Hope 'n' Change Fading Overseas Too?!

This good article by noted Arab Neocon Fouad Ajami regarding Obama's declining status in the Arab world motivated me to put together this list of recent articles on the rest of the world's view of Obama.  I'm not totally sure what the rest of the world really thought about the United States electing Obama president.  Did they think that the US was showing that yes, we really are the land of opportunity...for anyone?  Did they think, well, it's great that we don't have to deal with that warmongering, moron-cowboy George Bush anymore?  Did they think, finally someone who will understand us third-world types, taking into account his heritage and upbringing?  I don't know.  What they're finding out for sure is that, well we've elected a kowtowing pussy for one thing, an egotistical ponce for another, and a short-sighted simpleton (from the top article) for a third; and consequently, the high regard the rest of the world had for him at one time seems to be slipping a lot recently.

Compare and contrast subservience and mutual respect.  As I've probably said before, I think that the rest of the world is most happy that the US is being turned back into the Pillsbury Doughboy it was during the Carter and Clinton administrations, not willing to stand up to anybody.  They will never like us, regardless of what we do until we're turned into supine Euro-Socialists or a third world basketcase.  Since they will never like us, it's better that they fear us than laugh at us.  Unfortunately, we now have the Town Fool in the Oval Office.

Who's Going to Pay for Climate Change?

Just saw this piece on my NYTimes app, couldn't wait to get on a computer and talk about it.

First off, I was hoping that China would be as ever non-committal about climate change as they have in the past. This has always been the most effective politically charged attacks against climate change "why should we hold ourselves back as China marches ahead," but this announcement will probably lead the administration to charge forward to Coopenhagen pressing harder for some type of concrete action to reward his environmental-hippy allies. This news might be enough for the administration to think it has the political capital necessary to deflect the current Email debacle.

(But I think the method of making spending for the environment relative to increase in GDP as novel. We should incorporate it domestically for actual environmental programs like Forest Service, Parks, Endangered Spieces protection, fish conservation efforts, etc).

What I've become more concerned with, besides simple Cap-and Trade, is the growing insistence by countries that the West should pay for most of the tab. Brazil has made it's own version of Cap & Trade contigent on foreign funding (slahs and burn deforestation accounting for 75% of it's emissions) China has now come out and said that it won't allow anyone to inspect their compliance with the summit unless it is for efforts that have received foreign funding. Brazil and China represent the two of the largest and most powerful booming economies. It only makes sense for them to want any BS wasteful climate change spending to be done by those eggheads that are foolish to shell it out. While I doubt anything to emerge from the climate summit will be the new large evil international government that many here worry about (if you're worried about this, you should behold the beast of Babylon that emerged from the Montreal Pact, the most successful international environmental pact). I'm worried about the prospect that our Welfare Statist president is going to waste billions of dollars in foreign countries (most importantly China), who don't deserve one god damned cent.

Fortunately, there's good signs this BS is already proving too difficult to maintain. The Aussies are already falling apart over this and shows the consequence of trying to shove environmental programs without working with economic interests.

Healthcare is being picked away over it's run-away spending. if Obama commits to anything in Coopenhagen that further adds to wasteful spending that Washington doesn't have; than we can expect his political support to plummit faster and this summit to be one of the first things to be scrapped under Republican leadership. Maybe a treaty will languish in the Senate long enough for us to pick up a few more seats and ensure it's defeat during the ratification process.

Bombs Over Tehran?

Iran is going to be one of the cases in which we weigh the effects of Soft Power pressure and the speedier results garnered by Hard/military power. The IAEA firmly rebuked Iran yesterday over its Nuclear program. The censure showed a lack of patience that Iran's friends have for the psuedo Rogue state and also increases the legitimacy of sanctions even further down the line, military action.

Although the nytimes doesn't think it is very likely that Russia will get on board for sanctions, there have been signs that they Russian may. This might be one of the few positive consequences for the removal of the Anti-Ballistic-Shield. The lack of full response by the Russians is indicative of the precarious situation they find themselves in diplomatically and a lack of full measured committment for sanctions is logical when they're unsure how far Obama wants to take this. The European position is fixed (England, France, Germany being the only heroes in this process), Russia wavering, China probably unwilling to support sanctions (but I doubt they will stand alone in vetoing sanctions if it comes to a vote in the Security Council), this leaves US. Obama needs to be the one to take the initiative. He has the diplomatic room to wait on his one year deadline for negotiations but I think the humiliating loss by the Iranian rejection of his Uranium shipment proposal leaves him with few options.

I think the disjointed leadership within Iran will make any concessions impossible as the fundamentalists in the military that Ahmadinejad uses as his clientalist allies have firmly rejected accomadation. Thus, new sanctions will inevitably be used. The only question on this front is how far will Russia participate.

Iran will take any sanctions placed against it as a propaganda ploy for people to "stand against the west" but with their already threatened legitimacy at stake following this years elections; the question will be how far is the theocracy willing to compensate deteriorating conditions with force? We immediately think force internally, but it will also be used in an increasingly aggressive bellicose stance against Israel and the US. If the people tolerate the of wealth that accompany sanctions and the repression of the regime than an Israeli attack is the only possible conclusion to this scenario.

Great Way to Run a Government, Mr President

Happy Thanksgiving RTPers!  I just had to make this and the other quick posts before I begin to enjoy Thanksgiving.  Oh, and I'm thankful for this wonderful blog where we can share our opinions and information. 

Anyway, just a quick link to an interesting chart showing the percentage of Cabinet positions from the Private Sector vs the Academic/Government sector in all administrations since Teddy Roosevelt.  A glance will quickly tell you why this adminstration is so riddled with Marxists and incompetents.

Good Summary of the AGW Scam and Implications

The American Thinker has been all over this story.  At the link is a good summary of where we are at this moment.  It describes the problem with the source data (from the AGW alarmists' point of view), the programming used to mask the problems with the data, and who has used these studies to base their 'we're all gonna die' hysterics.

A couple of summary paragraphs:

Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.

But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data (Bud-D: tree-ring data) after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary.  And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result. (Bud-D comment: The scientists are saying that the rules that justified their use of tree-ring data prior to 1960 can be thrown out for the post-1960 period and recorded temperatures used instead. This is similar to Creationists saying, "sure carbon-dating works until 6000 BC, but that's when God changed the rules of physics". The scientists are acting exactly like strict Bible literalist priests here).

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.(bold Bud-D's)

What is distressing for our modern society is the realization that people who claim to be scientists can behave in such an un-scientific manner, in fact that they behave just like the rest of us selfish, greedy, highly-biased humans.  Scientific and technological advancement is based on the Scientific Method of reproduceable results.  The scientists doing this research are usually (by necessity) dealing with highly specialized data and jargon that the layperson can't follow easily or at all.  We trust the scientific/technological community to rigorously fact-check and verify the results before they come to us and say "the universe is not as you know it".  Global Warming alarmists want to fundamentally change our lives, to greatly diminish our standard of living because of the implications of this seriously flawed 'science'.  If we can't trust the Scientific Method to keep their shit straight, we will never be able to trust what they say.  Sort of like what the Main-Stream Media have done to themselves, except with far more serious implications.

Anti White Discrimination

I am doing an argumentative paper in my writing class. I am arguing that whites are more discriminated against in America. During my research I found this funny ass video of a commercial in Italy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-A9orvi85Q&eurl=).
I laughed and grabbed Ashley and had her watch. I dont really think the video supports my argument, but I always give Ashley shit for listening to rap. I tell her she has "jungle fever". This video kind of depicts what she wants.

"'2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis.'"

I don't really feel like posting a long post, since I won't be saying anything new. I found this off of the little out-there WND, but this quote and video comes from the new President of the EU. The video is three minutes long. He also states that, "'The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.'" Why do we need to globally manage a fake crises?

This statement fits perfectly into what Lord Monckton stated. This fits right into the previous post. I think this is interesting because it confirms the fact that the finical crises has changed the nature of the world order and it confirms that the global warming scare is being used to bring about some "global management" of the planet. From various sources I have read and heard, some form of a global government is slowly coming about. The economic crises and global warming are two of the tools that are being used to bring about this global government. When one looks at this from the perspective of the development of civilization, one can see that a global government or a globally connected world is the natural course of events for a civilization. The question is what form will this government take and will it be a beneficial thing? Considering that it is being brought about through deception, GW and the Economic crises that was the result of government action, this government does not look like it will be good for freedom; but will instead take the form that Tocqueville talked about--a mild, meek and savior/parental government. There won't be a complete one-world government anytime soon, but the framework or foundation for such a system is being slowly developed or brought about through deception so that it can be quickly set up in a short period of time when a world-wide crises presents itself--a global economic crises is a real possibility or some war.

AGW Hoaxters Hacked!

In October I posted an article titled "Blowing Man-Made Global Warming Out of the Hot Water".  I linked articles published by the "Watts Up With That" (shown on sidebar) and "Climate Audit" websites that showed that tree-ring data giving 'ManBearPig' Al Gore his famous Hockey Stick temperature spike at the end of the 20th century had been cherry-picked.  Now someone has gone in and hacked the computers at University of East Anglia (in the UK) where these Global Warming hoaxters are employed and shown e-mails of the scientists' scrambling in response to the exposure.  What is alarming is how the 'scientists' (they really are actually) show no hesitation to hide and distort the data presented to the public to defend their views.  This is what RTPers expect of left wing academia, but it is rare that scientific fraud is exposed like this and noteable (but not surprising) that it is applied to one of the left's key agendas.  The Powerline blog has some good articles, which I saw linked at Ace's.  But, it's going all over the internet and has even shown up in the Washington Post.

This should be huge!
Note - This bear will be just fine:

An interesting point of view on the current finical crises.

I got this off of the Glen Beck show. This guy was on the Asian Squawk Box on CNBC. This guy basically said that the current finical crises is leading to a world global currency that will lead to a global realignment under a global world government and a new world order. This is what I was trying to say about the current global finical crises. I don't know the creditability of the guy; but from what I understand about the global finical crises, I would agree to some extent on what this guy says. There is no doubt that the current GFC is leading to some sort of global realignment. I won't make a big post. If one cares, they can watch the four minute video, minute one is a good place to start.

Einstein Explains why Burning Fuels and Splitting Atoms are easily the most efficient ways to Produce Energy

Hint: it involves E = mc^2

A good article in the Energy Tribune where the author takes Einstein's Theory of Relativity and uses it in layman's terms to explain why you are able to get a great big huge hunk o' power by burning stuff or splitting atoms, as opposed to turning wind turbines or water turbines or sucking rays through solar panels, and is one reason why green power is four to five times more expensive than nasty dirty coal power (it would be even more expensive than coal power if the government didn't regulate coal so much).

A couple of key paragraphs drawing on the implications of the equation above:

There is only so much energy we can draw from renewable sources. They are limited, either by the velocities attained, or by the distance that solar energy must travel to reach the earth. So is there anyplace in nature where we can take advantage of that “c2” co-efficient and tap transformations of matter into energy? There is one that we have used through history. It is called “chemistry.”

coupled with:

When we burn a gallon of gasoline, one-billionth of the mass of the gasoline is completely transformed into energy. This transformation occurs in the electron shells. The amount is so small that nobody has ever been able to measure it. Yet the energy release is large enough to propel a 2000-pound automobile for 30 miles – a remarkable feat when you think of it.


Still, electrons make up only 0.01 percent of the mass of an atom. The other 99.99 percent is in the nucleus of the atom. And so the question arose, would it be possible to tap the much greater amount of energy stored in the nucleus the way we tap the energy in the electrons through chemistry?

Read the whole thing and impress your friends with your ability to use Einstein's Theory of Relativity to explain the foolhardiness of wasting money developing vast arrays of wind farms or solar farms, or even hydros when we have plenty of coal and natural gas as well as the ability to develop clean, safe nuclear plants.

Mamma's Pissed

Newsweek didn't surprise me with its new cover story. http://http//news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984

It has Palin lookin bomber than ever and acts like its a bad thing. Newsweek is showing a sexy picture of a woman and then hates on her. Is Newsweek trying to say that women who look good are stupid and incompitent at leadership? Judging the cover of the magazine it only leads me to assume so.

I can't believe Dad was subscribed to this magazine for so many years. Was this a recent change in their journalism agenda? Or have they always been this horrible?

Administrator's Note: ToeJamm, when posting about the person whom the left likes to call Caribou Barbie (which I think sounds pretty hot!) a picture must be posted.  I've taken care of this for you:

Music is as hard as rock

I once heard Bud-D (correct me if I'm wrong) say that downloading music illegally is going to crush the production of music.

I don't think it will hurt the production of music nor the quality. You have to remember that the best artists are very talented and passionate about their art. I was at a open mic night in east portland at The Goodfoot. I didnt expect to see much, but by the end of the night was amazed. There was about six different acts that I saw and they only lasted about three songs long. All but one were better than 95% of music on the radio. One guy played an accordian/base kick drum/snare drum/tamborine/harmonica all at the same time(he switched the right hand to use the tambourine and snare drum) and with him was a cute chick who played violin/vocals. They played remarkably well and in sync. There was other bands too that had great talent. No one got payed a dime.

I was worried that music might lose its steam. But I am now thoroughly convinced that there will always be great music created and performed. It might be slightly harder to find, but then again, taking a ten minute drive to The Goodfoot on wednesday night isnt hard at all.

I might sound like a hippie and have no works cited in this post to add credibility, but I don't think the most talented artists are driven by music at all.

Dobbs Leaves CNN

Just saw this off of Drudge. I don't have a lot of input beyond what is in the article. I'm not that much of a television news watcher and I know Dobbs has made some attacks on the right before. So the RTP interest might be limited, but, at least he was willing to go after stories that CNN "didn't think was news." At least Dobbs can recognize when there's a demand for news from the public irregardless what a media exec thinks. I personally don't care too much about the birther movement, but I respect Dobb's decision to fight internally over it.

Obviously the immigration issue should perk Bud-D's ears up.

One issue in the article, unrelated to Dobbs, that I thought was interesting was CNN's insistence that they are attempting to strike a "middle of the road" stance on news. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't CNN tanking compared to MSNBC and especially Fox? Is this indicative that America is moving in the direction of getting their news from partisan sources?

Happy Birthday Marines!

A confession of a supporter of health care reform.

This is not really anything suprising or new.

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

Well, the President said the same thing. Damn, I thought this was about health care and taking care of the poor pitiful O so poor people and saving babies. Well most people think this and are blinded by the disguise of helping people and taking care of them. How can you be against helping the poor and sick and babies? I have talked to well meaning people that think like this. People are being mislead and misdirected into creating a tyrannical and all controlling government. America is very slowly and very gradually evolving into a welfare state with an large and powerful government. As long as one can work, as a slave does not matter, and make money and watch sports and drink a beer and read my pop culture magazine and watch the movie rewards and American Idol, why would one care? This is a major step to achieving this goal and controlling one sixth of the US economy. The current health care bill won't pass, but something that will eventually lead to, much later down the road, the government being the sole provider of our health care will pass. Come on now. We need to pass this, help them sick folks and babies out. Evil insurance companies and Evil Capitalism are preventing people from getting their health care. Government is going to save us from this!

This Is Rock: The Post Melkor Should Have Written

Melkor was home last Christmas and mentioned a band he thought was really great called Muse. About a month ago, Decoy left a CD of the album The Resistance laying around. I listened to it and understood what Melkor was raving about:

Combining overambitious rock/classical/operatic styles like glam bands Roxy Music & Queen did in their prime with a modern rock attitude, and just as importantly, modern technology, Muse may just be the best band to come around in a couple of generations. Yes, this reviewer is totally bowled over and is wondering if just maybe the rock opera album, The Resistance, is one of the top 5 albums of all time. And they excelled in a genre (the rock opera) that no one except The Who with Tommy and Quadrophenia ever successfully pulled off.

The band is able to pull off rip-roaring rockers (Stockholm Syndrome) as well as classical symphonies (Exogenesis). And the thing is, that symphony isn't a joke. That sounds as legit as anything you'd hear on a classical music station, but with rock drums and guitars mixed in, accentuating it rather than ruining it. Masterful.

Matthew Bellamy seems to be the driving force in the band, being the singer, guitarist, and keyboard player. He is clearly an accomplished classical pianist. I think the one mild criticism is that his voice seems a little weak, but he makes up for it by dripping sincerity and not shying from vocal challenges.

I thought, there's no way they can repeat this stuff live, but I thought wrong. Check out this live performance of Stockholm Syndrome: ass kickin'!

Follow Up On US-Chinese Trade Dispute

In light of other news that dominates the air-waves at the moment, the growing antagonism between US-China trade relations gets a short shrift. The chart on the Financial Times page does a good job displaying the rapid rise in trade disputes between China and the US. When we compare this to the arguments the Left used when defending Obama's decision to slap tariffs on Chinese tires (which were basically that the right was overblowing the issue), we can empirically observe Obama's threat to trade relations between the two countries.

As the tire case was a big victory for the union heavy auto industry, Obama's decision to slap a 99% duty on Steel pipes was a massive gain for the union heavy Steel industry. I think it's quite clear what game Obama is playing and what groups he's willing to protect and serve.

I could write a long rant about what how Obama is a threat to free trade blah blah. But I think we've already gone down that route. What I think would be a bit more interesting is a discussion over the issue of "Dumping" that composes most of Obama's arguments against China (and generally constitutes the majority of our WTO conflict resolution cases) and whether or not it is necessarily bad.

Dumping can take a variety of forms, it can be an export subsidy that a country tags onto a good that plunges the price of the good when it is traded abroad (the justification being, that the reduced price will make it more viable compared to other producers). When exactly this subsidy is placed (either in the production of the good i.e. State artifically lowers the cost of making it, or just as the finished product is about ready to be shipped) doesn't matter so long as the subsidy artificially lowers the price of the good.

Obviously we have a guttural negative reaction to Dumping, but is it actually bad? I mean, when we look at it in the China --> US relationship (Chinese Dumping) the American consumer is the person who benefits. We get to buy goods that are cheaper than they would otherwise be. Chinese consumers actually lose because their taxes are compensating the lower price of the good (and thus, gov't spending creates good/services for the US rather than themselves) AND, because there is less of that good in China (since more Pipes are leaving China to go to America than there would otherwise be at normal market prices) the price of that good will be higher in China (less supply equals increased demand, increased price). So yeah, that's pretty cool if China wants to pay for a discount on our shopping trip while increasing their own.

The major media response (and what you're probably thinking right now) is that such prolonged practices will destroy American/foreign competition and then the Chinese will be able to dominate the supply side and increase their profits in the long run.

However, there's numerous problems with this argument. First off, the threat of being edged out of the market forces our firms and industries to develop new practices/innovation to improve their production of such goods and will actually, in the long run, make them more viable than the subsidy laden industries. Even if our firms shrink, the practices they develop will ensure that when the Dumping subsidies stop and the market price resurfaces (or if the Chinese try to demand higher prices because their competition is less), our firms will be able to produce the good cheaper than the Chinese. Theoretically, the subsides that the Chinese government gives to lower the price should be used for Research and Development to counter this scenario, but in authoritarian gov'ts, subsides frequently feed into an expanded system of graft and corruption that diminishes/negates their long term viability. Also, there's been numerous attempts at Dumping in the past and it is rarely effective at eliminating enough competition to be completely dominant.

Secondly, There's the issue of what Americans get to do with their expanded consumption horizons as we're able to get pipes cheaper than before, the savings from this aren't going to be stagnate but will chase other goods. Maybe cheaper pipes means we can make cheaper houses/buildings, thus leading to more construction contracts? Or maybe I decide to upgrade my computer with the new OSX Snow Leopard from my savings? The possible outcomes of having more pocket change is endless. What we actually have is not a net loss of jobs as the Dumped Good edges itself into the market, but a transition of jobs from one industry to others. why we don't recognize this is because it's easier for the one industry losing jobs to be vocal about their problems compared to the multitude of industries that have benefited. Thus, we think there's only a loss.

Thirdly, and this is the most important in my opinion, Dumping practices are difficult to define and frequently lead to abuse. Is a Chevy car that is exported abroad a dumped good? Because of the bailout it's tough to say what our state to firm relationship is with Chevy. What about the massive grants that the US gives to R&D of a variety of goods? Could this be dumping? I think a determined analyst could point their finger at some point of a good's production cycle and find some type of state intervention. Thus Anti-Dumping policies in the WTO lends itself to abuse, especially by anti-free market politicians. There's a fine line with this argument I know, when we look at the super-rivals of Boeing vs Airbus, state subsidies can have a huge impact on the outcome of the industry (since the industry is largely only made up of two firms), and maybe RTP can explore the topic more.

"Workers of the world unite!" More interesting people in postions of power and influence in our government.

(I am copying this from the Glen Beck show. This video is twenty minutes. The two other videos say the same thing in about three minutes. I saw this and thought it was interesting.)

Andy Stern is the President of the Service Employ International Union. Unions are a means to bring about bigger government. This guy has visited the White House twenty two times. He is working towards building a global organization or as he puts it, " "workers of the world unite". I just finished reading a book on the regimes of Hitler and Stalin and this term was the battle cry of communism and Stalin's goal of a global Bolshevik revolution. Communism in its raw, naked form is dead; but a mild and meek version under the guise of taking care of us is attempting to establish itself in America. To see this just look at some of the people that are in positions of power in our government. The video is one minute and fifteen seconds. I think what this guy is trying to say is fairly obvious.

Have you heard of Anita Dunn the White house communication director? She admires a very interesting person. Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa are her favorite political philosopher and the two people she turns to most. The first two minutes is the relevant part. Mao was a communist that killed between forty and seventy million people. Why would this be here favorite political philosopher? I am trying to understand what she is trying to say from this clip. Maybe she is saying you don't have to follow someone else's path or definition of how to do things but you can admire them?

The manufacturing Czar has some interesting thoughts. I don't know the complete context of what he is talking about. Is he being sarcastic? When I look at what other people in the Obama White House have said, I have some doubts about him being sarcastic or joking here.

Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to gain the system. To beat the market or at least find someone who will pay a lot of money cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know it is largely about power, that it's an adult only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely comes from the barrel of a gun, and we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.

The free market is nonsense?

The list of people with an affinity for communism in positions of power in our government keep growing. When will the list end? A part of me wants to hopes these quotes are taken out of context. It looks like with the results of these current elections that the public opinion is changing and these people are running out of time; but the Left's goal of bringing about this form of government will never end, and I believe this goal will eventually be realized in some form at a much later date. I guess the election of Obama shows how people react when it seems like the economy is crumbling and things seem very bad--they elect a charismatic-savior-like leader with an affinity for communism that can speak well , has rock star power, has a nice slogan with a nice and catchy ring, and wants to fundamentally transform America. I hope all of this debt doesn't create an even worse economic situation or even an economic collapse. Who will the people elect to fix that mess?

London Times Commentary on Replacement of Dollar

The Times has a good article on why there really is no substitute for the dollar, even if everyone wants to bring the US down a peg. A good article for us all.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6888848.ece

WSJ: Worst Bill Ever

Another article on a matter that the RTPers are weak on: the Health Care issue. The Wall Street Journal says of Pelosi's Health Care Bill

but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Wow. That's about as serious a slam as is possible to make. What is so maddening is how effortlessly the Democrats shade and hide the truth to get their bill passed.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

Read the whole thing. Get some learnin'. Good stuff.