good Cop/Bad Cop contrick was the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, where the ‘peaceful’ Sufis deceived the more gullible New Yorkers until they were exposed as normal Muslims.

A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election year issue — by running against it.

At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an ad now.

Democrats have taken that advice to heart; it appears that no Democratic incumbent — in the House or in the Senate — has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one.

Most of the Democrats running ads highlighting their opposition to the law are in conservative-leaning districts and considered the most endangered. They’re using their vote against the overhaul as proof of their willingness to buck party leadership and their commitment to watching the nation’s debt.

Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.) says in an ad that went up last week that he voted against the law “because it cost too much.”

More “no” voters are expected to release similar ads as the November midterm elections approach.

It’s a far cry from where Democrats hoped they would be when they passed the landmark legislation in March. Many senior Democrats said last winter that the law’s popularity would increase as Americans were able to better understand the complex law and take advantage of its benefits.

But the public’s views on the legislation may have been more settled than anyone thought.

Public support for the overhaul ticked up a few points shortly after the legislation passed, but all of those gains have since disappeared.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Tuesday showed 43 percent of the public supports the overhaul and 45 percent are opposed. Much of the disagreement falls along party lines.

Party officials insist they’re not bothered by the ads boasting of “no” votes. They know that members in more conservative districts need to put distance between themselves and their party’s leadership, and they say rank and file should be out telling voters that they’re willing to vote their consciences and put their district’s wishes above all.

“We have a big tent party, and we’re going to have a lot of districts that don’t necessarily agree on all the issues,” said a Democrat aide. “There’s no one in leadership who takes anything personally about these ads.”

Many of the Democrats who voted against the health care overhaul also voted against the recovery act or the cap-and-trade bill, neither of which is very popular in conservative-leaning districts.

Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) used his first ad to remind voters that he voted against the bailout, the budget and the health care bill.

“As a career prosecutor, I made decisions on facts, not politics. In Washington, I’ve tried to do the same,” he says in the ad, touting his ranking by CQ Weekly “as one of the most independent members of Congress.”

Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) stresses his “independent conservative” values in an ad that reminds voters he voted against the bailout, stimulus spending and “massive government health care.”

House Democratic aides say that if members went so far to vote against the health law, they should use it to their full advantage.

“If you’re going to vote against the health care bill, if you’re going to vote against the recovery act, if you’re going to vote against the energy bill, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense not to highlight that,” the aide said. “There’s a reason you did it.”

As for the members who voted yes? A Democratic strategist familiar with the polling on the issue says the most effective approach — when asked — is to highlight that the law provides consumers with the same health care that members of Congress get.

Another method is to tell voters that the law bans insurance companies from denying coverage once a customer gets sick — a provision that would be undone if Republicans repeal the law, as they have promised to do if given the opportunity.

The Kaiser survey found that likely voters listed health care as the third most important factor in determining how they will vote. It’s behind the economy and “dissatisfaction with government.”

About one-third of voters said support for the health reform law would make it more likely that they’d vote for a candidate. But one-third said it would make it less likely, and another third said it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Those figures haven’t changed much since the law passed. – Politico

New Mormon Ad Campaign: Seeking to Dispel Myths Or PR for Romney ’12 Run?
By Stephen Clark
September 04, 2010
FoxNews.com

Mitt Romney has just about every qualification that a person needs to be POTUS. However, when a person believes that he or she will be a God of some planet someday and that our God and father in heaven was once only a man like Mitt Romney, I personally have big-time grave reservations about their stability to do the job. Basically for me, if Mormons want to be considered Christians, then a whole bunch of the fantasyland dogma has got to go into the trash bin of history.

Former Republican presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney smiles at a book signing for his book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness” at a Barnes and Noble, Wednesday, April 7, 2010, in Manchester, N.H.

Mormon leaders have launched an expansive ad campaign in some battleground states designed to rebrand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as “normal,” igniting speculation that the church is laying the groundwork for Mitt Romney to re-emerge next year for another presidential bid without an anti-Mormon stigma.

The new ads feature young, active and diverse Mormons talking about their jobs, their families and different passions, like surfing, skateboarding or motorcycles. At the end of each ad, they declare their faith.

The church insists that the campaign is not intended to boost a likely Romney 2012 presidential bid.

“It had nothing whatsoever to do with Mitt Romney’s campaign,” LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah told FoxNews.com. “The church is politically neutral and does not support a political candidate.”

Farah said the campaign was an outgrowth of research that began about two years ago that showed long-held myths about Mormons were dispelled when other Americans met them.

“That was the impetus of the ads,” Farah said, adding that the campaign “really shows the diversity of the church, that we are not all alike. We come from all different areas, we have different interests and come from different walks of life but what we share in common is a belief in Jesus Christ.”

Farah noted that other prominent Mormons include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

The ad campaign began in July with the launch of a new website that featured the ads. The ads also begain airing in nine test markets, including , Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Jacksonville, Fla. and Tucson, Ariz.

Farah said the locations were chosen for their size, not to influence swing voters in battleground states.

More than a month after floods, many Pakistanis still desperately waiting for help
September 04, 2010
FoxNews.com

The answer to the headline question is: They are nowhere to be found, for the don’t give a crap. The United States and Western allies will once again have to bail out the ingrate Pakistani government.

Floodwaters that have devastated Pakistan for five weeks headed to the Arabian Sea on Tuesday after swallowing two final towns, but the challenges of delivering emergency aid to 8 million people remained.

Abdul Rehman and his family live under a tree next to a pile of rubble on a newly created island where his house used to be.

In the month since his home was destroyed in the raging floodwaters that inundated Pakistan, he has gotten no aid of any kind from the government or private aid groups to help him survive, he said.

Frustrated and desperate, he joined a protest with dozens of other villagers that blocked the main road in this area 10 days ago. In response, police opened a criminal investigation against him, he said. And he still hasn’t gotten any food or even a tarp to shield his family of six from the blazing summer sun, he said.

More than 3 million people have yet to receive desperately needed food aid, according to the U.N., and the Pakistani government says nearly 1 million people have received no help of any sort.

“They need everything,” said Ahmad Kamal, spokesman for Pakistan’s disaster management agency, who appealed to international donors to send tents, ambulances, mobile clinics and hygiene kits.

The lack of aid has led to anger against an already-fragile government that is seen as a key U.S. ally in the battle against Islamic extremists along the frontier with Afghanistan.

The anger itself is hampering relief efforts, with the Red Cross twice halting distributions after being confronted by mobs of people upset they were not getting enough aid, the organization said Thursday.

Part of the problem is simply the scale of the crisis. The floods that began their slow wave of destruction across Pakistan at the end of July swamped as much as one-fifth of the country, leaving 8 million people dependent on aid, according to the U.N. And that number keeps growing as more areas are affected.

“This seems to be a never-ending disaster,” said Stacey Winston, a U.N. spokeswoman.

But many of those affected also blame the problem on corruption by local government officials, who steer aid to their supporters and withhold it from others.

Of the 32 families in Daira Dinpanah, about 90 miles (140 kilometers) west of the city of Multan, only seven who have ties to local political leaders have received aid of any kind, said Khalid Iqbal, 35, who stands on the side of the road clutching a list of all those needing assistance, waiting for an aid group to pass by. The remainder have survived by scrounging meals at the local mosque, or, like Rehman, temporarily bouncing between relatives’ houses before returning home.

A month after the flood hit, the village’s fields are still filled with water and its roads are a muddy swamp. Rehman’s house is surrounded by floodwaters and reachable only by a makeshift bridge of two steel girders laid end to end, held aloft in the middle by a bed sunk in the water.

His snack shop on the road is gone and even the ledger where he recorded the debts his customers owed him was destroyed.

“There is nothing for us beside these broken homes,” the 30-year-old said, surveying the piles of mud and brick where his house once stood. “We left this area in the night, at 2 a.m., with only the clothes we were wearing. We still have only the clothes we were wearing.

“The government should give us shelter, give us money to rebuild our houses and to buy some food. If it can’t do that, than at least it should give us tents so that our children live in respectable conditions. Here we are living in the open sky. How can we survive like this?” he said.

Ghulam Mustafa, 30, said he only received food once, a package of flour and other relief goods sufficient to feed a family of six for a week, but only enough to sustain his family of 10 for a few days.

When he later appealed to local officials for more food, they sent him away, he said.

“We are running behind the (aid) trucks, but they give us nothing. They are not listening to us,” he said. “Nobody even came here to ask us, ‘What do you need?’”

Without the tent Mustafa said he desperately needs, he, his wife and his eight children are sleeping in the rubble of their house under a blue tarp borrowed from a neighbor.

“But he keeps asking for it back,” Mustafa said.

Local opposition politician Javed Akhter said the vast majority of the government aid is being funneled to the supporters of the local administration, and rued that his relatively well off region has been reduced to a town of beggars.

Kamal said workers from the disaster management agency sent aid to the affected areas but could not monitor how it was distributed.

Malik Ahmed Hunajara, the local representative to the provincial assembly, denied political favors were influencing aid distribution.

“This is not true,” he said. “There is a huge population that is affected and the government cannot give to everybody.”

Local and international aid organizations were trying to meet the shortfall.

The army was as well. Lt. Iqbal Khizar and his unit have been roaming remote parts of Muzaffargarh district with trucks filled with aid in recent days, giving emergency help to those that have fallen through the cracks.

In other places, Islamist groups — some with ties to extremists — were filling the vacuum.

The only source of food for the Tibba Jamal Wala tent camp along the side of the road in Muzaffargarh is the Islamic group Falah-e-Insaniat, which is believed to be a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the banned group blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

“We have to provide food for people in the far areas where no one is going,” said Hijrat Khan, a relief official with the group. He overseas dozens of people cooking meals of rice and potatoes that are then shoveled into plastic bags, stacked in vats, loaded on trucks and delivered to flood victims every evening.

The group has provided cooked meals to 1.5 million flood victims, treated more than 300,000 patients and given rations to 85,000 families, Khan said.

At the camp, residents said the government had given them tents, but nothing else, since the camp was established three weeks ago. Three children died from untreated diarrhea, residents said.

The chief minister of the province came recently, said the government was trying its best, but he brought no aid, said Aijaz Hussein, 27.

On Wednesday, the residents held a protest blocking the road. On Thursday, some government officials came to take a survey of the camp, but again brought no aid.

“I don’t know what they are thinking, what is in their minds. They provide us nothing,” Hussein said. “Now we will not support the government. Whoever helps us we will support.”

59 Days to Decide: Evidence Mounts That Dems Are Facing Midterm Wipeout
September 04, 2010
FoxNews.com

It’s looking more and more like a good year to be a Republican challenger.

Evidence is mounting that Democrats are facing a midterm wipeout: Hopes for an economic recovery to save Democrats from voter punishment this November are quickly fading as an already high unemployment rate inched up.

A new poll shows voters favor Republican newcomers. And political analyst Larry Sabato is predicting that the GOP will win control of the House this fall and come within a couple of seats of winning the Senate.

“There’s absolutely no doubt at this point it’s a Republican year and very probably a very big Republican year,” Sabato told Fox News. “This particular year has been mischaracterized as an anti-incumbent year. In fact, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that it’s an anti-Democratic year.”

A Gallup poll released Friday backs up Sabato’s claim.

Given the choice of four types of generic candidates, 38 percent of poll respondents said they prefer a Republican newcomer while 24 percent picked a Democratic incumbent..

GOP consultant Tony Sayegh said that’s not good news for the Democratic majority in Washington.

“The overwhelming majority of the American people, when viewing the congressional races generically, a) want a Republican and b) want an outsider,” he said.

Indonesian Muslims Protest Plans to Burn Quran
The Drudge Report
September 4, 2010

Thousands of Indonesian Muslims are rallying outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta to denounce a Florida church’s plan to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11.

The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., said it will burn the Islamic holy book on the ninth anniversary of the terror attacks. Local officials have denied a permit for the bonfire on the church’s grounds. But the center, which made headlines last year by distributing T-shirts that said “Islam is of the Devil,” insists it will go ahead with the plan.

About 3,000 members of a hard-line Islamic group marched Saturday to the U.S. Embassy in downtown Jakarta, waving banners and posters condemning the plan. The group organized similar rallies in five other cities across Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation.

GOP Vows to Ramp Up Investigations of Obama Administration If It Wins House
By Jim Angle
September 04, 2010
FoxNews.com

In San Diego County we are very proud of Rep. Issa for having the fortitude to tell it like it is and to tell us he will proceed against Obamao and his silly team of America wreckers. I cannot wait till early Novemeber.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) (L) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) hold a discussion during a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, February 24, 2010. (Reuters)

If Republicans regain control of the House in November, some have vowed to launch investigations into controversies that Democrats have tried to ignore, including the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and the activities of the community activist group ACORN.

“It’s very clear that House Republicans are going to use their oversight powers when they elected. There’s no question about it,” said GOP strategist Ron Bonjean who is a former Capitol Hill aide.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has been pushing for an investigation of whether the White House unlawfully offered a job to Rep. Joe Sestak so he wouldn’t run against Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania.

Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said a clear reading of the laws suggests a crime has been committed.

“And I believe they committed a crime,” Issa said.

Issa pushed for an investigation into the shenanigans at the Minerals Management Service long before the BP oil spill. He also pressed for a probe into the FDA and food safety prior to the recent egg recall.

Those inquiries are not partisan but Democrats warn their supporters that Republicans will go crazy if they win control of the House.

“It’s pretty clear that a lot of them are chomping at the bit to do the kind of investigations ala Clinton-style impeachment hearing and I don’t think people want to go back to that,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Rep. Dan Burton went after the Clinton White House with a vengeance, using 1,052 subpoenas from 1997 t0 2002.

“There’s a better use of our tax dollars than chasing partisan cheap shots using the power of the congressional subpoena,” said Lanny Davis, who served in the White House legal counsel’s office under President Clinton.

Bonjean said it’s unlikely that Republicans will go after the Obama White House with as much intensity as they did in the 1990s because he argues the Clinton probes backfired on them when Clinton’s popularity actually rose.

But Davis says both parties tend to overplay their hand, pointing to the three Democratic investigations of President Reagan’s Labor secretary, Ray Donovan.

“Railroaded out of Washington, finally indicted and then acquitted in less than an hour, ” Davis said.

So what would Republicans do if they regain control? Issa aides say he’s not focused on skewering the Obama White House, that he and Republicans are focused instead on legitimate issues of oversight – to keep the federal bureaucracy from abusing its power.

“They don’t want to come in there and yahoo it for the next two years and wait on the next presidential elections,” said former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “They have learned the lessons from ’94.”

FORT COLLINS, Colo. — The college vote is up for grabs this year — to an extent that would have seemed unlikely two years ago, when a generation of young people seemed to swoon over Barack Obama.

Though many students are liberals on social issues, the economic reality of a weak job market has taken a toll on their loyalties: far fewer 18- to 29-year-olds now identify themselves as Democrats compared with 2008.

“Is the recession, which is hitting young people very hard, doing lasting or permanent damage to what looked like a good Democratic advantage with this age group?” asked Scott Keeter, the director of survey research at the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan group. “The jury is still out.”

How and whether millions of college students vote will help determine if Republicans win enough seats to retake the House or Senate, overturning the balance of power on Capitol Hill, and with it, Mr. Obama’s agenda. If students tune out and stay home it will also carry a profound message for American society about a generation that seemed so ready, so recently, to grab national politics by the lapels and shake. (Read in full @ New York Times)

Democrats’ Edge Among Millennials Slips
A Pro-Government, Socially Liberal Generation

(CNSNews.com) – Behind the polite talk at Thursday’s re-launch of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the State Department was a deep gulf on what Israel calls a make-or-break issue – Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Addressing Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas directly in English, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu identified what he called “two pillars of peace that I think will enable us to resolve all the outstanding issues … legitimacy and security.”

“Just as you expect us to be ready to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, we expect you to be prepared to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people,” Netanyahu said, adding that the more than one million non-Jews living in Israel enjoy full civil rights.

“I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two people – our two peoples – that the conflict between us is over.”

Abbas’ response, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned the floor over to him minutes later, was that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had already recognized Israel – in September 1993, when his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, and then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had signed “a document of mutual recognition.”

“And in this document, we give enough to show that our intentions are good, our intentions with respect to recognizing the state of Israel,” he added, speaking in Arabic through a translator.

Left unsaid was the fact that neither in 1993 nor since then has the PLO agreed to recognize Israel specifically as a Jewish state.

On the contrary, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected this Israeli requirement.

“Palestinians reject the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” PLO Executive Committee member Wassel Abu Yousef told reporters in Ramallah less than a fortnight ago, after Netanyahu told his cabinet that “recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people” was a necessary component of a peaceful settlement to the conflict.

At a landmark convention in Bethlehem last year, Abbas’ Fatah faction of the PLO adopted a platform rejecting recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

It linked the stance to the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees who left present-day Israel in 1948 and their descendants, now 4.7 million in number, according to the U.N. (Israel’s total population is 7.5 million, 1.5 million of whom are Arabs.)

Asked at a press briefing Thursday about the Jewish state dispute, U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell acknowledged that differences between the sides were “many,” “deep” and “serious” and that both sides would need to be willing to make “difficult concessions.”

But he said he believed Netanyahu and Abbas were “committed to doing what it takes to achieve the right result.”

PLO positions

As the talks began in Washington Thursday, back in the region the PLO released a statement through its news agency Wafa outlining its vision for a peace agreement.

On the issues which repeatedly have proven to be stumbling blocks over the years since the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, the PLO stance was clear:

– There could be no viable Palestinian state without East Jerusalem as its capital, it said, claiming that the city had been the Palestinians’ political, administrative, cultural and religious center “for centuries.”

– The borders of a Palestinian state must be those that were in place before the 1967 Six Day War, it said – Gaza, all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Palestinians would have to have control over airspace and territorial waters “with no residual Israeli presence or control,” and there would also have to be a “territorial link” between the West Bank and Gaza.

– Israeli settlements in the West Bank “pose the single greatest threat to a viable two-state solution, and hence, to a just and lasting peace.”

– All Palestinian refugees must have “the right to return to their homes,” and to choose how to exercise that right, the PLO document said.

Neither those stances, nor Israel’s rejection of them, have changed substantively over the years since 1993.

What has changed is that Abbas goes into the talks with much weaker support among Palestinians than his predecessor, a reality underlined by a protest rally in Ramallah on Wednesday and a terrorist press conference in Gaza City on Thursday.

At the rally, leaders of the Palestinian National Initiative, a left-leaning movement, said Abbas was going into the talks without the support of confidence of the Palestinian people

The Palestinian news agency Ma’an reported that hundreds of protestors chanted slogans including, in reference to Abbas, “President of Palestine, we are not with you.”

Among other things, Abbas’ legitimacy is frequently called into question by Palestinian critics who note his presidential term formally ended in January 2009.

At the time he argued that Palestinian law called for presidential and legislative elections to be held simultaneously, so he was entitled to extend his tenure until legislative polls, due in January 2010. But those elections were postponed because of the ongoing rift between Fatah and Hamas.

Hamas has controlled Gaza since seizing control in mid-2007, leaving Abbas’ authority limited to the West Bank.

‘Resistance’ to continue

In Gaza Thursday, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told a press conference Abbas does not represent the Palestinian people and has no mandate to negotiate on their behalf.

He also said “resistance” operations will continue in the West Bank.

A man identified as Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas’ “military wing,” said 13 armed groups have now agreed to cooperate in carrying out more effective attacks against “the Zionist enemy.”

Hamas has claimed responsibility for two shooting attacks in the disputed territory in recent days – the killing of four Israelis in a shooting near Hebron on Tuesday and the wounding of another two Israelis in a similar incident near Ramallah on Wednesday.

Another terrorist organization, Islamic Jihad, praised the attacks on Thursday and called for more. The group’s leader, Khaled Al-Batsh, said in Gaza the negotiations with Israel must stop, Ma’an reported.

Abbas’ security forces reportedly rounded up hundreds of Islamists in the West Bank after the deadly Hebron shooting. Hamas issued a statement calling the arrests “a national crime.”

The next set of Netanyahu-Abbas talks has been scheduled for Sept. 14-15, “in the region” – reportedly Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt – and Clinton and Mitchell are due to take part.

Mitchell said Thursday the Israeli and Palestinian leaders have also agreed to meet every two weeks over the coming months, with U.S. representatives attending at least some of those meetings.

Former Obama administration car czar Steven Rattner is coming out with a new book that depicts him swashbuckling through the financial crisis and also shows Obama as “out to get” the car companies and the administration making political decisions about how to deal with bankrupt automakers GM and Chrysler.

Rattner, a former New York Times reporter in Washington, made a mint as a hedge funder, became a massive Democratic donor and returned to D.C. as Obama’s point man during the bailout and takeover of GM and Chrysler. He’s since been ensnared in a SEC investigation into his firm’s efforts to leverage political influence and favors to win government investment deals.

But Rattner’s working on his image. He signed up Obama golf partner and billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a client and now is launching his book “Overhaul” about his time in the administration.

The Huffington Post got a leaked copy and there is plenty there that will play into this years’ elections – especially since this is the first kiss-and-tell book from the Obama team.

Key points from the article and excerpts:

-When Obama was told of the plan to pay GM CEO Rick Wagoner a $7.1 million severance package after Obama ordered that he be sacked, Rattner writes: “Suddenly I felt that I was indeed in the presence of a community organizer…”

-Rattner describes presidential political adviser David Axelrod coming to car meetings armed with poll data to support the takeover and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel identify Congressmen in whose districts large Chrysler facilities were located.

-”[Obama's economic team] veered dangerously close to having the government take control of the two most troubled banks, Bank of America and Citigroup.”

-”If his team had linked arms with the outgoing administration, as President Bush’s advisers had proposed, billions of dollars could well have been saved.”

-Rattner says Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual dictated Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s schedule, public appearances and staff selections.

-He says Obama economic advisers Larry Summers and Austan Goolsbee and FDIC Chair Sheila Bair as enemies who slowed down decision making with infighting

-Rattner said Obama was frustrated with the auto companies from the start: “Why can’t they make a Corolla?” he has Obama asking.

PHOTO CREDIT:

Steven Rattner/AP

“If it’d said ‘Allah Akbar’, the council wouldn’t have dared to try and remove it,” says Marianne Bons, a member of the Dutch Reformed Protestant Church. She’s talking about a farm roof on which ‘Jesus saves’ is painted in enormous letters. The council says the text has to go. The farm’s owner, evangelical Christian Joop van Ooijen, is refusing to obey. The affair has united Christians of all persuasions behind the message.

“You’re allowed to believe in anything in this country, as long as it’s nothing to do with Christians or the Church,” says Ms Bos, describing the prevailing Dutch attitude to religion.

Mr Van Ooijen has held out for two years, refusing to remove the message from his roof. Giessenlanden local council is fining him 500 euros a week, but he refuses to pay. He has been fighting the council decision for two years and says he’s willing to go to the European Court if necessary.

Mr Van Ooijen and Ms Bons both live in Alblasserwaard, an area near Rotterdam, in the heart of the Dutch bible belt. The position adopted by Giessenlanden Council has met with disbelief in this predominantly Christian region.

The council argues that it’s pollution of the landscape. Giessenlanden Councillor Berend Buddingh explains that white letters on a red roof is too big a colour contrast. Mr Van Ooijen counters that it is “too big a contrast with the councillor’s own beliefs”.

The farmer is receiving support from all over the Netherlands, from secular as well as religious people and from ordinary Christians, not just members of his evangelical church. And from less strict members of his own church, such as the Bons family. “He’s literally shouting it from the rooftops,” says the father of the family, Menno Bons, admiringly. – Radio Netherlands Worldwide

Graphic: The Dutch bible belt

Rights We Treasure, And Rights We Don’t

Posted on September 1st, 2010 by J. B. Landry

I don’t consider myself a right-wing blogger, tea partier, neo-conservative, federalist or a birther. I’m just a married man with a .5 kid (my wife is 8 months pregnant). I stay “in the know: because of my job and many folks often call me for advice on election day. They know that I don’t look at the party and will always breakdown candidates’ pros and cons with reason. I’ve never been a big Bill of Rights guy, although I’ve been trying to plow through a very thick biography piece on John Adams for the last year.

But this past weekend, as my wife and I strolled through a brand new public school in Baton Rouge on our way to vote, I was presented with a sign— not from God, but a sign from a teacher. A sign that I needed to take a closer look at my rights as a U.S. citizen.

The sign wasn’t all that noticeable. It blended well between inspirational posters and proudly displayed class projects. I imagine it was a simple assignment for Mrs. Menon’s students at ‘The Dufrocq School.’ Perhaps it was even an impromptu project to keep them busy on a rainy afternoon? It was entitled “We Treasure Our Rights.” I thought to myself what a great way to ‘teach’ our children the rights of our country. The rights our forefathers drafted and debated over for years. The rights my grandfather died for in Italy during WWII. The rights we believe in— the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the purist of happiness, which give us all the opportunity to be the best we can be in this great county.

But sadly I was disturbed by the rights that were listed on this flimsy poster board. Especially the one that topped the list – ‘I treasure the right to Health Care.’

I’m glad this sign came into my life because it made me dig a little deeper into my rights. All of these years I’ve had a general idea of my rights. I’ve heard debates over what is a ‘right’ and what is a ‘privilege.’ Amazingly, when I went to the current “trusted” source for information, Google, and typed in “rights,” I got 1.6 billion results in .26 seconds. Unfortunately on the top of this list was “Ask a Lawyer – 19 lawyers are online! Ask a question. Get an answer ASAP.” In fact, the top six results are all related to my rights if I’m arrested. I’ve put that in “My Favorites” folder (you never know).

Of course, the ultimate source for our information about our rights is the United States Constitution. It is often assumed the Bill of Rights is the document under which we live our daily lives, but in 1791 the Bill of Rights only served as an outline for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. As hard as I tried, I could not find where Health Care was listed in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I did see the right to keep and bear arms, right to a trial by jury, right to not house soldiers without an owner’s consent, right to not incriminate myself, right to protection from unreasonable searches and the right to freedom of speech. But nothing about Health Care.

Last year my wife visited Durfocq Elementary to help with a reading program

for the students. She was amazed at the design of the school ($20 million renovation) and how well behaved all of the students were in the school. So what are Dufrocq teachers teaching in school? Was this an assignment for educational purposes or indoctrination purposes?

I guess brand new schools do not invoke brand new thought processes.

According the Dufrocq’s website, Mrs. Menon is a certified elementary teacher with a master’s degree. I would expect a teacher with a master’s degree would know the difference between a “right” and a “privilege.”

I’m sure when folks invoke the first amendment and ask Mrs. Menon why she’s indoctrinating our kids, she’ll quickly exercise her Fifth Amendment right!

The Hayride.

Larry Sabato @ Center For Politics:

[...]

2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition. It has simply been a question of degree. Several scenarios were possible, depending in large measure on whether, or how quickly, the deeply troubled American economy recovered from the Great Recession. Had Democratic hopes on economic revitalization materialized, it is easy to see how the party could have used its superior financial resources, combined with the tendency of Republicans in some districts and states to nominate ideological fringe candidates, to keep losses to the low 30s in the House and a handful in the Senate.

But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats’ self-proclaimed “Recovery Summer” has become a term of derision, and to most voters—fair or not—it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered.

Obama’s job approval ratings have drifted down well below 50% in most surveys. The generic ballot that asks likely voters whether they will cast ballots for Democrats or Republicans this year has moved increasingly in the GOP direction. While far less important, other controversies such as the mosque debate and immigration policy have made the climate worse for Democrats. Republican voters are raring to vote, their energy fueled by anti-Obama passion and concern over debt, spending, taxes, health care, and the size of government. Democrats are much less enthusiastic by almost every measure, and the Democratic base’s turnout will lag. Plus, Democrats have won over 50 House seats in 2006 and 2008, many of them in Republican territory, so their exposure to any sort of GOP wave is high.

Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. This is a “net” number since the GOP will probably lose several of its own congressional districts in Delaware, Hawaii, and Louisiana. This estimate, which may be raised or lowered by Election Day, is based on a careful district-by-district analysis, plus electoral modeling based on trends in President Obama’s Gallup job approval rating and the Democratic-versus-Republican congressional generic ballot (discussed later in this essay). If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today.

In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react). GOP leaders themselves did not believe such a result was truly possible just a few months ago. If the Republican wave on November 2 is as large as some polls are suggesting it may be, then the surprise on election night could be a full GOP takeover. Since World War II, the House of Representatives has flipped parties on six occasions (1946, 1948, 1952, 1954, 1994, and 2006). Every time, the Senate flipped too, even when it had not been predicted to do so. These few examples do not create an iron law of politics, but they do suggest an electoral tendency.

The seat switches are probably coming in Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware (but only if the eventual GOP nominee is Rep. Mike Castle), Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. We expect Republicans to pick off at least a couple of these states: California, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, and Wisconsin. While it is possible that Republicans will lose one or two of their own open seats, the only 50-50 chance of that right now is in Florida—and it might not happen even there. There can also be unanticipated shockers if a GOP wave develops. While we rate Gov. Joe Manchin (D) the early favorite to fill the late Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat, his Republican opponent, John Raese, is a self-funder in a strongly anti-Obama state.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Senate is on the bubble, with only a slight lean at Labor Day toward Democratic retention.

[...]

But it goes beyond the federal level to state and local elections … Read the whole thing here.