End Free Speech and Use a Crisis To Demonize!

Always use a crisis to demonize. For The Far Left playing the blame game is so much fun and so unprofessional. Free speech is dangerous and leads to bad consequences.

END FREE SPEECH NOW!

Some of the mindless reaction to the senseless murders in Arizona leaves me shaking my head. One of my very astute friends and fellow memo readers asked me if, God forbid, a corporate executive, a banker or Wall Street type was shot would Obama be blamed for calling them Fat Cats?

My response was probably not because they deserve to be in "... the back of the bus."

A Rep. from Pa. wants to submit legislation which will ostensibly eliminate the First Amendment in order to protect politicians as if it would. Perhaps cooler Democrat heads will prevail and muzzle him.

Professor Krugman reacted in typical Liberal knee jerk fashion and blamed, in a piece I posted yesterday, Conservatives. I have written many times, ideologically committed extreme Liberals tend to be humorless souls and beyond the ability to engage in rational discourse. Krugman was kind enough to validate my thinking.

If you disagree with Far Left thinking they categorize you as a hater and/or bigot and certainly stupid for not acknowledging the brilliance of their solutions.

The young punk who killed people in Arizona was a loner, a pot user and a mental case. These types walk and live amongst us and anything can 'trigger' them to commit heinous crimes (Wallace, Kennedy, King, Reagan and that Beatle fellow etc.) America has a history of individual lawlessness. I live in a state where an innocent man was dragged from jail and hung and black citizens were constantly killed, harassed and deprived of their rights by sheeted pin heads.

If I understand what the fear mongers and extreme Far Left are selling it is that we must get rid of free speech so as not to set off a nut case or perhaps we could activate another Japanese internment and round up all those with whom we disagree and put them in detention - maybe Guantanamo.

One sane piece of legislation would be to prevent insane people from buying guns but I am sure they could probably find weapons if they truly wanted them.

No doubt cooler and more rational heads will eventually prevail and the fact that they will is what continues to make this a pretty sane nation inhabited by one too many nut cases. (See 1 and 1a below.)
---
A speech Rep.'Gabby' Giffords gave during her 2006 campaign. Perhaps her undaunting support of Israel and love of our country upset her attacker. (See 2 below.)
---
I have written that stock prices are modestly elevated. Earnings have advanced because corporations have held down costs thereby, increasing productivity.

Going forward the problem is you can fire an employee only once. We are also discovering when the unemployed do get re-hired they are receiving less pay. Thus the prospect of our living standard declining is also part of the new economic equation.

Granted corporations are flush with money and will spend some on deferred research and productivity enhancing equipment but as long as employment remains stressed I have also consistently asked where will the surge in demand come from and thus, a sustained tilt in earnings to justify a much higher market.(See 3 below.)
---
Sent to me by a dear friend, a fellow memo reader and someone who reads the New York Times but who I have convinced should read the Wall Street Journal. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Free Speech in the Crosshairs
By Joe Herring

This can't be happening again. A terrible tragedy, followed by vile recrimination and politically motivated accusations. Were no lessons learned after the slander of conservatives following the Oklahoma City bombing? Aside from the terrible specter of psychotic gunmen legislating with bullets, we now have to deal with the inanities of shameless members of the nattering class in a redux of the Clinton blame-game.


In a "Special Comment" segment aired the day of the Giffords shooting, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann began his segment by laying the blame for this shooting at the feet of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and others. Olbermann apologized for using harsh rhetoric himself in the past, and then he proceeded to posit that the shooter fell "victim to a thousand little temptations to violence" proffered by "only slightly less crazy" right-wingers on talk radio and television.


Democrat Senator Dick Durbin spouted on CNN that it is the language of the right and the imagery used by Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers that are catalysts for this sort of incident. Steny Hoyer, appearing on "Face the Nation," had apparently read the same talking points, as his remarks were uncannily similar to Senator Durbin's. Pennsylvania Representative Robert Brady (D) has already proposed legislation that would make it a "crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or violent against a federal official."


Sarah Palin used a very effective image during the last election targeting members of Congress who she felt needed to be defeated for election or reelection. The image placed a "crosshairs," such as would be seen through a gun-scope, on the map locations of their congressional districts. This is the "dangerous right-wing imagery" the left is claiming as incitement to assassination.


Even before the identity of the shooter was known, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had already blamed Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and anyone else to the right of himself for creating a political climate not seen since the days preceding the Oklahoma City bombing.


When media partisans are not openly claiming that conservatives in general and Tea Party supporters in particular are the real perpetrators of this atrocity, they are insinuating it. Following the shopworn liberal script, the blame for the crime is swiftly being shifted from the criminal to the bystander.


Admirably, former political advisor and current CNN news analyst David Gergen called out his colleagues for their irresponsible furthering of this libelous narrative. Of course, many in the media won't let facts get in the way of a good story. It appears to be evident from what is known thus far about the shooter, Jared Loughner, that he is most definitively not a Tea Partier. His choice of literature has been cited in news reports as being indicative of his politics. He listed Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto among his favorite books, seemingly indicating a leftist worldview.


To get a better handle on this, however, it is necessary to look at some of the other books listed: Animal Farm, Brave New World, To Kill a Mockingbird, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. This reading list would seem more suited to an anarchic personality -- someone with real problems in accepting or perhaps wielding authority. The common thread running through all these books is institutional control and the role of individuals in succumbing to or rising above the collective.


Regardless, we conservatives are being backed into a media-developed trap, forcing us to defend our rights to speak and gather while partisans in the government and media try to cast those activities as the functional equivalent of a hundred Safeway massacres. Bill Clinton used this tactic to great effect after Oklahoma City. It nearly led to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine and proved to be a pivot-point for federal and state regulation of extremist groups, paramilitary militias, and law-abiding gun owners.


These groups were already targets of the left, but Clinton, using the bully-pulpit of the presidency, drafted many liberal and moderate Republicans to provide bipartisan cover for what would essentially become a "pogrom" against legitimate gun-owners, peaceful militia groups, and ordinary folks who just wanted to be left alone by their government.


Does anyone really believe that a similar effort by Obama and his supporters would not be pressed much farther, last far longer, and result in much greater loss of freedoms for the American people? I shudder at the eventual answer to that question.


Leading conservatives in the media should now be preparing their defense, both figuratively and literally. The trial in the media is already underway on MSNBC. This narrative has even jumped the "pond," showing up as the lead story in a major British newspaper.


Senator Lamar Alexander made a good first effort at defense during the previously mentioned exchange on CNN with Senator Durbin. Responding to the host, Candy Crowley, Alexander rightfully suggested that one very good way to diminish any potential negative impact that talk radio rhetoric and images like the "crosshairs" might have on politics would be to "quit bringing it up...stop trying to tie it into every story." Good advice, to be sure, but not likely to be taken by a controversy obsessed media that is in the business of "creating" news.


It would be foolish to think that this reprehensible incident of violence will not be used to political effect by some in the Democratic Party. There will, of course, be endless hearings and largely useless "blue-ribbon panel-izing" for the next several months, perhaps even into the next presidential election cycle, as Democrats use their wounded colleague as a trump card against any speech or activities that are effective against their agenda. "Apparently, my opponent wishes to engage in the sort of speech that has spurred violence in the past. When will they ever learn that words hurt, and even kill?" will be the mantra, intoned at every opportunity and aped by a supine media anxious to appear grave and consequential.


It is always wise to be aware of how our exhortations might be used to lethal purpose, and in large part, this is a dictum faithfully followed by major opinion-makers without the heavy hand of government involvement. For example, Rush Limbaugh is an artist at illustrating the idiocy of his opponents' policies without demonizing them as people. His imitations of Bill Clinton are the stuff of legend, never failing to bring a laugh and make a point, while leaving the listener with no hint of dislike for the former president as a man. In contrast, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz of MSNBC behave as if conservatives are not merely incorrect in their opinions, but are downright evil for having them -- a distinction with a world's worth of difference.


The bitter, pinched personality of the hardcore progressive is the seedbed of political violence in our nation today. I've written previously about the revolutionary intentions of the left in this country, and just a few days ago, the high priestess of leftist agitation, Francis Fox Piven, called for "violent...bloody revolution." Republicans need to get ahead of the coming slander. Let your congressperson know that you won't tolerate your freedom of speech being limited because of the actions of a madman, or by the design of media/political charlatan.

1a)Stop the Blame Game
The Giffords shooting brought out the best from politicians and the worst from the media.
By Josh Kraushaar,

I’m not a media critic and never will be, but this has not been a shining 48 hours for my profession. Following the shooting that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., gravely wounded and six bystanders murdered at a Tucson shopping center, the media have spent as much time trying to assign political blame for the cause of the shooting as they have trying to unearth facts. As it turns out, the murderer is a mentally unstable individual, with no coherent political ideology.

For all the blame placed on politicians for their aggressive political rhetoric, the media have been just as guilty in promoting crude political discourse and conflict. I’m not just talking about the Glenn Becks and Keith Olbermanns of the world, but news coverage that elevates conflict over substance and encourages contentious arguments over thoughtful discussion.

And in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, the media’s worst tendencies were on display, from the onset of the crisis when several outlets inaccurately reported that Giffords had died, to the immediate, unwarranted assumption that the killer was associated with the tea party.

Ironically, even as politicians have been scrutinized for overheated rhetoric, it's the political class that reflected the country's mood best in the aftermath of this weekend's senseless shootings. From President Obama's pitch-perfect speech to the nation, to House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi working together to reassure members and staff, there was little hint of the blame game that fueled much of the media's coverage.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that overheated political vitriol played virtually no role in Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting spree. His political thinking is hardly coherent, and his obsession with Giffords predated the tea party and Sarah Palin’s emergence in national politics. One of his few close friends told Mother Jones that he became fixated on the congresswoman when he asked her a question at a 2007 town hall about "the government having no meaning" and felt she didn’t answer. His killing spree wasn’t motivated by disagreement with her positions on health care or immigration.

Based on the available evidence, Loughner sounds like someone with untreated mental illness, whose grasp of reality grew ever more tenuous with time. He fits the profile of someone whose horrific shooting spree didn't have to be triggered by any provocative political rhetoric in the news.

But even with those facts out there, it didn’t stop numerous media outlets from connecting his beliefs to politics -- and isn’t stopping the continued rush to politicize this tragic event. The fervor to fit such craziness into a political matrix is regrettable, and, sadly, contributes to the overheated political environment that many in the media are condemning in the first place.

Much of the broadcast and print coverage over the weekend was devoted to decrying the state of political discourse, despite its tenuous connection to the shootings. Politico immediately ran several stories putting the shooter and his rampage in a political context, including one quoting a Democratic strategist -- anonymously -- arguing that this was a golden opportunity to “pin this on the tea partiers.” This, just 24 hours after Giffords was gravely wounded. Where’s the outrage?

To be sure, the increasingly strident tone of politicians -- on both sides of the aisle -- is a worthy topic of discussion. But in the aftermath of the shooting, there are much more relevant issues that should have been debated: in particular, how to better identify and treat those afflicted with serious mental illness and how to prevent guns from getting into their hands. I heard very little of that discussed in the aftermath of the shooting.

Violent metaphors are all over our culture, in politics and outside of it, and that won’t be changing anytime soon. The political lexicon is awash in gun metaphors -- from campaign committee lists of top “targets” to political “showdowns” to “battleground districts” to challengers “playing defense,” just to name a few. If this were a crime, the political media would be as guilty as anyone.

(In fact, on the morning of the shooting, the New York Post ran a front-page photo of Peyton Manning with a bull's-eye over him, before the day’s big playoff game. No one blinked an eye, or thought it was a call for New York Jets fans to murder the Indianapolis Colts quarterback.)

The other lesson learned from the coverage of this awful tragedy is that it’s better to be right than first -- a challenge in a journalism culture that increasingly rewards speed over substance. In the rush to break news as the crisis unfolded, several major media outlets inaccurately reported that Giffords had died. Others later inaccurately reported that Giffords was speaking after her surgery on the day of the attack. It raises questions about news organizations' standards for what’s allowed on air or online.

Those standards have been in decline, and go beyond reporting inaccurate information. Far too often, we give serious leeway for sources to anonymously attack their opponents. It makes for sexier stories but further coarsens the discourse in Washington.

Far too often, we rush to report campaign attacks on candidates without verifying their validity and without even getting a response. Campaigns and national party committees know that news outlets are hungry for sensational material, and they exploit that.

By all means, let’s encourage civility in politics; it’s long overdue. But let’s also take steps to ensure that the same rules of engagement apply to a 24-7 media culture that has fed off the conflict culture that it decries.


2) My grandfather, Akiba Hornstein, was the son of a Lithuanian rabbi. My grandfather changed his name to Giff Giffords for reasons of anti-Semitism and moved to Southern Arizona from New York more than a half century ago. In the 1940s, he founded my family’s tire and automotive business, El Campo Tire, which grew into a successful and thriving business for 50 years, which I ran for several years before serving in the Arizona Legislature.

Growing up, my family’s Jewish roots and tradition played an important role in shaping my values. The women in my family served as strong role models for me as a girl. In my family, if you want to get something done, you take it to the women relatives! Like my grandmother, I am a lifetime member of Hadassah and now a member of Congregation Chaverim.

When I served in the State Senate in Arizona , I had the opportunity to visit Jerusalem . It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I had the opportunity to meet with the then-mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, and I got to see firsthand the sacrifices that Israelis make in the name of security because of the dangerous state of affairs there.


I will always be a strong supporter of Israel . As the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a vital strategic ally of the United States . I believe the United States must do everything possible to secure Israel ’s long-term security and achieve a lasting peace in the region. The failure of the current administration [2006 – meaning, the Bush Administration] to continue the peace process has been a loss to America and Israel. That is why we need a new direction in Washington .

Peace between Israel and her neighbors can only be achieved by direct talks between the parties. Until the Palestinian leadership and other hostile regimes are willing to accept Israel ’s right to exist, it will be impossible to achieve peace. I believe that the United States can help by providing a mediator who can be trusted by both sides, like former President Bill Clinton. It’s an approach that worked in achieving a peaceful settlement to the violence in Northern Ireland . People in the Middle East need to know that the U.S. is serious about the peace process.

We cannot forget our past. I have worked to protect the rights of Holocaust survivors in our state. In 2002, I sponsored legislation that was signed into law by Governor Jane Hull, and unanimously approved by the Senate, to allow victims of the Holocaust, or their heirs, to collect insurance claims (HB 2541). It re-opened the statute of limitations for these claims. My opponent, Randy Graf, was one of only 13 legislators to oppose this bill.

As a woman and as a Jew, I will always work to insure that the United States stands with Israel to jointly ensure our mutual safety, security, and prosperity. I invite you to visit

www.giffordsforcongress.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Profits Face Headwinds
By PAUL VIGNA and JOHN SHIPMAN

Companies start reporting final 2010 earnings in earnest this week, but the gains should peak this quarter then level off as high unemployment and new headwinds restrain further business profit gains.

Pressures from rising costs and tougher comparisons are draining the momentum from corporate profits. While some businesses should see a modest boost this year from new tax-law depreciation changes, big profit gains are largely behind many industries.

.This week, Alcoa Inc. and Intel Corp. are expected to report markedly higher profits for the final quarter of 2010. Overall, fourth-quarter profits are projected to jump 9.8% from a year ago, continuing the streak of rising earnings that helped send the Dow Jones Industrial Average this month to levels not seen since May 2008.

But barring an unexpected acceleration in the economy, industries such as airlines, food, construction and telecommunications that have lagged the recovery, could remain under pressure. The airline industry, for instance, just posted its first full year of profit in four years, but now faces sharply higher costs for jet fuel and labor pressures.

The end of the sharp profit recovery has implications for businesses and investors. Standard & Poor's now expects reported profits for S&P 500-Index members will hit a three-year peak this quarter, and move slightly lower for the next five quarters. Earnings for the S&P 500 companies are expected to hit $22.62 a share, up 29% from a year ago and off a deep loss in late 2008.

The reasons profits may plateau lies with the state of the U.S. work force. Unemployment remains high and wage growth sluggish; both will keep a lid on domestic demand.

The economy added only 103,000 jobs in December, and 1.1 million for the year, the Labor Department reported Friday. While the consensus is that hiring in 2011 will improve over 2010's rate, many still expect the unemployment rate will remain stuck at about 9% through year end, extending what is already a record, 20-month-long streak above that level.

"The big decline in the jobless rate to 9.4% from 9.8% was due to a third consecutive decrease in the labor force, again not a sign that people are seeing their job prospects increase," said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities.

At the current rate of hiring, warned Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday, "we're not going to see sustained declines in the unemployment rate."

Sales of some big-ticket goods could see a modest boost from a new, 100% tax write-off for capital expenditures in effect for the next two years. The hope is the tax break, which took effect Jan. 1, will spur business investment and lead to more hiring.

"It clearly will promote capital spending in 2011," said Novellus Systems Inc. Chief Executive Richard Hill. He expects the deduction will accelerate the purchase of new business PCs, indirectly benefiting the sale of its chip-making equipment. "PCs will remain very strong [in 2011]," he said.

FedEx Corp. said it may increase the number of cargo jets it buys over the next 18 months as a result of the change. The tax bill's accelerated depreciation "will have a favorable impact on cash flow," said spokesman Jess Bunn.

However, other say the impact will be modest. "This is not going to be a tremendous boon in terms of economic boost," said Andy Hammons, a principal in the federal income tax practice at tax services firm Ryan LLC. "It's going to be an advantage for companies already planning to spend in 2011."

The tax write-off should help corporate revenue continue to chug higher even if profits plateau. S&P 500 revenues excluding financial and utility companies, are projected to rise 6.9% for the quarter ended Dec. 31. That modest sales boost could help offset any ding from higher materials costs.

The Fed's second round of monetary easing, scheduled to run through June, also should help support the stock market at its current levels. The wealth effect, increased consumer spending spurred on by higher stock market and other asset prices, has bolstered retailers, hotels and leisure goods companies.

In a generally improved but hardly robust holiday season, luxury-goods peddlers continued their strong comeback. Saks Inc. posted an 11.8% gain in December at stores open at least a year, well above the 3.9% gain that analysts had expected. Nordstrom Inc. reported an 8.4% increase, ahead of a 3.4% forecast.

Sectors that produced hot gains in 2010 such as financial, energy and materials sectors should cool off this year, while last year's relative underperformers such as consumer staples and health-care are forecast to lead in 2011, according to earnings forecasts compiled by Douglas Cliggott, U.S. equity strategist at Credit Suisse Group.

Mr. Cliggott thinks businesses dependent on consumers' discretionary spending outlays will feel the pinch of higher household savings rates. And he expects consumer-savings rates to edge higher, which means "spending on durable goods is likely to slow in the next six months."

While an imminent drop in profit margins isn't assured, Citigroup's Tobias Levkovichwrote in a note last week, the risk exists for 2011. He expects, though, that earnings growth and stock buybacks will support corporate earnings overall.

—Bob Sechler, Bob Tita and Shara Tibken contributed to this article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)" Who Reads What "

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.


2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.


3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.


4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times. They do,however,like their statistics shown in pie charts.


5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country,if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.


6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.


7. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.


8. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.


9. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is read by people who want only the score of the Cardinals game. They drink Budweiser, Budweiser, and -- wait a minute -- what was the question?


10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.


11.. The National Enquirer is read by people who think aliens run the country.


12. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------