“You Can’t Spend Your Way Out Of Recession Or Borrow Your Way Out Of Debt” British MP Daniel Hannan, A Voice In The Wilderness

British Member Of Parliment Daniel Hannan is reaching Pop-Star type status in Britian with his calls for a return to Capitalism.

Hannan compares the present spending and “bailout” craze with the Central Planning undertaken by the old Soviet Union.

Card Check – Union Violence On The Increase – Fight Card Check – Keep The Secret Ballot


Card Check The Height Of Intimidation – Unions Want To End Secret Ballot

In 2001, in a letter to Mexican officials in the Puebla region, sixteen Democratic Congressmen urged the officials not to adopt card-check legislation, saying “…we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.” Names appearing on that letter included Rep. George Miller (D-CA), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Rep. William Coyne (D-PA).

They were right then. They are dead wrong now.

Since that letter was penned a mere seven-and-a-half years ago, fourteen of its signers have flip flopped on the issue, and have signed on as co-sponsors of the deceptively-titled “Employee Free Choice Act” (also known as “card check”), a bill that would effectively overturn secret-ballot union elections in the United States. What should we say then? Have these 14 Congressmen had a recent conversion? Have they seen the light? Perhaps they had a change of heart. Perhaps.

Perhaps they sacrificed truth for power.

The truth is that these fourteen Democrats are trying to sacrifice the protection of the American worker and are giving in to the demands of big labor, which contributed more than $60 million to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle alone. By claiming that the Employee Free Choice Act will “…level the playing field for workers and employers and foster economic growth for America’s middle class,” these fourteen Congressional Democrats have abandoned their principled stance of 2001 and now advocate public ballots in union elections.

So which is it? Is the secret ballot “absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated,” or has it become an outmoded, outdated, irrelevant practice in the seven-and-a-half years since this letter was written? Of course not! Would you like to go to the voting booth with labor bosses standing over your shoulder, ensuring that you make the “right” choice? Should free people be intimidated into joining a labor union that “they might not otherwise choose?” The answer is obvious. The secret ballot has been a central tenet of civil governance since well before the inception of our own magnificent republic. To do away with it now would be tantamount to legislative malpractice.

In 2001, sixteen Congressional Democrats took a principled stand against card check. Only eight years later, the fourteen who remain in Congress (two of the signers retired before the 109th Congress) have changed their tune. Every one of these Congressmen was chosen by a secret ballot. If it’s good enough for them, it ought to be good enough for the hard-working men and women of this country.

Their hypocrisy is stunning.

So let’s call our legislators, especially its co-sponsors here in Iowa: Congressmen Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Senator Tom Harkin, and tell them to let us keep our free, un-intimidated choice.



US Senator and former Democratic Nominee for President George McGovern speaks out …………


How serious is the problem? Visit this site: http://www.nrtw.org/en/press-release-categories/union-corruption-violence-and-intimidation?page=2

EU Presidency: Obama Plan is “A Highway to Hell’

 Fox NewsSTRASBOURG, France —  A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as “a way to hell.”
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus package and banking bailout “will undermine the stability of the global financial market.”

A day after his government collapsed because of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence, Topolanek took the EU presidency on a collision course with Washington over how to deal with the global economic recession.

Most European leaders favor tighter financial regulation, while the U.S. has been pushing for larger economic stimulus plans.

Topolanek’s comments are the strongest criticism so far from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from recent U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.

They also pave the way for a stormy summit next week in London between leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized countries.


The United States plans to spend heavily to try and lift its economy out of recession with a $787 billion economic stimulus plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.

“We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way,” he said.

“Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the stability of the global financial market,” said Topolanek.


Post Script: Apparently, Prime Minister Topolanel is a fan of the Austrailian Rock Band AC/DC.  The Prime Minister states that he has been misquoted – the statement above should read  – “Obama’s Plan will put us on the “Highway To Hell”. Something didn’t translate quite right. The Prime Minister had recently attended an AC/DC Concert and the song was stuck in his head. “Highway to Hell” references in political speeches! “Stairway to Heaven” as musak in elevators. I guess ” the times they are a changin”.      


George F  Will

New York Post

WITH the braying of 328 yahoos House mem bers who voted for retro active and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate legal earnings of a small unpopular group still reverberating, the Obama administration Monday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government.

This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Asset Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets.

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two car companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: “The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.”

Another embarrassing auditor of US misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America’s high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also expressed sensible fears that his country’s $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

Congress, with the approval of a president who has waxed censorious about his predecessor’s imperious unilateralism in dealing with other nations, has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program created as part of a protracted US stall regarding compliance with its obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on US roads. The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as US trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism tariffs on many US goods in retaliation for Democrats’ protection of the Teamsters union.

NAFTA, like all treaties, is the “supreme law of the land.” So says the Constitution. It is, however, a cobweb constraint on a Congress that, ignoring the document’s unambiguous stipulations that the House shall be composed of members chosen “by the people of the several states,” is voting to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state. Hence it supposedly can have a Democratic member of the House and, down the descending road, two Democratic senators.

Congress rationalizes this anti-constitutional willfulness by citing the Constitution’s language that each house shall be the judge of the “qualifications” of its members and Congress can “exercise exclusive legislation” over the District. What, then, prevents Congress from giving House and Senate seats to Yellowstone National Park, over which Congress exercises exclusive legislation? Only Congress’ capacity for embarrassment. So, not much.

Jefferson warned that “great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.” But Democrats, who trace their party’s pedigree to Jefferson, are contemplating using “reconciliation” a legislative maneuver abused by both parties to severely truncate debate and limit the minority’s right to resist to impose vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care.

When the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president’s budget underestimates by $2.3 trillion the likely deficits over the next decade, his budget director, Peter Orszag, said: All long-range budget forecasts are notoriously unreliable so rely on ours.

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government’s role in it.



Ralph Peters


AMERICA’S enemies smell blood and it’s type “O.”

All new administrations stumble a bit as they seek their footing. But President Obama’s foreign-policy botches have set new records for instant incompetence.

Contrary to left-wing myths, I wasn’t a fan of the Bush administration. (I called for Donald Rumsfeld to get the boot in mid-2001.) But fair’s fair. Despite his many faults, Bush sought to do good. Obama just wants to look good.

Vice President Dick Cheney was arrogant. Vice President Joe Biden is arrogant and stupid. Take your pick.

Don’t worry about the new administration’s ideology. Worry about its terrifying naivete.

Consider a sampling of the goofs O and his crew have made in just two months:

China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (you know that gal married to the Saudi hireling) crawled to Beijing to tell the party bosses that human rights don’t matter. Our “relationship” is more important than freedom and human dignity.

Beijing’s response? A staged military confrontation with an unarmed US Navy vessel; continued screw-America currency cheating; a renewed crackdown on dissidents and, yesterday, a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar.

Thanks, Hill. You’re a sweetheart.

Pakistan: With viral corruption throughout and Islamist fanatics sweeping half of its territory, Pakistan’s coming apart. Its Dem-adored prez tries to ban opposition parties and gut the judiciary. It has nukes and seethes with hatred of America. And Islamabad controls our primary supply route into Afghanistan, using it as an extortion tool.

Obama’s response? Billions in new aid for Pak pols to pocket. We’d be better off handing the money to AIG to pay out more bonuses.

Afghanistan: Obama’s Vietnam. Am I the only American who remembers that candidate Obama had a plan to capture Osama bin Laden and fix our previous “mistakes” in Afghanistan? President Obama doesn’t have a clue.

Iran: Obama tried to reach out, to talk. After all, talking got him to the White House. But America-bashing is what keeps Iran’s leaders in office, it’s their political essence. After 30 years of fierce hostility, hasn’t anyone figured out that the senior mullahs need us as an enemy? Without the Great Satan America to blame, they’d have some real explaining to do to their homies. So O got the left-hand finger.

He wanted to chat with the Taliban, too. They told him he could stick it where the sun don’t shine.

North Korea: Obama wanted a fresh start. North Korea’s response? Threats of war with South Korea and the kidnapping of two American journalists. And the renewed pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, along with rocket tests.

Cuba: Obama would like to liberalize our relationship. The Castro boys told him to kiss off. They need an enemy, too. (Dear Mr. President: It’s not always about us or how evil America is.)

Venezuela: Guess who else needs an enemy?

Mexico: The good news: Obama knows where it is on a map and recognizes that Mexico’s government faces a narco-insurgency that threatens our country, too. His first action? Cave to the Teamsters, violate a lawful treaty on cross-border trucking, reignite fading anti-Americanism and undercut President Felipe Calderon.

Poland: Obama’s stance on our bravest ally on the European continent? The Russians are more important than you are. He’s sending the same message to Ukraine and Georgia.

Russia: Bolshie Biden, the commuting commissar, knows he’s the man who can turn Russia into our best pal. After “Friend of Bill” Strobe Talbott tried and failed disastrously. And after poor W saw into Putin’s soul, only to get his butt handed to him. “Uncle Joe” Biden has nothing to learn from past failures, though: He’s got a re-set button.

Moscow’s response to the Obama administration’s bid for a new start? It threatens NATO members it once occupied and continues to back Iran’s nuclear program. Plus, it bribes Kyrgystan to kick us off the critical-to-Afghanistan Manas airbase (then offers to help replace that supply lifeline, giving Russia a choke-hold on our troops).

Next, the Kremlin threatens massive re-armament and demands the abandonment of the dollar as the international reserve currency.

Obama’s response? Push that re-set button again. And again.

At what point does naivete become cowardice?

As for our allies, Obama apparently needs them less than Bush did. O treated Britain’s prime minister like the deputy Paraguayan veterinary inspector, and he blindsided the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Mexico and Canada on issues ranging from missile defense to trade. But he’d like them to take the Gitmo terrorists off our hands, please.

The one bright spot thus far has been Iraq, where Obama quickly tossed aside his campaign promises. The O-man doesn’t want to be on the blame-line for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Baghdad. And his MoveOn.org supporters can throw all the tantrums they want. (Breaking news, folks: O’s a professional pol, not the messiah . . . )

Apart from Iraq a success Sen. Obama did all he could to prevent his foreign policy’s an instant wasteland. By comparison, the Carter administration is starting to look like a model of manly strength, courage and patriotism.

Ralph Peters recently became Fox News’ first “strategic analyst.”


Nobel Prize Winners Trash Geitner’s Plan For Toxic Assets


Even the best and brightest brains in economics the Nobel laureates aren’t unanimous on whether the Treasury’s plan to rid banks of toxic assets will rescue the economy.

Debate arose yesterday among the more than 50 living winners of the acclaimed prize, with a lopsided ratio of 9-to-1 giving Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s plan a public thumbs-down.

Three Nobel winners Edward Prescott, president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, and economics Professors Vernon Smith and James Buchanan stood by their joint statement months ago that Congress was playing in fantasyland with the huge bailout.

They call the rescue effort “a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government will help the United States today.”

Nobel winner and Columbia University Professor Edmund Phelps said Geithner’s plan to buy toxic bank assets “is a non-starter” despite its warm reception on Wall Street.

Nobel economist Robert Aumann said efforts by Federal Reserve boss Ben Bernanke “weren’t smart.”

“The intervention by the regulators will lead to further bankruptcies of banks and insurance companies,” he said. “They are only encouraging institutions to take more risks.”

But economist Michael Spence, a co-winner of the 2001 Nobel, came out in support of Geithner, saying his plan “could work.”

“This program is crucially dependent on the private sector,” he said.

But Spence’s co-winner, Joseph Stiglitz, isn’t so sure.

“You can take the bad assets off the banks, but where are they going to go?” Stiglitz told Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, 2008 winner and Princeton University economist Paul Krugman said he’s so sure the Geithner plan will fail “that it fills me with a sense of despair.”


%d bloggers like this: