Archive for 01/25/2010

Monday, January 25, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. addresses the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting in Washington on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2010. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that the issue of job creation has “permeated” the efforts of congressional Democrats over the past year. Pelosi’s statement stands in stark contrast to a bleak jobs year that saw unemployment rise to over 10 percent.

“The jobs issue has permeated everything, [every] major initiative that we have,” Pelosi said at her weekly press briefing Thursday. The speaker outlined the various proposals that she said had pulled the economy “back from the brink” over the past year.

“With the recovery package, we not only created jobs – about 2 million saved or created with more being rolled out – but pulled us back from the brink of even deeper recession. In his [President Obama’s] budget, which we passed one hundred days after his swearing-in, he had a blueprint for how we go into the future, create jobs, stabilize the economy [and] do so as we reduce the deficit – [it’s] very central to everything we do – reduce the deficit.

“And three central pillars to that, to create jobs, are investment in education to produce innovation for the 21st Century, investments in health care to lower its cost, and it’s a competitiveness issue as well as a health issue, and that’s important to business, and then to have a new green energy policy to create new good jobs.”

Pelosi claimed that Congress’ focus had “always” been about jobs and deficit reduction.

“So it’s always been about jobs and deficit reduction,” she said. “Perhaps we haven’t been clear enough about the purpose and focus of the connection of creation of jobs and reductions of [the] deficit in our initiatives.”

The results of Pelosi’s year-long “focus” on job creation does not seem to have born much fruit, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) – which compiles jobless claims and other employment data.

By the end of 2009, the national unemployment rate had risen to 10 percent, two percentage points higher than Democrats claimed it would go after passing $787 billion in stimulus spending – the goal of which, as Pelosi pointed out – was to create or save 2 million jobs.

In fact, unemployment continued to rise despite congressional attempts to create jobs. According to BLS figures, unemployment was 7.7 percent in January, when Obama took office and Pelosi gaveled Congress into session. By March, after passage of the stimulus, unemployment had risen to 8.6 percent.

By August 2009, despite tens of billions in government stimulus spending, unemployment had climbed to 9.7 percent before reaching 10.1 percent in October. By year’s end, unemployment held steady at 10 percent for the third straight month.

Despite Pelosi’s claim that stimulus spending had “saved or created” 2 million jobs, BLS figures show that, in fact, the number of unemployed Americans did not shrink at all during 2009, nor did the number of employed Americans grow. According to BLS, the number of employed Americans in January 2009 was 142.2 million and the number of unemployed Americans was 11.9 million.

By March, the number of employed people had fallen to 140.8 million while the number of unemployed had risen to 13.3 million. By December – despite tens of billions in stimulus spending – the number of employed Americans had fallen to 137.8 million while the number of unemployed Americans had risen to 15.3 million.

A total of 3.9 million people lost their jobs in 2009, according to BLS.

Advertisements

Monday, January 25, 2010 09:44 AM

By: Dan Weil

The dollar is on its way out, and the euro is on its way in as the world’s main reserve currency, says David Roche, global strategist at Independent Strategy.

The euro will take over because Europe has a more solid fiscal policy than the U.S., he says.

“We’ll actually produce a much stronger fiscal balance, a much better debt-to-GDP ratio within the euro zone,” said Roche, former global strategist at Morgan Stanley.

While many experts have said the deteriorating finances of Greece and several other countries in the euro zone put the entire European Monetary Union at risk, Roche disagrees, CNBC reported.

He thinks the stronger European nations will refuse to bail out the weak, boosting the euro.

“The Germans . . . are not prepared to put up with this sort of shenanigans and straight outright mendacity which they have had to endure from the likes of Greece. So what they are doing is hanging Greece out to dry.”

So Germany will guide Europe back to fiscal balance, while the U.S. continues to rack up huge budget deficits, Roche maintains.

The U.S. deficit totaled $1.4 trillion last year.

Not everyone is so optimistic about the euro.

Charles Dumas, chief economist of esteemed Lombard Street Research in London, says the euro zone will definitely collapse.

“The longer it lasts, the more painful the ultimate exit will be,” he told Bloomberg.

“These economies simply don’t belong together.”
© Moneynews. All rights reserved.

ONE NEWS NOW

Becky Yeh – OneNewsNow – 1/24/2010 4:50:00 AM

California Republicans have joined other party faithful across the country in celebrating the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts and believe it will be the political stimulus the GOP needs heading into this Fall’s election.

Paul Lindsay, spokesman for the GOP committee told the Washington Post that Democrats may have more difficulty winning the upcoming elections in the Golden State.
“The message of Massachusetts is clear: no Democrat is safe,” Lindsay said. “We’re already seeing the ripple effects.”

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, California Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy told the press that 2010 may be the year for the GOP.
McCarthy, who is currently recruiting candidates to run for the House, stated that Brown’s win created an opportunity for the Republican Party, and that Republicans had the ability to win the California majority.
“The people are tired of not being listened to,” McCarthy said. “They are tired of being told what to think. This administration was elected on a promise of hope and change, and the public has realized the change that has been delivered is not the change they had thought they were electing back a year ago.”
California Senate Candidate Tom Campbell also commented on rival Democratic candidate Boxer- criticizing Boxer for her abuse of federal tax money and stating that he was the only candidate proven to fight federal spending.
Boxer however, did not seem intimidated by a possible Republican ripple effect. In an interview with Southern California Public radio, Boxer responded to the Brown upset, stating that although Brown won a largely Democratic Massachusetts, the same may not be true in California.
“Every one of my races has been really hard,” Boxer said. “So before Massachusetts results, after Massachusetts, it’s all the same for me.”

Posted by Bobby Eberle
January 20, 2010 at 9:11 am

>> Printer-Friendly Version

He did it! Massachusetts State Sen. Scott Brown did what no one thought possible. On Tuesday night, Brown defeated Democrat opponent Martha Coakley to win the special election for the Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy.

The victory was not only a nuclear bomb blast to the perfect, government-controlled world envisioned by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, but it was also a wake-up call to the Republican Party. Brown’s campaign was a blueprint in a “blue” state. It’s a blueprint that, if followed, could lead to dramatic victories in 2010 and beyond.

The Senate race was supposedly a slam dunk for the Democrats. Martha Coakley was a shoo-in for the seat in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one. However, when the dust settled, Brown was the winner with 52% of the vote to Coakley’s 47%. Brown pulled in 1,168,107 votes to 1,058,682 for Coakley.

During his acceptance speech, Brown made a number of statements which summarized his campaign, the mood of the Massachusetts voters, the mood of Americans across the country, and reasons why Obama and his left-wing radicals should be scared:

  • “I’ll bet they can hear all this cheering down in Washington, D.C. And I hope they’re paying close attention, because tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken.”
  • “I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party – and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people’s seat.”
  • “When I first started running, I asked for a lot of help, because I knew it was going to be me against the machine. I was wrong, it was all of us against the machine. And after tonight we have shown everyone that – now – you are the machine.”
  • “We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, there’s trouble everywhere – and now they know it.”
  • “In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn’t worry about their party affiliation, and they didn’t worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.”
  • The above quotes are just a sampling, but they point to two strong messages that must not be ignored if conservatives and the Republican Party want to score more victories.

    Point #1 — Us Against the machine

    Brown struck a note with voters by signaling that he is “one of them.” That the real opponent was not Martha Coakley but rather the political machine that is Washington, DC. But it is more than that. The “machine” also refers to political parties, Republican or Democrat, when they try to subvert the will of the people to get their pet issue passed, their candidate anointed, or keep the perks in place. The American people are sick and tired of it. This is a bottom up country, not top down. A revolution was fought on that very principle, and it is part of the very fabric of our nation.

    Point #2 — Putting People First

    While the media referred to the Senate seat as “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” Brown saw things more clearly. It is the “people’s seat.” American’s don’t want socialism. They don’t want an all-mighty government. They want the America that has become the most powerful and most generous in the world. Putting people first does NOT mean having a central government that does everything FOR the people by taking money and power away from them to distribute to the programs, causes, people, and jobs that the “government” says are worthy. Putting people first means adhering to the notion that this is a FREE country with Americans free to pursue the American dream without being penalized for it. Putting people first means respecting the role of government and limiting it to the core functions for which it was created. The American people can do the rest.

    As Scott Rasmussen notes in his report on the election, “Brown pulled off the upset in large part because he won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. The senator-elect also picked up 23% of the vote from Democrats.”

    Congratulations to Scott Brown. He ran on a simple, conservative platform. Though he distanced himself from the party machine, he did not distance himself from conservatism. The Issues page on his web site is a clear embrace of low taxes, free enterprise, no ObamaCare, no amnesty, and putting people first, not government. If that’s not a blueprint for success, I don’t know what is.

    Progressives Call On Obama To Fire Rahm Emanuel

    Posted: 01/25/2010 by thecajunfreak in Tea Party's

    Live Free in an Unfree World.

    January 25, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk

    Progressives call on Obama to fire Rahm Emanuel President Obama’s long-time friend and political ally Rahm Emanuel has come under fire from a liberal group that claims the White House Chief of Staff has mishandled major issues on the president’s agenda.

    Citing Obama’s falling popularity ratings and the Democrats’ growing political woes—most recently represented by their loss of the supermajority in the Senate after the Massachusetts special elections—the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) has urged its members not to support the former Illinois congressman if he ever runs for public office again.

    In particular, the group has attacked Emanuel for teaming up with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to give up on the public option, and for helping to put together deals with the drug companies in exchange for their support.

    “There’s nobody in Washington who caves at the slightest hint of a fight with corporate interests more than Rahm Emanuel,” said PCCC co-founder Adam Green, quoted by CNN.

    “We’re making clear to Rahm that when he undermines progressives and the overwhelming will of the American people on issues like the public option, he will pay a political price back home,” he added.

    Writing for Progressive.org, editor Matthew Rothschild also alluded to the 10 percent unemployment rate and blamed Emanuel for it, saying he pushed Obama to reject the calls of Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, two Nobel Prize-winning economists, for a bigger stimulus package.

    MSNBC initiates attack against … MSNBC!

    Posted: 01/25/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

    Network chief stomps on in-company criticism of Olbermann’s ‘teabagger’ rant


    Posted: January 24, 2010
    6:46 pm Eastern

    By Aaron Klein
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily


    Keith Olbermann

    MSNBC President Phil Griffin slammed one of his network’s on-air personalities for denouncing fellow MSNBC host Keith Olbermann’s personal attacks on Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown.

    In an official MSNBC memo, Griffin warned, “We do not publicly criticize our colleagues,” but did not address Olbermann’s remarks about Brown that first prompted the opposition.

    Olbermann last Monday described Brown as “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

    In response, “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough used his Twitter account to blast Olbermann’s rant.

    “How reckless and how sad,” Scarborough wrote. “It is no longer enough to simply disagree with someone. These days some feel the need to call opponents evil. It happens on both extremes.”

    Continued Scarborough: “Just as when [Fox News host Glenn] Beck called the president racist, this sort of rhetorical extremism must be discouraged. It cheapens the debate.”

    Will the jokers in the news media ever do their job correctly? Read THE YEAR THE MEDIA DIED: How 2008 presidential election demolished credibility of ‘mainstream’ press

    Griffin then fired off the memo, denouncing not Olbermann’s remarks, but Scarborough’s, as “unprofessional.”

    Olbermann on Friday night apologized for his comments about Brown one day after the remarks were highlighted by “Daily Show” anchor and comedian Jon Stewart.

    In his program, Stewart branded Olbermann’s remarks as “the harshest description of anyone I’ve ever heard uttered on MSNBC.”

    “You know what, you’re right,” Olbermann responded on air. “I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.”

    MSNBC president Griffin released an internal memo on Friday obtained by the Huffington Post addressing only Scarborough’s criticism of Olbermann.

    Griffin’s full memo stated:

    MSNBC is THE place for viewers to get the best political analysis and opinion in today’s vast marketplace of ideas. We don’t tell our hosts what to say. We don’t have talking points. We encourage our talent to voice their opinions strongly and smartly, always rooted in fact. All of this has brought us great success, culminating in last year’s victory over CNN.

    Hosts strongly voicing their OWN opinions can no-doubt lead to spirited, substantive disagreements. This debate is encouraged. What we’re doing at MSNBC is something our competition is not. And it is difficult. We have many strong personalities with differing, passionate opinions, but it is important to remember that we are all on the same team. I want to reiterate my long-standing policy: We do not publicly criticize our colleagues. This kind of behavior is unprofessional and will not be tolerated.

    Let me be clear: I encourage you to keep doing what you do best. Give the viewers your perspective and a vigorous debate on the issues they care about. But do not turn substantive differences into personal ones.

    Hawaii launches defense to Obama birth queries

    Posted: 01/25/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

    Posts ‘vital records’ Web page saying responses ‘not’ required


    Posted: January 24, 2010
    7:25 pm Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    It could be that the state of Hawaii is overwhelmed by – or is just annoyed at – the number of inquiries about the birth records of President Obama

    .

    The state has launched a new Web page with the information it wants the public to know about its Obama records, including the fact that state law does not “require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”

    After all, a new poll confirms just 51 percent of Americans believe Obama eligible for the office he now holds.

    The recent WND/Wenzel Poll indicated 32.6 percent of Americans said they do not consider Obama a “legitimate” president and another 15.8 percent said they were unsure. The poll updated a survey six months ago in which most Americans said they were aware of the dispute.

    The Hawaiian records make up the core of the issue over challenges to Obama’s eligibility, since an original long-form birth certificate including the name of the doctor, the hospital and other details, presumably could document whether he qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement the president be a “natural born citizen.”

    See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.

    WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

    WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

    Hawaii’s new web page states state law requires government records to be open to public inspection “unless access is restricted or closed by law.”

    “The [Uniform Information Practices Act] does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure … nor does it require to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”

    The Web page also issues several warnings. “Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH,” it states.

    Further, “The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request,” it says.

    State officials did not respond to WND questions about the information on the page.

    But it appears unlikely a website statement will defuse the controversy.

    At the time of the election, the state’s director of health, Chiyome Fukino, said:

    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

    Months later she added another comment:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    But even those statements have since been cited as a reason that state officials owe the public more information.

    At one point, Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, said Hawaii’s laws require disclosure of information “collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.”

    He and several other Obama critics raised the suggestion that if a birth certificate was used to support Fukino’s statements, the record itself should be public.

    The Hawaiian web page primarily links to the rules and regulations the state is using in defense of its decision not to release definitive information.

    Under the state’s law addressing records, exceptions are made for government records that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.

    But the page explains any disclosure “shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.”

    Department spokesman Janice Okubo previously told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure. But she admitted the law allows a challenge to such decisions in the courts.

    In fact, the law states, “A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure. … The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.”

    WND also has reported suggestions from Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, that legislation could be adopted to release Obama’s birth records and satisfy critics.

    Espero told WND at the time his idea would be aimed at “giving citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records, including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii.

    “My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama’s birth records and the lingering questions,” Espero said.

    Espero told WND he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    “My motivation is strictly to promote transparency,” he said. “When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, ‘Why wouldn’t they be available to the public?’ As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain.”

    Another major question remaining is why a birth location for the president hasn’t yet been celebrated.

    WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has offered a $15,000 donation to the hospital listed on Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

    “All he or the hospital or the state of Hawaii would have to do to claim the prize is show the American public the document that should have been produced long ago to claim the presidency as a natural born citizen,” he wrote earlier this month.

    “Think about it. Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961. His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Instead, he has released to select news organizations and posted on the Internet a document that could never serve as proof he was born in the United States – a so-called ‘certification of live birth,’ a digital document that could, can and has been obtained by people who were actually born outside the country. The American people can never be certain their president is legitimate constitutionally without proof,” he continued.

    WND also previously reported when several news agencies went into their archives to change their references to Obama’s birth location.