Soros, Black History Month and Happy Valentine!

Dial up PJTV.Com and hear this thoughtful interview of Orrin Hatch: "Senator
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) takes time to talk to Alexis Garcia about the Tea Party,
ObamaCare and more from the Tea Party Express Town Hall at the National Press
Club. Sen. Hatch says that there is no basis in the Constitution for ObamaCare,
and seriously questions the legality of the Democrats' health care legislation."


Then, AlfonZo Rachel, a black man, takes after the hypocrisy of Democrats and
the fact that Black History Month rewrites black history:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84&load=4853 "...AlfonZo takes serious issue
with black history month and is not afraid to say why. For example, why is it
that you never hear about black Republicans? Zo thinks it is time to wrest
control of the educational system from the Democratic party and set history
free."
---
My friend, Kyle-Anne Shiver, writes about Soros and his Nazi problem. (See 1 below.)


Then, click on:http://www.youtube.com/user/fiercefreeleancer and learn how Soros
and his cronies made more millions from you the innocent and fleeced tax payer!
---
Britain's Cameron and Hague brought to task over their anti-Israel policies.
This is the same Cameron who just spoke out about multi-culturalism's failure.
(See 2 below.)
---
As discussed previously - an eye opener video: "http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/"
---
Obama - the foreign policy maven! (See 3 below.)
---
Michael Gerson does not equate what has happened in Egypt as a sign of American
decline. He does, however, point out that: "...There's a reason shahs are
sometimes followed by mullahs - because religious extremism is the opiate of a
humiliated people..." (See 4 below.)
---
The Administration's budget will announce large cuts but they are just a nick
because they come after enormous spending increases so it is a political mirage
that Obama hopes to sell the unwashed. (See 5 below.)
---
A Happy Valentine to all my friends and memo readers.
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)George Soros, Nazi Obsessive
Beneath his public outrage lies an outrageous lack of conscience.
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

George Soros has a Nazi problem. I don’t say that lightly. In fact, I regard
those who go around calling people Nazis without substantial verification of
such an allegiance to be either without conscience or without strong mental
moorings.


So, who was the most prominent individual of the past decade to use the Nazi
smear against another public person? That would be George Soros himself.


To refresh the national memory, let’s recall George Soros’ public “Bush is like
Hitler” remarks, beginning in 2003. Laura Blumenfeld interviewed George Soros
for The Washington Post and summed up Soros’ antipathy for Bush thus:


Soros believes that a “supremacist ideology” guides this White House. He hears
echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. “When I hear Bush
say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.” It
conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort Mit
(“The enemy is listening”). “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have
sensitized me,” he said in a soft Hungarian accent.


Soros’ first volley into the Bush-Hitler meme was quickly followed by a
MoveOn.org ad campaign against then-President George W. Bush using actual WWII
Nazi film footage, interspersed with Bush comparisons. As all aware Americans
know by now, George Soros is the money bag that keeps MoveOn in business. The ad
that appeared on MoveOn’s site melded an actual recording of Hitler with photos
of Bush. “A nation warped by lies. Lies fuel fear. Fear fuels aggression.
Invasion. Occupation. What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003,”
the ad said. The public outcry was fast and furious, forcing MoveOn to remove
the ad from its site and make piteous declarations of ignorance regarding its
ever getting there in the first place. But the “Bush is Hitler” meme, begun by
Soros’ himself, by then had strong legs throughout the Soros-influenced left
wing.


Soros put more than $25 million of his own money into defeating George W. Bush
in 2004, calling that mission the “central focus of his life.” Coming away with
nothing but an “I supported the other guy” t-shirt, Soros went all in with
Barack Obama. Not content, however, merely to back an alternate party candidate,
Soros reiterated his “Bush is like the Nazi leader” mantra at Davos in 2007:


“America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany,” he said.
“We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.”


So, again I say that George Soros has a Nazi problem.

At the moment, however, Soros is battling his Nazi problem from a wholly
different angle.


You see, while George W. Bush had not even yet been born in 1945, when real
Nazis were perpetrating the real Holocaust, George Soros, as a teenager, was
actually helping real Nazis confiscate the real property of real,
about-to-be-“exterminated” Jews in his native Budapest, Hungary.


And no, this actual Nazi collaboration by a young George Soros was not an
obscure tidbit dug up by opposition researchers. George Soros freely admitted
his actions in the now-infamous Steve Kroft interview of 1998. Soros was shocked
that the interview was so upsetting to so many and endeavored greatly to put the
controversy to rest by giving more details and explanations to his biographer,
Michael Kaufman.


When Soros spoke with Steve Kroft in 1998, the huge question was whether Soros
had felt any guilt over his acquiescence to the Nazis. It was Soros’ denial of
any survivor’s guilt and his nonchalant “If I hadn’t been there doing it, then
someone else would have” excuse that caught the discerning public eye at the
time. And details added in his biographer’s ear did nothing whatsoever to
diminish Soros’ inhumane diffidence regarding the sufferings of his fellow Jews
during the Holocaust.


In fact, in the biography — aptly titled Soros, the Life and Times of a
Messianic Billionaire — are scads of details that make Soros much more culpable
than the Kroft interview. At age 72 — with 58 years for reflection — George
Soros described his year of living under Nazi rule as “the most exciting time of
my life.” That was the same year Soros’ own uncle, along with his wife and
children, were “deported” to Auschwitz. But as Soros glibly recounted, his
family had long ago abandoned Judaism —for a “cosmopolitan” pseudo-religion, for
Esperanto, and for watching their fellow Jews, including family members, get
carted off by the Nazis. It caused George no real grief. “We were somehow above
them,” he told his biographer, his family having abandoned their “tribal”
loyalties long ago.


No, neither the young George Soros nor his family were unaware of what was
happening to their fellow Jews. Though the full extent of the Holocaust would
not be known until war’s end, Soros confided to his biographer that “word of
mass shootings, slave labor, and the Jewish rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto
became more and more frequent.” So when Nazi tanks rolled into Budapest in the
spring of 1944, George and his family were not caught unaware.


When George’s family had traveled on holiday to Hitler-controlled Bavaria in
1939, they saw the “No Jews allowed” signs in restaurants and hotels for the
first time. But George’s father answered his mother’s fears and protests with
the nonchalant, “You’re a foreigner. It’s not for you.” Even so, George
recalled, his mother was not reassured and continued to become more and more
wary of the Nazis.


As well she should have been. Putting the plight of Hungary’s Jews in proper
perspective requires a look at the numbers. Even though the war was all but lost
in 1944, Hitler sent Adolf Eichmann himself to deal with Hungary’s “Jewish
problem.” Eichmann arrived in Budapest a mere four days after the German tanks.
In the span of only two months, German efficiency coupled with Hungarian
collaboration managed to “deport” 437,402 Jews, and all but 15,000 went to
Auschwitz. A full ¾ of all Hungarian Jews perished in the Holocaust; one in
every three killed at Auschwitz was a Hungarian Jew.


Yet, even knowing all these gruesome details after the war, George Soros still
described that year of the Hungarian Holocaust, during which his own hands had
delivered “deportation” notices and confiscated Jewish properties, as “the most
exciting time of my life.” Soros also told his biographer that for his family,
the worst suffering had been their inability to obtain their preferred Titleist
tennis balls. Concealing his Jewishness from the Nazis with forged identity
papers? Why, that was “exciting,” a year of facing “danger, yet “getting the
better of it,” of “being in command of the situation,” “maneuvering
successfully” and feeling “inviolate.” As George added, “what more could you ask
for” at age fourteen?


Fourteen. Yes, it’s a young age. And George’s age at the time has been his best
excuse for what most people would regard as a callous and inhumane lack of guilt
over his own Nazi collaboration.


However, modern people ought not judge Soros’ 1944 actions by the level of
maturity exhibited by American 14-year-olds today.


The truth is that George Soros was 14 years old in 1944, not 2004. And at the
same time that George Soros was having the “most exciting time” taking care of
nothing more substantial than his own survival at any cost, other 11, 12, 13 and
14 year olds were actually fighting as soldiers in the war.


Not only were child soldiers being used in actual combat, but the valiant
uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto — the one George’s family had heard about in 1943
— saw a great many children fight heroically against the Nazis. Resistance
fighters throughout the Nazi-occupied territories welcomed child warriors and
many played vital parts. Hitler was employing his own youth squads in tank
battalions, drafting children as young as twelve. These German child soldiers
were matched and often bettered in real battle by Jews and gentiles of the same
ages. So for George Soros to use his youth as some sort of blanket apologetic
for what many regard as unapologetic collaboration with evil is quite beyond the
pale.


Soros has often spoken of his father’s rejection of Judaism as the thing that
framed his own conscience development, but even that is a half-truth at best.
Young George Soros was both mature enough and independent enough at age 12 to
seek his own answers regarding the faith of his grandfathers. George undertook
Yeshiva schooling on his own, against the admonitions of his father, learning
about his Jewish history and the tenets of Judaism, even having his own bar
mitzvah at age 13.


He promptly abandoned Judaism, however, concluding that man “had created God in
his own image.” Fine. That was his personal choice. But he cannot now claim that
during the war, he knew not what he was doing. He knew very well; he had learned
from the rabbis of Budapest — the same rabbis who were put to death by Eichmann
with a lot of help from Hungarian Jews, like George Soros.


It ought not go without mention, too, that as soon as Soviet forces “liberated”
Budapest, George and his father immediately set about capitalizing on their
fellow Hungarians’ desperate straits. George’s “sense of exhilaration”
accelerated in 1945. The year was for George “as exciting and interesting — in
many ways even more interesting and adventurous — than the German occupation.”
That was the year George Soros first began his financial ventures and currency
trading in the flourishing black market.


George’s father would send him to a crowded café, the center of Budapest’s black
market, to “change money and trade jewelry” — because a 15 year old “was less
likely to arouse suspicion than an older man.” And this currency trading, for
which Soros has now become quite infamous and which has made him quite rich, was
conducted with the same insouciance with which Soros treats his own former Nazi
collaboration.


Whenever one thinks of George Soros, one ought never forget that his own
conscience is made from a wholly indifferent cloth. As Soros wrote himself in
1995, in his book, Soros on Soros, “I do not accept the rules imposed by
others.” No, Soros plays by his own rules. And as he shamelessly recounts his
cunning survival during WWII and his money-changing exploits at war’s end, the
only lesson he took from it all was that what counts in life is one’s own
survival and “trying to come out on top no matter what happens around you.”


When Jews are being “deported” to death camps, Soros says, I am “above them.”
What’s that to him? If “I was not doing it, then someone else would be doing
it.” When life savings of hard-working people depend upon the value of their
currency, Soros trades with the same nonchalance. His only goal is to save
himself, promote himself, and enrich himself.


Oh, and lest we forget, Soros’ main life objective, as he told his biographer,
is to “become the conscience of the world.” If Soros’ own conscience is the
guide, who would wish to live in that world?


Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to
American Thinker.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)With friends like this, who needs enemies.

I have previously noted (here, here and here) that the Cameron government is
shaping up to be one of the most hostile towards Israel in living memory. David
Cameron himself and Foreign Secretary William Hague have consistently treated
Hamas propaganda about casualty figures in any war with Israel as reliable, even
though they are invariably a pack of lies, and have furthermore astoundingly
replicated the Arab strategy of turning Israeli self-defence into aggression at
every opportunity. While he was in opposition, Hague infamously condemned
Israel’s behaviour during the 2006 war in Lebanon as ‘disproportionate’; Cameron
himself condemned Israel for its ‘attack’ on the Turkish terrorist boat the Mavi
Marmara and designated Gaza a ‘prison camp’.


Now Hague is at it again. With the Arab world convulsed by the unrest in Tunisia
and Egypt and with the acute danger that such instability will result in the
region lurching even further into Islamic theocratic tyranny, the British
Foreign Secretary’s response is – to bash Israel. Never mind that the uproar in
Egypt and Tunisia, along with the nervousness in Jordan and Saudi Arabia that
their regimes may also be swept away by rising extremism, demonstrates the utter
absurdity of the claim that regional tranquillity depends on resolving the issue
of ‘Palestine’. Hague makes a point of declaring that the casualty of the unrest
will be... the Middle East peace process.


Never mind that this process has stalled because Abbas and co won’t even
negotiate. Never mind that even these so-called ‘moderates’ insist they will
never accept Israel as a Jewish state, and thus refuse to renounce their
nine-decade long war of extermination against the Jewish presence in the land.
Never mind that they continue to incite their people and their children to hate
Jews and murder Israelis. Hague knows that Israel is to blame. As the Times (£)
reports:


The Middle East peace process is in danger of becoming a casualty of the
revolutionary tidal wave sweeping the Arab world, and Israel is putting itself
at risk by failing to compromise, William Hague told The Times yesterday.
Speaking on an emergency peace mission covering five countries in three days,
the Foreign Secretary issued a blunt instruction to Israel to tone down the
belligerent language used by Binyamin Netanyahu, its Prime Minister, since the
uprising and protests, which have spread from Tunisia to Egypt and beyond.


... Mr Hague responded to increasingly militaristic pronouncements by Mr
Netanyahu, who has been urging his nation to prepare for ‘any outcome’ and
vowing to ‘reinforce the might of the state of Israel’. The Foreign Secretary
said: ‘This should not be a time for belligerent language. It’s a time to inject
greater urgency into the Middle East peace process.’


Belligerent? Israel is currently petrified that, if Islamists come to power in
Egypt and tear up its 30-year old peace treaty as the Muslim Brothers have said
they will do, it will face the nightmare of a renewed threat of war from the
south as well as from Iran/Hezbollah in the north and Iran/Hamas in Gaza. It
will be thus encircled by truly ‘belligerent ‘ enemies. It will have to turn its
entire military and strategic thinking upside down in order to defend itself
against such a grim prospect – and yes, of course it will have to reinforce its
defences. Even more young Israelis will have to be called up to army service and
face the risk of death to prevent their country from being wiped off the map.
For William Hague to represent the warnings by Israel’s Prime Minister that his
country must now prepare itself for this terrifying eventuality as
‘belligerency’ is simply obscene.


Let us hear no more nauseating hypocrisy from Cameron or Hague about how they
are Israel’s staunch allies. With ‘friends’ like these, who needs enemies?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER

Barack Obama is turning himself into a case study of how a U.S. president should
not conduct foreign policy. With his propensity to constantly seek the
spotlight, Obama has morphed into commentator-in-chief when it comes to the
still unfolding crisis in Egypt. Instead of keeping a low profile, weighing
developments and not sticking his neck out amid fast-changing events on the
ground, Obama feels it necessary to issue a spate of public pronouncements that
are quickly overtaken by what's really happening in Cairo and other Egyptian
cities.


The self-made hubris that afflicts Obama was dramatically illustrated on Feb. 10
when, in anticipation of a public address by Hosni Mubarak that the media touted
beforehand as a formal farewell, Obama didn't even wait to hear what the
Egyptian leader would say and, during a trip to Michigan, began exulting that
Mubarak was about to follow the script Obama had devised for him. So Obama told
the world that we were about to see history unfold before our eyes and witness a
historically transformational moment.


Instead, nothing of the sort actually happened. A stubborn Mubarak announced
that he would not step down before elections in September and, while he would
delegate authority to his vice president, Omar Suleiman, Mubarak would not
surrender his presidential prerogatives in the meantime. The White House
reaction: Gulp!


Obama has been too quick to put all his weight behind the protesting mobs, a
motley collection of genuine democrats and radical Islamists. At the same time,

he has been on a slippery slope of accepting a major political role for the
Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist outfit that spawned Hamas and other
terror groups.


But, given Obama's repeated miscues, what can you expect from an administration
whose national intelligence director, James Clapper, tells a congressional
committee that the Muslim Brotherhood is a collection of ''secular" activists.
Here's Obama's top intelligence adviser blind to the Muslim Brotherhood's
inherent Islamic theocratic beliefs and agenda. The brotherhood wants nothing
less than an Allah-branded caliphate in Egypt, throughout the Middle East, and
eventually around the globe.


American influence is a cherished commodity that shouldn't be frittered away.
Under Obama, it is disappearing at a quickening pace.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Do Egypt's protests mean American decline?
By Michael Gerson


For those who are prone to be prone to such things, recent events in Egypt are
further evidence of declining American global influence. President Hosni
Mubarak, having taken a lot of American aid, now seems immune to both American
advice and pressure. The protesters, one article complained, didn't even bother
to burn our flag. We are seeing, according to some observers, a "post-American
Middle East."


Never mind that the protesters are using Western technology to demand individual
rights. Or that many of the young, secular bloggers who laid the groundwork for
the revolution alternate between Arabic and English and have visited or studied
in America. Lay aside the fact that Egyptians in the streets have focused their
demands on only two actors, the Egyptian regime and the American government -
not the United Nations or the Arab League or China. In fact, China's response
was to remove the word "Egypt" from its Internet search engines and lie low,
hoping the storm passes.


Such considerations should not be allowed to detract from our sense of impotence
- a paradoxical tribute to our ambitions. People in Holland or Costa Rica do not
celebrate or decry their lack of sway in Egyptian politics. Only Americans feel
vindication or guilt at the limits of their power.


Those limits are obvious along the Nile. The outcome of this confused struggle
matters greatly to American interests. The emergence of a Sunni version of Iran
in Egypt would be a major blow. A democratic transition, even a messy and
partial one, might eventually isolate or domesticate the extremists and defuse
hatred for America. But the course of events in Egypt is determined by an
internal contest of fear and hope that intensifies daily and that America can
influence only on the margins.


And the limits of a certain American policy approach in the Middle East have
never been more obvious. Decades of aiding a military dictator who presides over
a corrupt, unresponsive government, who has managed his economy into stagnation
and scarcity, and who has driven most legitimate opposition toward the radical
mosque have not produced stability. There's a reason shahs are sometimes
followed by mullahs - because religious extremism is the opiate of a humiliated
people. Who can seriously argue that the denouement in Egypt will be better
because Mubarak cannot seem to take a hint and board a plane?


But it is a tricky thing to extrapolate these limits into a theory of American
decline. Decline compared to what? Compared to the heady, unipolar moment
immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or compared to the
coldest days of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union sent military aid and
advisers to Syria, Egypt, Libya and Iraq, attempting to block American actions
at every turn?


The scholar Joseph Nye describes a layer cake of American influence. On the
first level, military power, America remains unchallenged. On the second,
economic influence, the world has been multipolar for a while now. On a third
level - a transnational realm of bankers and terrorists, Facebook and hackers -
power is diffused to a wide range of actors, both good and bad, who now have the
ability to sponsor Sept. 11, 2001, or Jan. 25, 2011.


In the complex determination of national influence, those with the best story,
the most compelling narrative, have an advantage. In the Middle East, does the
old dictator speaking of past glories on Egyptian state television really seem
like the wave of the future? Does Iranian theocracy, which in reaction to
democratic protests has collapsed into military control, seem worthy of
emulation? These systems may be imposed at the barrel of a gun. But on the
streets of Cairo, self-government is the hope. It seems the system most likely
to result in progress, social vitality and national achievement. And it seems
that way because it is.


At least since Franklin Roosevelt, American leaders have viewed the appeal of
democratic ideals as a source of national power. America now has less direct
control, say, in Germany and Japan than it did in the 1950s. But both countries
are monuments to American influence. Democracies do not always do our bidding,
but in the long run they are more stable and peaceful than countries ruled by
the whims of a single man. Democratic transitions are difficult and uncertain,
especially in places with shallow democratic roots. But it is strangely
disconnected from American history and ideals to regard a popular revolt against
an oppressive ruler as a sign of American decline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Obama wields scalpel to budget, avoiding much pain
The Associated Press

President Barack Obama's budget submission on Monday will take a surgical
approach to a deficit problem that his Republican rivals say warrants a meat ax.


Monday's release of next year's $3.5 trillion-plus budget plan will likely be
ignored by resurgent Republicans intent on cutting tens of billions of dollars
from the president's old budget.


That will mean a battle over spending between the White House and
Republican-controlled House of Representatives and even the threat of a shutdown
of the government in coming weeks.


The Republican drive to slash 2011 spending and much of the savings sought by
Obama involve just a small piece of the budget pie _ the annual domestic agency
budgets that make up just one-tenth of federal spending.


Tea party-backed House Republicans are trying to slash the budgets for such
programs to the levels when Obama first took office.


Obama's promise to freeze budgets of domestic agencies at 2010 levels for five
years _ an austere plan by itself _ looks generous by comparison.


Republicans say that Obama's freeze on domestic accounts funded by Congress each
year _ which amount to just about 10 cents of every dollar the government spends
_ simply keeps in place a generous 24 percent increase awarded by Democrats over
the past two years.


On Sunday, House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to Obama urging the
president to support Republican efforts to make deep cuts in this year's budget
as a down payment in the effort to attack soaring deficits.


The Ohio Republican wrote that the path to prosperity for the country means
"liberating our economy from the shackles of out-of-control government spending
and big government."


Accompanying Boehner's letter was a statement endorsed by 150 economists that
called for immediate action to reduce spending.


House Republicans are pushing $61 billion in spending cuts through September.

Obama budget director Jacob Lew refused to say whether the administration would
support that, but he stressed that the administration wants to work with
Republicans to pass a budget for the rest of this year and to get a 2012
spending plan approved. The new budget year begins Oct. 1.


According to an Office of Management and Budget summary obtained by The
Associated Press, the administration will propose more than $1 trillion in
deficit reduction over the next decade with two-thirds of that amount coming
from spending cuts.


The OMB summary said these reductions would reduce the deficit as a percentage
of the total economy to 3 percent of GDP by the middle of this decade. The
deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to surge to an all-time
high of $1.5 trillion this year, which would be 9.8 percent of the economy.


A $1.5 trillion deficit for 2011 would mark an unprecedented third straight $1
trillion-plus deficit, a tide of red ink that reflects the deep 2007-2009
recession, which cut into government tax revenues as millions were thrown out of
work, and massive government spending to jump-start economic growth and
stabilize the banking system.


Republicans have attacked all the spending, even though the Bush administration
also pursued a stimulus program and the $700 billion financial bailout was
proposed by President George W. Bush. They contend that the massive spending has
still left the country with painfully high unemployment at 9 percent.


Boehner, appearing on NBC television's "Meet the Press," said that the budget
plan Obama would send Congress on Monday "will continue to destroy jobs by
spending too much, borrowing too much and taxing too much."


Lew, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," said that Obama's budget would
present a plan for getting the deficit back down to sustainable levels.


"We have a responsible budget that will cut in half the deficit by the end of
the president's first term," Lew said.


On Saturday, Obama promised the government will have to tighten its belt.

"This budget asks Washington to live within its means, while at the same time
investing in our future," the president said Saturday in his weekly radio and
Internet address. "It cuts what we can't afford to pay for what we cannot do
without. That's what families do in hard times. And that's what our country has
to do too."


But Obama is likely to ignore the most painful recommendation of the bipartisan
budget commission he appointed when releasing his budget on Monday.


While Obama invited Republicans in last month's State of the Union policy
address to sit down and seek a "bipartisan solution to strengthen Social
Security for future generations," he won't offer any specific policy
prescriptions on how to fix the program. The deficit commission offered
politically dangerous ideas like raising the Social Security retirement age,
trimming future benefit increases and reaping more payroll taxes from better-off
workers.


Instead, Obama promises to seek eliminating tens of billions of dollars in tax
breaks for oil companies _ even though such ideas went nowhere under Democratic
control of Congress and have even less of a chance now.


Obama wants to use such proposals and cuts of other programs to pay for
increased spending on education, infrastructure, science and research that he
says is needed to boost U.S. competitiveness. But Republicans oppose such
spending increases.


Obama is seeking $53 billion for high-speed rail over the next few years, House
Republicans are trying to pull back $2.5 billion that's already been promised.
The president is seeking increases for his "Race to the Top" initiative that
provides grants to better-performing schools; Republicans on Friday unveiled a
five percent cut to schools serving the disadvantaged.


The House Republican budget measure unveiled Friday is loaded with pain,
including sharp cuts for pre-kindergarten education, housing vouchers for
homeless veterans, a program to feed pregnant women and their babies, health
research, foreign aid and the Peace Corps.


That measure was drafted after an earlier version was too timid for freshmen
elected last fall with help from the ultraconservative tea party movement. Some
$26 billion in cuts were added, almost doubling those in the earlier measure.