Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Melting?

It pays to play poker but only if you win. (See 1 below.)
---
Recap of Kim Strassel's address. (See 2 below.)
---
Who said it? (See 3 below.)
---
Porter Stansberry turns to Ayn Rand to describe current events in various states as Progressives show their true colors- 'If we cannot get what we demand then we will break laws to do so and also run from our legislative responsibilities.'

And why not when you have the liberal media and a far left president supporting your every move while, at the same time, talking fiscal responsibility? If we re-elect this yahoo we deserve what we get as we have already.(See 4 and 4a below.)
---
Yes, Obama promised to bring about change and he has lived up to his word. He rekindled racial animus, he has supported unions to the point that school teachers vacate classrooms to parade like vigilantes, Americans are killed at sea and our Secretary of State makes pitiful comments about how we deplore these events.

Obama believes we can negotiate with terrorists, marauders and pirates and now America is no longer respected or even feared. In fact we are laughed as the pitiful giant we have become.

Reagan sent a missile into Qaddafi's home and that quieted the nut case down then GW attacked Iraq and that same madman gave up his nuclear development. Obama made a speech in Cairo and now Qaddafi is killing his people while our Secretary of state deplores the situation. So much for Nobel Peace Prizes!

Our 'messiah' was going to settle the Palestinian-Israeli problem so he turned against Israel. The Middle East is in flames - not because of Israeli settlements I might add - and we stand idly by watching our influence go up in smoke as well.

We have a deficit that will choke us and unemployment remains historically high after spending a trillion dollars to make back to work signs!

Yeah, lots of change is afoot. Have I overstated the case or missed anything?

Oh my, I did miss something. As Robin of Berkley writes, it is all because of ' PC white guilt and GW.' (See 5 and 5a below.)
---
Are we getting set up to observe wobbly Republican Senators revert back to their old ways? (See 6 below.)

And wasn't it Caesar who said "Hail to the unions?" (See 6a and 6b below.)
---
Could Russia collapse before the Saudis? (See 7 below.)
---
There is always a silver lining in every cloud as they say. Perhaps the nation will force Obama and the "Greens" to start drilling our own resources which are enormous so we can become energy independent of the Qaddafi's and Saudis etc.

Also, maybe in 2012, the nation will come to its senses and rid ourselves of the notion that incompetence and inexperience serve our purpose.

Incidentally, 'the never let a crisis go to waste' joker just became Mayor of Chicago. His former boss certainly took Rahm's advice and has been creating a lot of them.

Have a great week and pray all the change Obama has brought about ends soon.
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) JEWISH POKER CLUB


Six retired Jewish Skokie fellows were playing poker in the condo clubhouse when Meyer loses $500 on a single hand, clutches his chest, and drops dead at the table.


Showing respect for their fallen comrade, the other five continue playing, but standing up.


At the end of the game, Finklestein looks around and asks, "So, who's gonna tell his wife?"


They cut the cards. Goldberg picks the low card and has to carry the news. They tell him to be discreet, be gentle, don't make a bad situation any worse.


"Discreet? I'm the most discreet person you'll ever meet. Discretion is my middle name. Leave it to me."


Goldberg goes over to the Meyer's condo and knocks on the door. The wife answers through the door and asks what he wants?


Goldberg declares: "Your husband just lost $500 in a poker game and is afraid to come home."


"Tell him to drop dead!" yells the wife.


"I'll go tell him." says Goldberg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Kimberley Strassel, the SIRC Presidents’ Day Dinner
Speaker was attracted to the Wall Street Journal editorial
board position because of the WSJ’s simple motto: Free
markets – free people. She also writes a fair number of
the unsigned editorials for the WSJ on the subject of US
policy, even as she has a regular column each week under
Potomac Watch – about the politics of it all.
Getting It Wrong

Her talk initially focused on a fair number of negatives
on the Obama Administration’s “getting it wrong” most of
the time. A big one was ObamaCare trying to take over
one sixth of the U.S. economy and overspending a trillion
or more in the process, not to mention costing 800,000
jobs and causing private insurance premiums to rise up
to 9% - all the while pretending to cut costs.
Her next problem was Financial Reform – under the
guise of Dodd Frank (she wasn’t even happy with Congress’s
meddling into unintended consequences via Sarbanes
– Oxley). Next she cited the 928 new rules already
from Obama’s EPA plus 703 more in the works.

All of the above contributed, in her opinion, to “Capital
being on Strike”: the private sector holding up on new
investments and no new hiring from all the new laws,
regulations and uncertainty created in the markets. In
contrast there was a colossal expansion of Federal hiring
-- over 150,000 federal employees, and federal salaries
growing 25% while the cost of living only rose 9% in four
years under Pelosi’s Congress. Add to that an 84% increase
in discretionary spending by the federal government
and a two-year federal budget deficit of $2.7 trillion.
Good News Ahead

Believe it or not, she now sees some good news – mainly
from the American public “getting it right” by throwing out
some of the rascals and electing a bunch of new reformers
in 2010. She now is more optimistic over the “mission
of capitalism” and the public’s new awareness of the corruption
nexus between government and some craven
lobbyists – e.g. GE’s play for more government subsidies
of its “green” strategy.

Under game-changing support from the Tea Party, there
is hope to retake the Senate and even the White House
in 2012. But bear in mind the major Democratic strategy
to try to paint the Republican reformers as radical zealots.
(It worked in Nevada last November as Harry Reed,
a sure loser, came back to win by those tactics.)
Keep the Independents on Your Side

The key is the Independent vote – who need to see the
Republicans as the adults offering calm and sensible solutions
– not just being vindictive. Take the Budget Debate
of late. Some criticized the House for only cutting
$60 billion. Yet it was only a part of a fiscal year and only
discretionary spending. Overreaching by cutting too
much too early could turn off the independents next election.
And next year’s budget debate will include entitlement
cut proposals – the former “third rail” of politics.
Bush dared to raise those issues in his second term and
he was left unsupported by many Republicans scared to
tackle the issue.

No Fear of the “Third Rail”

Yet she also noted that many governors and legislators
campaigned on the need to tackle entitlements. Even in
Florida, where she pointed out the average age of voters
is 130, Senator Marco Rubio won in a virtual “landslide”
by promising to take on these issues. And guess what,
the seniors and near retirees know that this more an issue
for long-term future retirees, not they who are already
“grandfathered”. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
seems almost too anxious to take on these issues because
he may believe it is now the time to suggest solutions
because the public is ready for serious discussion
and sick of demagoguery by the Democrats.

Lastly she paraphrased Karl Rove in his talk the day before
by saying that the 2012 Republican nominee – whoever
he or she is – must have broad appeal – to independents
as well as Republicans – as Obama is a formidable
campaigner. (Editor’s note: of course now he has a
record to run on – or away from; whereas in 2008 he
could just demagogue the last administration and promise
the moon.)

Keep Up the Outrage Theme

During the Q & A session, she reiterated her message for
the Republican candidate to be reasonable, even as he
campaigns on the subject of entitlement reform. And of
course it will help for the grass roots Republicans to keep
up the outrage over the huge number of Obama Administration’s
missteps in trying to govern.

It was of major significance that Republicans held firm on
opposing the ObamaCare ramming through Congress.
The Democrats are hugely vulnerable over the lack of
any bipartisan support for this legislation. Hence likening
it to Social Security or Medicare legislation falls flat as
those two “social” programs had major bipartisanship
support, while ObamaCare now appears as a blatant
power display by liberals during their brief time to wield it.
Repealing that legislation will be much more acceptable
by the public because of the lack of reasonable action by
the Pelosi Democrats.

This also points out the crucial nature of the next presidential
election. If Obama wins, he can stall the actual
repeal long enough that the dribbling in of benefits for
more Americans (despite the huge costs) will make it
harder to repeal in 2016.

She also considered the Wisconsin uproar as a watershed
moment for the public employee unions who may
be making a last stand for their unrealistic positions which
the public frankly now sees through. After all, governor
after governor ran on these irresponsible positions by
public unions, and the electorate gave them a mandate to
stop that fiscal nonsense – totally out of phase with the
rest of Americans who face salary freezes and even cuts
– not cost of living increases and bizarrely underfunded
pension systems that may have to be bailed out by
private sector workers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Who Said It? Ten short questions:

This is a fun quiz. Listed below are 10 direct quotes. You have to guess which American
politician said it. Your four choices are:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Former VP Dan Quayle
President Barack Obama
Former President George W. Bush

Ready? Here we go!

1) "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel 's."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

2) "I've now been in 57 states I think one left to go."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

3) "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of
fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience here today."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

4) "What they'll say is, 'Well it costs too much money,' but you know
what? It would cost, about. It it it would cost about the same as
what we would spend. It. Over the course of 10 years it would cost
what it would costs us. (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going
to. It. It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about
hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up,
though. I'm glad."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

5) "The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice,
savings and inefficiencies to our health care system."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

6) "I bowled a 129. It's like - it was like the Special Olympics, or something."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

7) "Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our
Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than
selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court
are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who
appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying
principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most
difficult questions of our time."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

8) "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the
emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking
up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave
them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a
breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer. I haven't had much
sleep in the last 48 hours."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

9) "It was . interesting to see that political interaction in Europe
is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of
I don 't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

10) "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good
judgments in the future."
A. Barack Obama
B. Dan Quayle
C. Sarah Palin
D. George W. Bush

Sorry. This was a trick quiz. All of the correct answers are the
same person. Each of these quotes are directly from President Barack Obama.

And now you know why he brings his teleprompter with him everywhere he goes ...even when talking to a 6th grade class!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)An Ayn Rand moment... 'Government investing'... Not just a river in Egypt... The only sure thing in the stock market... Oil and riots... Matt's "oil hoarding" play... Housing still weak...

Life in the good ol' U.S. of A. feels more and more every day like something out of an Ayn Rand novel...

Take, for example, the growing battle between public employee unions and taxpayers. On one side are the Randian parasites, the state employees who think you owe them a livelihood, full health benefits, and a stout retirement income. On the other side are the producers, the taxpayers who've had no voice in government for decades.

In Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Tennessee, politicians (believe it or not) are trying to make desperately needed cuts to state budgets. But union leaders don't want the gravy train to stop. They like living off your taxes. They like having you guarantee them a comfy retirement. So they're mounting a $30 million campaign to stop budget cuts, which they've labeled "anti-labor measures."

Here's what I want to know: What happens if the unions win? Don't they understand the money isn't there? Don't they know you can't squeeze blood from a turnip? If your worldview requires a total denial of reality, maybe it's time to change worldviews.

Governments excel at stealing money… Not so much at making it. To fix the state's unfunded pension liabilities, ex-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich once hatched a scheme to borrow $10 billion at 5% and earn 8% investing the money. But when he executed the plan, the return wasn't 8%. It was 3%.

Stunningly, Illinois is planning to do the same thing again. Only this time, the math doesn't work right off the bat. Illinois is planning to sell $3.7 billion of debt this week and use $2 billion in proceeds to fill the $40 billion hole in the teacher's pension system. Hmmm... $2 billion to fill a $40 billion hole? Something tells me this won't work.

Of course, denying reality is de rigueur in the stock market. For example, nobody really cares that OpenTable, the Internet restaurant reservation system, isn't worth close to 100 times its earnings. (Is any company?). OpenTable could sign up every reservation-taking restaurant on the planet, and it would still be way overvalued.

All the market losers think they'll be the lucky geniuses to get in and out with a fat profit before it all collapses. That's the gambler's mentality. It's the noise a loser creates in his mind to keep reality at bay.

Truth is, most individuals and the mutual-fund managers they trust will fail to match the market's return... From 2001 to 2010, the S&P 500 returned 1.7% per year... and most mutual funds and other investors didn't even make that much. I promise you, index-fund shops like Vanguard aren't going to point out that stock indexes can go nowhere for decades at a time. And with stocks trading for more than 20 times earnings, returns for the next 10 years look pretty dismal.


4a)The Showdown Over Public Union Power

At last, politicians and voters are fighting back against the most potent lobby for government spending and ever-higher taxes.
By STEVEN MALANGA

Government workers have taken to the streets in Madison, Wis., to battle a series of reforms proposed by Gov. Scott Walker that include allowing workers to opt out of paying dues to unions. Everywhere that this "opt out" idea has been proposed, unions have battled it vigorously because the money they collect from dues is at the heart of their power.

Unions use that money not only to run their daily operations but to wage political campaigns in state capitals and city halls. Indeed, public-sector unions especially have become the nation's most aggressive advocates for higher taxes and spending. They sponsor tax-raising ballot initiatives and pay for advertising and lobbying campaigns to pressure politicians into voting for them. And they mount multimillion dollar campaigns to defeat efforts by governors and taxpayer groups to roll back taxes.

Early last year, for example, Oregon's unions spearheaded a successful battle to pass ballot measures 66 and 67, which collectively raised business and income taxes in the state by an estimated $727 million annually. Led by $2 million from the Oregon Education Association and $1.8 million from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), unions contributed an estimated 75% of the nearly $7 million raised to promote the tax increases, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Also in 2010, teachers unions and public-safety unions in Arizona were influential players in the successful ballot campaign to increase the state's sales tax to 6.6% from 5.6% to raise an additional $1 billion. Some state business groups also supported the tax increase in the vain hope that the legislature would roll back business and investment taxes. The public unions, by contrast, wanted the tax hike precisely to avoid government spending cuts.


In Washington state there was a ballot measure last November that would have raised $2 billion by imposing an income tax on those earning more than $200,000. The media portrayed the political fight as a battle among the rich. That's because William H. Gates Sr, father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, supported the tax, while Microsoft's current chief executive, Steve Ballmer and Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos opposed it.

But unions were the real power behind the scenes. According to Ballotpedia.com, state and national SEIU locals gave $2.5 million, while the National Education Association and Washington teachers union locals contributed $900,000 to the $6 million campaign for the new income tax. In the end, Washingtonians voted down the tax, in part because they feared it would eventually be expanded to everyone.

This was not the first time that government unions targeted upper-income earners. In 2004, California labor groups—including the California Teachers Association, the SEIU, and health interests such as the California Council of Community Health Agencies—led a successful $4.7 million campaign to raise the state income tax on those making more than $1 million and devote the money to health-care funding. In all, public unions gave $1 million to the Proposition 63 effort, while public health groups donated another $1.3 million, according to HealthVote.org.

In New York in 2008-09, then-Gov. David Paterson balked at tax increases and proposed budget cuts in an attempt to come to grips with the state's growing fiscal crisis. In response, unions launched a barrage of attack ads. The New York State United Teachers union spent $750,000 advocating against a cap on property taxes. The state's health-care unions (and hospitals) mounted a $1 million radio campaign against Medicaid cuts. In the end, the legislature raised a host of taxes, including higher levies on the incomes of those earning more than $200,000.

Across the Hudson, New Jersey's powerful teachers union has led the fight against Gov. Chris Christie's efforts to cut spending. The New Jersey Education Association collects about $100 million a year in dues from its 203,000 members; last spring the union spent $300,000 a week, according to the head of the union, for radio ads urging tax increases on the rich instead of budget cuts. But Mr. Christie held firm and his budget was passed largely as he proposed it.

Public unions are also among the biggest players in national politics. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Afscme) has been the third-biggest contributor to federal campaigns over the past 20 years, having given $43 million. The National Education Association is number eight with $31 million in contributions, while the SEIU—half of whose 2.2 million members are government workers—is No. 10, with $29 million in campaign donations.

Unlike businesses and industry groups that are also big givers but tend to split their donations between the parties, some 95% of government workers' donations has gone to the Democratic Party, whose members are far more likely to favor raising taxes and boosting spending than are members of the Republican Party.

The union strategy is finally beginning to encounter pushback. Last year, supporters of Gov. Christie, anticipating a union onslaught, set up a group called Reform Jersey Now to back the newly elected governor with a public relations campaign in his first budget battle. The group spent about $624,000, with contributions from business PACs, including those representing the state's construction industry, and from money donated by the Republican Governors Association.


And in New York, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has urged business groups to counter union efforts to defeat his budget, which cuts spending by $3.7 billion. In response, a group that calls itself the Committee to Save New York, financed by business groups and executives, has launched a $10 million advertising campaign in support of Gov. Cuomo's planned spending cuts for Medicaid and education, as well as his efforts to cut the cost of state workers' pensions.

If Gov. Walker succeeds in Wisconsin, it's likely that other reformers will follow his lead and explore ways to restrict public-sector unions' use of members' dues. Tax advocates in California, for instance, have proposed an initiative that would require a government union to gain the approval of individual members in order to divert dues into political campaigns. Such measures would give opponents around the country a new playbook to follow in countering the rich resources and deep influence of public unions over taxes and spending.

Mr. Malanga is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of "Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer" (Ivan R. Dee, 2010).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Post Traumatic American Syndrome
By Robin of Berkeley

I have noticed fewer people around town this past weekend. First I thought it was because of the Presidents Day holiday. Then I realized it was because anarchists were being bused into Wisconsin! More for them, and less for us!


The Midwest is getting a bit of a taste of Berkeley life. I'm guessing they are not liking it one bit. The violent, hostile vibe wouldn't sit well with decent Midwestern folks.


Of course, around Berkeley, riots are nothing new; there are street uprisings whenever the spirit moves people.


On Telegraph Avenue, the poor merchants have endured impromptu mayhem for decades. I say "poor" merchants for a reason: most of them are struggling, and, if you've visited the area recently, you'll find that a number of storekeepers have packed up and moved on.


When the infamous BART police shooting occurred a few years ago, there was lawlessness all over downtown Oakland. Cars were destroyed, stores ransacked and looted, and people were injured. Of course, many joined in who weren't motivated by righteous indignation, but by the promise of free jewelry and clothes.


And, when the verdict was announced, there were riots again, because, well, why not? Since the law-abiding don't balk at rampant criminality, there's an incentive to act out. And to borrow from Rahm Emanuel: Never let a crisis go to waste -- especially when you can procure a new television set!


Since I woke up from my leftist stupor two years ago, I've had many epiphanies. Here's one: the Left is comprised of two distinct groups, the abusers and the abused. The dynamics are like any abusive relationship.


Similar to a battered spouse, the abusee will put up with terrible treatment because she's convinced she deserves it. Out here, all the propaganda about social justice leaves citizens drowning in white guilt. They'll do anything, accept even the unacceptable, in order to do atone themselves.


Berkeley has our very own version of the Stockholm Syndrome, where, out of fear for one's survival, people come to admire, even love, their abusers. Berkeleyites will passionately defend the very people who abuse them. ("It wasn't his fault that he robbed and beat me! He's a victim of white imperialism!")


The victims even delude themselves into believing that though they are preyed upon, they are somehow lucky. I hear it all the time out here, "We're so lucky to live in Berkeley! It's so tolerant here!" And I think, tolerant of what, violence? Sociopathy?


As for the abusers, they have been told since they were knee-high that the deck is stacked against them. Consequently, if the whole system is unjust and bogus, why not take advantage of it?


And since society continually excuses and rationalizes their bad behavior, they never learn to take responsibility. They may even become intoxicated with their own power and invincibility.


This is why so much of the crime out here is brazen, right out in broad daylight for all the world to see. For instance, not long ago, a noon client came in and told me that she had just seen a mugging a few feet from my office building.


The fact that there were hordes of people on the street and many witnesses didn't deter the mugger in the least. Why should the miscreant fear the sheep-like unarmed, citizens of Berkeley?


When I analyze why I am one of the rare progressives to ever see the light, I think it's because I never accepted being a sacrificial lamb. I have always been appalled by the wanton criminality around here and the foreboding, uncivil streets.


I even recall writing a passionate letter to the editor bemoaning the unconscionable crime rate -- and I did this twenty years ago! It has always frustrated me that the multitudes are too indoctrinated to defend themselves or others.


With the demonstrations in Wisconsin, the country is getting a sneak preview of what life will be like for everyone if the left prevails. The climate that the left has created in Berkeley will be the norm in Milwaukee and Toledo and all over the country should the left win.


Because the left are not just abusers; they are terrorists, with leaders who engage in or call for terror, including Bill Ayers and Frances Fox Piven.


This is why the Governor and the citizens of Wisconsin must hold strong, and not buckle under pressure. Because in some ways, the country is at a tipping point. As goes Wisconsin, goes the entire nation.


Remember who are the leftists: they kidnapped Patty Hearst from her own house and raped and tortured her; they support the regime that sexually attacked and beat Lara Logan.


The leftists are more ruthless and rapacious than your wildest imagination. They do not simply want your money and your property.


They desire something much more essential: your ability to fight back; the innate belief that you and I and this country are worth fighting for.


They want to crush your self-respect and dignity, to steal the virtues that are hidden deep down in your soul. It's too late for Berkeley. But, Wisconsin, don't give it to them.


A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley. Robin's articles are intended to inform and entertain, not to offer therapeutic advice or diagnoses.


5a) Qaddafi launches jihad with sea barrage on Benghazi, blocked oil exports

"I will die a martyr!" In a long, fiery speech broadcast by Libyan state TV Tuesday, Libya's ruler Col. Muammar Qaddafi declared war on his enemies at home and abroad. He accused the Cyrenaicans of the East of conspiring to establish an Al Qaeda emirate that would bring the Americans over and create the same situation in Libya as in Afghanistan and Pakistan and threatened them with the fury of millions of Libyans. Straight after his speech, Tripoli announced that Libyan oil and gas exports were blocked to Europe, causing pandemonium in a world market that saw a 12 percent price hike of crude oil this week and seriously threatens the fragile economies of many nations. Libyan Navy missile ships began pounding Benghazi from the sea.

Gulf sources report Saudi Arabia quietly informed Washington and some Arab capitals that it has enough spare production capacity to tide them over for the loss of Libya's exported 1.8 million barrels a day.

The Saudis have a serious bone to pick with Qaddafi after foiling his plot to assassinate King Abdullah in 2007.

Contrary to expectations in some Western capitals, Qaddafi made it clear he had no intention of devolving his powers or "stepping down and giving up like other leaders."

Even after two pilots defected to Malta, the 22,000-man strong Libyan Air Force with its 13 bases is Muammar Qaddafi's mainstay for survival against massive popular and international dissent. Military sources report 44 air transports and a like number of helicopters swiftly lifted loyal tribal militiamen fully armed from the Sahara and dropped them in the streets of Tripoli Monday, Feb. 21.

Qaddafi had mustered them to fill the gaps left by defecting army units and the large tribal militia which went over to the people.

One of the ruler's sons, Mutassim Qaddafi, is in command of the Tripoli crackdown. Air Force planes, mostly from the Libyan Air Force's inventory of 226 trainers, and helicopter gunships, bombed and fired heavy machine guns to scatter every attempt to stage a rally in the city's districts.

In their wake, Mutassim's "Libyan Popular Army" cleared the streets of protesters.

The tactics employed by Qaddafi and his sons was, first, to give the protesters free rein to rampage through the city, torch state TV and government buildings and so generate an impression among them and in the West that the Qaddafis were about to fall.

But when the demonstrators fanned out to seize the rest of the capital, they were bombed from the air and targeted by the tribal militias, who had no qualms about shooting directly at civilian crowds.

By the small hours of Tuesday, Feb. 22, when Qaddafi went on air to demonstrate he was still in Tripoli, he was again in control of the capital.

In a similar tactic, he first tried to gull his international critics by sending his urbane son, Saif al-Islami, who has convinced many influential people in the West that he is a moderate compared with his father, to state the Qaddafi case in a television interview Sunday, Feb. 20. Behind the scenes, another son, Mutassim, supreme commander of the Popular Army, designed a vicious crackdown in the capital. Deep in Sahara, their father raised a tribal army to fight for their survival.

When Muammar Qaddafi delivered his victory statement Tuesday, he sounded just like "the madman of the Middle East" – and epithet attached to him by the late Ronald Reagan. But in less than 60 seconds, he had conveyed his message that, although buildings were on fire in Tripoli, he was still standing and was determined to punish all his enemies, whom he dismissed scornfully as "foreign dogs" and "terrorist gangs of misguided youths, exploited and fed hallucinogenic pills."
Our military sources report his strategy for staying in power rests first on consolidating his grip on Tripoli and then using it as a base for military operations to regain control of the rest of the country, including Cyrenaica.
The Libyan ruler has not yet thrown all this military resources into the battle for survival. His navy is still in reserve. But his substantial air might well be crucial fro his fight to recover Cyrenaica's coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk from the rebels.

Qaddafi shows no sign of being cowed or deterred by international revulsion at his methods and the condemnations expected from the UN Security Council and the Arab League, both of which hold special meetings on Libya later Tuesday. Libya's deputy ambassador to UN accused the ruler of "genocide" and war crimes against his own people" and several ambassadors have quit or refused to represent his government any longer. But Qaddafi is very much on the warpath.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Will Senate Republicans Snatch Budget Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?
By Steve McCann

Are the Senate Republicans going wobbly, again? A CNN report indicates that negotiations are underway after several Republican leaders indicated they might accept a short-term spending bill as long as it included at least some spending reductions, and not necessarily the deeper cuts the House approved last weekend.


Needless to say, the Senate Democratic leaders greeted the news with a "positive reaction." Publicly, House Speaker John Boehner has said Senate Democrats should accept the entire $60 Billion in cuts the Republicans pushed through the House. However, privately House leaders are acknowledging the need for a stopgap measure to continue funding the government while they negotiate spending levels for a longer term bill to fund the government through October 1.


However, one member of the Republican leadership let the cat out of the bag: they are intimidated by the prospect of a government shutdown. He said: "Everyone knows that, no matter the truth, we would be blamed [for a government shutdown], so it would be a dumb political move."


With that attitude the leadership has essentially surrendered to the Democrats who will, with their cohorts in the media, simply dangle the threat of a shutdown whenever they choose and they will have the upper hand.


This is not the United States of 1995 and the Democrats will not succeed in blaming any shutdown, if one occurs, on the Republicans.


In politics 16 years is a lifetime. For those Republicans with weak knees in the House and Senate, perhaps a primer of what the facts on the ground were in 1995 (the last government shutdown blamed on the Republicans) as compared to today is in order.


In 1995 the unemployment rate was 5.6%; today, 9.4%. The U-6 unemployment rate was 9.9%; today, 17.0% (the U-6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full time employment but also marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.) The unemployment rates are up 68 and 72% respectively.


The federal budget deficit in 1995 was $172 Billion by the end of fiscal 2011 it will be nearly $1.6 Trillion. (adjusting for inflation: the annual deficit is up by 543% or a factor of 5.4x) The deficit as a percent of GDP in 1995 was 3.2% in 2011 it will be 11.3%


The national debt at the end of 1995 was $4.9 Trillion; at the end of 2011 it will be $14.5 Trillion. (adjusting for inflation: the national debt is up 106% or more than double). The national debt was 66% of GDP in 1995 and will be nearly 100% of GDP in 2011.


Overall government (federal, state and local) spending has also skyrocketed. In 1995 $2.63 Trillion was spent, in 2011 it will be $6.3 Trillion. (adjusted for inflation: overall spending is up 70%). In 1995 this spending was 35% of the GDP; today it exceeds 46% of the GDP.


In 1995, the federal government budget was $1.6 Trillion; President Obama has proposed for 2011 a budget of $3.75 Trillion. (adjusted for inflation: an increase of 67%)


The U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 1995 grew over 4.5% from the previous year. In 2010 the GDP grew only at 2.3% over the previous year. (http://politics4all.com/users/antoin/blog/3615-national-debt-by-presidential-term)


Another point of economic comparison is the price of oil. In 1995 it was $17.99 a barrel, today it is $105.00. (an increase of 304% adjusted for inflation )


In 1995, the American citizen was not engaged in the political process. Per the statistics above economic activity was robust particularly as compared to today. The average citizen was content to go about his business.


There were no foreign wars ongoing, no terror activity, and no upheavals in the Middle East.


In the venues of the media there was no Fox News, no internet blogs or news and commentary sites, and talk radio was a third of what it is today.


The atmosphere that allowed Bill Clinton, the Democrats and their allies in the media to successfully blame the shutdown on the Republicans does not exist today. In fact it is the polar opposite. The Republican leadership of the House and Senate need to understand that.


The people are now engaged. They are aware of the nation's debt and spending crisis which will lead to national bankruptcy. The Tea Party movement is unlike any other in recent American history and confirms the anxiety of the vast majority of the people as to the future. The once-mainstream media can no longer control the message and successfully propagate the lies and obfuscations of the Democrats.


The only factor as compared to 1995 that still does exist is that bubble that is Washington D.C., wherein dwell many in the Republican leadership who are still living a world dominated by the left and the media. There they fall sway to the need for acceptance and so-called civility as defined by the Left.


The Democrats and the Left have one well-worn and now threadbare playbook and continually revert to it. It is to portray their opposition as mean-spirited, spiteful and selfish, and when necessary drag out the artillery of racist accusations and lastly round-up the usual suspects for demonstrations and marches.


The nation is too far down the road to fiscal and social ruin and these tactics will no longer work as has been shown in the Wisconsin budget battle. The Republicans in Congress need to stop living in the past and once and for all realize they represent the vast majority of the people. They must cease falling for the same tired tactics of the Left. All members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans must grow-up. The Congress is not a high school debating society wherein cliques and social acceptance is paramount and the game of gotcha is obligatory. The future of the United States is in their hands.



6a)The View from Wisconsin
By Frank Burke

For those outside the state to fully appreciate the significance of what is happening in Wisconsin, it is necessary to understand the local political situation over the past decade.


To conservatives and to many moderates, the capture of the governorship, the state senate and assembly, two House seats, and the Senate seat formerly held by Russ Feingold, produced a feeling that can only be described as liberation. The total Democratic control that accompanied the Doyle administration resulted in a climate that in its fiscal, legal, and ethical lapses was extraordinary even for a state as politically eccentric as Wisconsin.


Often cited as the state that produced both Bob La Fallotte and Joe McCarthy, Wisconsin politics has generally trended to the populist/liberal. Milwaukee was the first major city to elect a Socialist, Emil Seidel, as Mayor (1910). He was succeeded by another Socialist, Dan Hoan, who led the longest continuous Socialist administration in U.S. history. (Appropriately, a misguided and now deteriorated public works project, known locally as the "Bridge to Nowhere," was named for Hoan.)


In recent years, the political and social structures erected and augmented by Democratic administrations were left largely untouched by Republicans. In his second term, the last Republican governor, Tommy Thompson, embarked on a large number of wasteful, big-spending projects that generated higher taxes. Under his aegis, the citizens of surrounding counties were forced to pay taxes to finance the building of Miller Park on behalf of Milwaukee Brewers owner, Bud Selig. When Thompson left to join the cabinet of George W. Bush as Secretary of Health and Human Services, his successor, Scott McCallum, had to use Wisconsin's share of the tobacco settlement funds to cover budget deficits.


While Thompson can be credited for such initiatives as the School Choice Program and welfare reform, his free-spending ways alienated conservatives and paved the way to McCallum's defeat in 2002, as did the campaign of his libertarian brother, Ed Thompson.


The Doyle administration quickly became known as a tax-and-spend, pay-for-play, juggernaut with little or no sense of fiscal or ethical responsibilities. To cover budget shortfalls, Doyle resorted to the illegal seizure of state funds contributed by doctors to alleviate the cost of medical malpractice. Courts have since declared that the money seized must be repaid. Other irregularities included an attempt by the governor to become the sole bargaining agent with tribal gaming casinos, and utilizing stimulus money intended for high-speed rail to purchase equipment made in Spain. Disregarding massive popular support and a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court, he vetoed concealed carry legislation that would have made it possible for responsible private citizens to carry concealed weapons. (Wisconsin is one of only two states that ban concealed/carry.)


Despite numerous instances of extensive election fraud, Doyle resisted any reform attempts and vetoed a bill requiring photo ID. His anti-business stance was evident in refusing to curb the lawsuit abuse that made the state a Mecca for trial lawyers. Just as numerous film companies were discovering the advantages of shooting at Wisconsin locations, he rescinded the tax advantages that were helping to attract them.


Doyle also refused to rein in the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) which has become a quasi-shadow government and extended its power far beyond the scope of its original charter. Most recently, through a combination of junk science and bad research, it has managed to decimate Wisconsin's deer herd - a severe blow to one of the primary tourist lures.


Nor was Doyle the only problem. Russ Feingold's defeat was primarily due to his refusal to heed his constituency on the matter of ObamaCare. In news footage of town hall meetings, he could be seen arrogantly laughing at the voters who questioned him. While styling himself a maverick, he continually jumped into line in support of liberal legislation. His most single accomplishment, the McCain-Feingold Act, could not pass constitutional muster.


Wisconsin's other Senator, Herb Kohl -- known as "Senator Do-Nothing" -- is a multi-millionaire who spent an average of 12 dollars per vote to become reelected.


Perhaps what is most important and what is not being mentioned in the news reports from Madison is the performance of the teachers in the Milwaukee Public School System; the same teachers who forced the closure of the city schools on Friday. As one of 17 urban districts with a graduation rate below 50 percent, the system is in serious trouble. Further, as recently as the 2005-6 school year (the last year for which this data is publicly available), there were over 11,000 calls to police from Milwaukee public schools. For example, the city's vocational school, Bradley Tech, was thoroughly refurbished and reequipped by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in memory of its founders. Despite this, it has become a hotbed of violence, gang activity, and narcotics trafficking. When large-scale fights have broken out in the school, students have called their parents by cell phones to have the parents come and join the melee.


The school board, mainly populated by representatives sympathetic to the teachers' union, continues to raise taxes to finance increased salaries and benefits. On a national level, Obama's first stimulus package included money to finance the construction of more Milwaukee schools, despite the fact that five school buildings currently stand empty.


The problem has reached such proportions that even Democrats have noticed. Within the last year, it has been suggested that the school system be broken into a number of regions under separate administrators so as to make the situation more controllable. The public is currently awaiting recommendations contained in Governor Walker's comprehensive budget proposal. The fact remains that the citizens of Wisconsin, and Milwaukee in particular, are aware that there must be significant changes -- and that these do not include rewards to perpetuate dysfunctional school systems.


As Milwaukee County Executive, Scott Walker inherited a financial mess created by his predecessor. A strong proponent of not raising taxes, he vetoed numerous bills in an effort to control the County's finances. Since he has assumed the governorship, he has instituted tort reform, generated a package of business incentives to put people back to work, and undertaken steps toward election reform. Regardless of the mobs of demonstrators, many of whom come from out of state on the behest of the Obama administration and its union cronies, the people of Wisconsin enthusiastically support his efforts. They have lived with the alternative for too long.


The combination of past fiscal irresponsibility by both political parties but most especially by the Doyle administration, coupled with the entitlement philosophy of the teachers' unions and other public sector unions, has resulted in the loss of both jobs and population. This has not gone unnoticed by other states that have avidly pursued Wisconsin companies with packages of incentives and tax advantages. Only serious concessions by the private sector unions have enabled two of the state's signature companies -- Mercury Marine and Harley-Davidson -- to remain. Governor Walker's valiant struggle certainly has national implications. For the majority of Wisconsin's citizens, it represents a major step on the long road toward rebuilding, repositioning, and reviving a state that has much to offer.


As the state motto exhorts: "Forward!"

6b)Government Unions Have Not Benefited the Public
By Jonah Goldberg

The protesting public school teachers with fake doctor's notes swarming the Capitol building in Madison, Wis., insist that Gov. Scott Walker is hell-bent on "union busting" in their state. Walker denies that his effort to reform public sector unions in Wisconsin is anything more than an honest attempt at balancing the state's books.

I hope the protesters are right. Public unions have been a 50-year mistake.

A crucial distinction has been lost in the debate over Walker's proposals: Government unions are not the same thing as private sector unions.

Traditional, private sector unions were born out of an often bloody adversarial relationship between labor and management. It's been said that during World War I, U.S. soldiers had better odds of surviving on the front lines than miners did in West Virginia coal mines. Mine disasters were frequent; hazardous conditions were the norm. In 1907, the Monongah mine explosion claimed the lives of 362 West Virginia miners. Day-to-day life often resembled serfdom, with management controlling vast swaths of the miners' lives. And before unionization and many New Deal-era reforms, Washington had little power to reform conditions by legislation.

Meanwhile, government unions have no such narrative on their side. Do you recall the Great DMV cave-in of 1959? How about the travails of second-grade teachers recounted in Upton Sinclair's famous schoolhouse sequel to "The Jungle"? No? Don't feel bad, because no such horror stories exist.

Government workers were making good salaries in 1962 when President Kennedy lifted, by executive order (so much for democracy), the federal ban on government unions. Civil service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed good working conditions for generations.

The argument for public unionization wasn't moral, economic or intellectual. It was rankly political.

Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic Party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in "The Trouble with Public Sector Unions," in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.

The plan worked. Public union membership skyrocketed and government union support for the party of government skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, AFSCME - the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections, with 98.5% going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government.

And this gets to the real insidiousness of government unions. Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they've acceded to many of their governor's specific demands - that workers contribute to their pensions and healthcare costs, for example. But they don't want to lose the right to collective bargaining.

But that is exactly what they need to lose.

Private sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests and, as we've seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government. The labor-politician negotiations can't be fair when the unions can put so much money into campaign spending. Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the New York City chapter of AFSCME, summed up the problem in 1975 when he boasted, "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."

This is why FDR believed that "the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," and why even George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, held that it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

As it turns out, it's not impossible; it's just terribly unwise. It creates a dysfunctional system where for some, growing government becomes its own reward. You can find evidence of this dysfunction everywhere. The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner notes that federal education spending has risen by 188% in real terms since 1970, but we've seen no significant improvement in test scores.

The unions and the protesters in Wisconsin see Walker's reforms as a potential death knell for government unions. My response? If only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Medvedev rebuffs Gorbachev's warning of ‘Egyptian scenario’ in Russia. Who's right?
By Fred Weir

Former Soviet President is outspoken about Russia's vulnerabilities --- something the Kremlin denies

A week after former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev warned that the winds of change now blowing through the Middle East could yet whip up a storm in Russia, the nation's current president vowed that uprisings in the Arab world will not be repeated here.

In comments that betrayed Kremlin nervousness, President Dmitry Medvedev today warned that the pro-democracy wave sweeping Egypt and other countries could bring "extremists" to power.

"Let us face the truth," Mr. Medvedev said, "they have prepared such a scenario for us too, and they will try to carry it out. But this scenario will not pass." He did not elaborate on who "they" might be.

To be sure, Russia is very different from the Middle Eastern societies currently seething with pro-democracy turmoil, but nagging parallels are beginning to worry many in the country's top elite. And who better to make those comparisons explicit than Mr. Gorbachev, the man who tried to foster democracy in the former USSR before being swept from power by the very forces he had unleashed?

"If things continue the way they are, I think the probability of the Egyptian scenario will grow," Gorbachev said in a radio interview last week. "But here it could end far worse."

GORBACHEV OUTSPOKEN IN CRITICISMS
Gorbachev has grown increasingly outspoken about Russia's vulnerabilities to Egypt-like unrest, warning in the past that Russia could collapse without sweeping democratic reforms. He describes Russia as a throwback to Soviet times, with muzzled media, sham elections, a Potemkin parliament, a Kremlin monopoly of power, and a corrupt ruling party that's a "bad copy" of the former Soviet Communist Party.

In a Moscow press conference Monday, Gorbachev slammed the political system built by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin as an elaborate fraud. "We have everything — a parliament, courts, a president, and a prime minister, but these all are to a great extent just an imitation," he said. In another interview he said that Russia's democratic facade is a "cover for arbitrary rule and [official] abuse … society has been broken, it's accepted the falsehoods."

Russia is heading into an intense political season, with regional polls next month, elections for a new Duma (parliament) in December, and a presidential vote in just over a year from a field that has not yet declared a single candidate.

Recent regional elections have looked so unfair and blatantly stage-managed that even Medvedev criticized them, although — in what seems to be a pattern with Medvedev — he took no further steps.

DEMOCRATIC REFORM NEEDED, SAYS FINANCE MINISTER
Last week, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said Russia was not meeting economic growth targets and that foreign investment fell sharply in 2010, suggesting this is happening because Russia lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy to carry out needed reforms.

It is important, he told an economic conference, that the upcoming elections be "fair and honest, that they represent all leading political forces of society. Only this will give the mandate of confidence that is necessary for economic reforms," he said. "If a lack of confidence emerges, we will be unable to fulfill our tasks properly."

That drew a tough rebuke from leaders of the ruling party United Russia, who saw it as an attack on their party's electoral monopoly on the use of government resources and state media as well as — it has been frequently alleged — outright fraud to dominate virtually all the country's legislatures, from the Duma down to small municipal councils.

TOUGH WORDS FOR PUTIN AND MEDVEDEV
United Russia is headed by Prime Minister Putin, but its membership is so heavy with officials and others who depend on state largesse that critics describe it as a "trade union for bureaucrats."

Gorbachev described the party, which is headed by Putin, as a "rotting monopoly" that is hampering Russia's democratic development. "United Russia reminds me of a bad copy of the Soviet Communist Party," which Gorbachev himself once led, he added.

But he reserved his toughest words for Putin and Medvedev, who have pledged to decide between themselves which of them will run for president next year. Gorbachev called that "incredible conceit" and a show of deep disrespect for Russian voters.

"It's not Putin's business. It must be decided by the nation in the elections, by those who would cast ballots," Gorbachev said. "Can't other people also run?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------