You Can Fool Some Of The People All The Time & Hell, It's Only Money!

Abe Foxman is a 'DNA can't help myself' Liberal Jew and therefore, will bend over backwards to find reasons to lean in the president's direction. What he basically points out in the article below is he believes Obama has learned on the job, continues showing signs of improvement and has moved from a low grade of F to a higher one of B in job performance.

My view is, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Whereas the U.S. has the luxury of time and talk, Israel does not. Trusting the president is turning over your time table, that varies, to him and thus your own survival. Not a wise move in this writer's view based on his record of non-achievements in foreign policy. (See 1, 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d below.)

Meanwhile, the president is campaigning on a clever thematic message which basically says: "I feel the pain my policies have caused you."

As long as Republicans turn their guns on each other the president's cynical message will resonate as American dependency on government grows beyond reversal. Socialism is your friend until it cripples you."Socialism is the creed of envy. The Philosophy of failure and the equal sharing of misery. Sir Winston Churchill." (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
---
THIS EXPLAINS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON THE COSTA

Extenuating circumstances I think.

In any event Captain Francesco Schettino has been exonerated on medical grounds.

It’s been revealed he has been suffering from premature evacuation.
---
When I hosted a meeting for Georgia's Attorney General last year he mentioned the new EPA Regs would cause Southern Company to close between 3 - 8 plants and the ultimate long term capital costs would be in the $20 to $30 billion range.

These new rules will cause the air purity to improve in the billionths of a MG or some such. Cost effective legislation is not part of any equation because Greens do not consider economics as something that should be considered. Ideology drives there thinking.

The impact has begun elsewhere so here goes a lot of money down the drain so we can have clean air which China will then pollute as their use of coal explodes.

What the hell, it's only money! (See 3 below.)

Meanwhile the president just bought more votes and garnered more dependents on government with his mortgage reduction plan.

He delights in buying his re-election. It's all about government determining fairness.(See 4 below.)
---
Republicans and conservatism. (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)ADL's Foxman: Obama Has 'Improved,' But Iran Situation 'Serious'
By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella



The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama has shown improvement in his policies toward Israel, especially in regard to Iran.

But he warns that Israel is sending an urgent message that strong action must be taken against Iran’s nuclear program to forestall an Israeli attack. Foxman heads one of the nation’s premier civil rights organizations, with a special focus on anti-Semitism.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Foxman says Obama’s grade on Israel has gone from an “F” two years ago to a solid “B” today because he has “learned from his mistakes.


Foxman specifically praised Obama for standing with Israel in his speech to the U.N. in September and for sharing “bunker-busting” bombs with the Jewish state.

With speculation growing about an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Foxman was asked whetherf Israel should hold off on such a strike to give economic sanctions against the Islamic republic time to work.

“If there is not to be military action to stop the nuclear arming of Iran, there needs to be serious, serious, heavy sanctions,” he says. “There has been more talk about sanctions than actual implementation.

“I think the talk about an imminent Israeli attack is a message to the world that if you want to be serious about Iran, then act quickly, act seriously. That will prevent the need for possible military action.”

Foxman says he believes Obama is serious when he vows that the United States will work closely with Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“One needs to look at two levels of this administration’s approach to Israel,” Foxman says. “Politically there have been some issues, but in recent months and I’d say in the last year and a half, two years, the military relationship has been very close, the intelligence relationship has been very close.

“Iran is not only a threat to Israel. This is a country that says it will wipe Israel off the map. But Iran poses a threat to the free world, to Europe, to the United States.

“So I believe the president when he says they are working closely with Israel. We’ve seen more sharing between the United States and Israel on the issue of Iran than we’ve seen in many years.”

The head of the Iranian parliament’s research institute recently called for a preemptive missile strike on Israel before the end of the year to forestall an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Asked whether that threat concerns him, Foxman responds: “I think any threat from a country that is irrational and has the ability to arm as they have, which has not changed its tone, its rhetoric, I think we need to take seriously.

“I think too frequently democracies and the West ignore the rhetoric of dictatorships. I think we must take their word seriously.”

In a Newsmax interview two years ago, Foxman gave Obama an “F” grade for his dealing with the Israeli-Arab conflict and Iran. Asked whether he still gives Obama a failing grade, Fox says: “No, I think he has improved. He has learned from some of the mistakes.

“I think the speech he gave at the United Nations puts him back in my mind to a B. He still hasn’t achieved [an A] but he has a better understanding of what is possible and what is not possible.”

In that speech in September, Obama urged a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, stressed support for an independent Palestinian state, and spoke against any United Nations bid to declare Palestine a state on its own.

Foxman says that, after the address, “I called one of the White House officials and I said this is a wonderful speech. Had the president given that speech in Cairo three years ago, we may have had a two-state solution.

“But there is an understanding. I think the fact that the United States is now supplying Israel with bunker-busters, that aid is being given in terms of defense missiles, I think shows an understanding that they were wrong.

Foxman addressed other issues in his Newsmax interview:

The Arab Spring: “It’s interesting that there was a meeting between the Jewish community and King Abdullah of Jordan, and one of the things he was concerned about was the speed with which the United States was cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It is a dilemma, but I don’t think we should rush to legitimize them, to open up relations.”

The Arab uprising “changes the neighborhood,” Foxman says. “The neighborhood was never good. Now it’s a little worse.

“There was never a warm peace, but at least there was a peace. Now it is not clear. The Muslim brotherhood leadership has spoken out of three sides of their mouth, saying they will abide by the [Israeli-Egyptian peace] treaty, others saying they will not.

“We’re seeing the gas lines supplying gas to Israel and Jordan have now been blown up 12 times. Until the Egyptians, the Muslim Brotherhood, the military decide to protect Sinai against al-Qaida, against terrorism, then I’m not sure that peace will last.”

Turkey and Israel: “Turkey’s relationship with Israel has gone from the example of a Muslim country being able to relate to both sides to one where I believe [Prime Minister Recep] Erdogan is playing a role to become a leader of the Muslim world.

“That has already undermined the Turkish-Israeli relationship. It may undermine the NATO relationship. If Turkey continues to build its relationshipwith Iran, how can the United States share its codes, its secrets with a NATO ally when there is a possibility it may be handed over to our enemies?”

Anti-Semitism in the United States: After the 2008 financial crisis, the ADL noted an increase in crimes against Jews. Foxman was asked whether anti-Semitic incidents are increasing.

“They are. When you measure hate crimes in this country, when it comes to religion, Jews and Jewish institutions are still the number one targets. For every time there is an Islamophobic attack, there are 10 attacks on Jewish institutions.

“Unfortunately anti-Semitism still exists. We’re not immune.It’s better here than anywhere else in the world, but it still needs antidotes — education, education, education.”

1a)America, like every other country, wants and needs allies. In the Middle
East, the only reliable one is Israel. Make friends with the Arabs? Unless
you've got a corrupt absolute dictator like Mubarak or Saddam to deal with,
that's very, very tricky -- maybe impossible. Especially when you have
Islamists calling us the Great Satan. But we've got to try. An attack on
Iran may be smart from Israel's point of view and bad from America's. I say
"may." Maybe not. At least admit it's a dilemma. And we have to think about
the long run. Two possible scenarios:

1) No bombing: Iran has a regime change or an uprising that makes it less
belligerent
2) Yes bombing: The nuclear threat is stopped for now, but eventually it
happens anyway

Bush tried out the idea that you have to start a war to stop a war, and we
see what that led to. Don't demonize Obama for being a bit more cautious.

Yours,
Ken


1b)Obama's Palestine Test
Will the U.S. send money to a government that includes Hamas?

How should the Obama Administration respond to the news that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signed a deal with Hamas to form a unity government? In 2009, Hillary Clinton was unequivocal. The U.S. "will not deal with, nor in any way fund, a Palestinian government that included Hamas," said the Secretary of State, unless Hamas renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel.

That stern finger isn't wagging now. "We are not going to give a grade to this thing until we have a chance to talk to Palestinian Authority leaders about the implications," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, along with the usual throat-clearing about U.S. red lines. She added that the deal was an "internal matter" for Palestinians.

Which is true. What's also true is that the U.S. has budgeted some $500 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) for the current fiscal year, plus another $232 million for the U.N. welfare agency that deals with the descendants of Palestinian refugees. U.S. law prohibits aid to any Palestinian government that includes Hamas. The question for the Administration is whether it will abide by the law—or search for a legal loophole.

That loophole might be a government of supposedly nonpartisan technocrats on whom both factions can agree. This week's agreement, reached under Qatari auspices, takes one step in that direction by naming Mr. Abbas to succeed Salam Fayyad as prime minister while retaining his post as president. After that, however, the details of the plan become vague. Question: Would the U.S. continue to fund and train a Palestinian security apparatus that merges with Hamas's paramilitary units? Let's hope not.

The Administration may want to put that question to the side and hope for the best—or else for this deal to fall apart, as other deals have in the past. But eventually the U.S. will have to make some determination about the utility of funding a Palestinian government that scorns negotiations with Israel and rarely bothers to pay even lip service to U.S. interests.

So it was last year with the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations (which failed thanks to the Administration) and later at Unesco (which succeeded despite it). We're assuming there's a limit to how often even the Obama Administration is prepared to be spurned.

It may not be too late for the U.S. to tell the Palestinians that they cannot bring a terrorist organization into government while continuing to expect American money and sympathy. But that would require sharp and public statements from Mrs. Clinton and President Obama of the kind they have used to rebuke Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Administration likes to tout itself as the best friend Israel has ever had. Its attitude toward Palestinian "reconciliation" is a test of that boast.


1c)Iran 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0
By Victor Davis Hanson


On the campaign trail, presidential candidate Barack Obama once called for a "reset" policy with Iran. Supposedly, the unpopularity of the Texan provocateur George W. Bush and his administration's inability to finesse "soft power" had needlessly alienated the Iranian theocracy.

After all, the widely quoted but highly politicized 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claimed that Iran had ceased work on a bomb in 2003 and would not have a weapon for the foreseeable future. That flawed analysis fueled another popular talking point: that the Bush-Cheney warmongers were looking for more phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iran of the sort that had led them into Iraq.

In contrast, Obama proclaimed himself to be a more sophisticated sort of president. His left-wing politics, postracial appeal and his father's Muslim heritage supposedly might win over the heretofore needlessly alienated Iranians -- and most others in the Middle East as well. At no point did candidate Obama stop to consider that the Iranians could view his loud politicking and opportunistic criticism of Bush's hostility toward Iran -- identical to standard U.S. bipartisan policy under at least the four prior presidents -- as weakness to be manipulated rather than magnanimity to be appreciated.

After Obama took office in 2009, we had a new Iran 2.0 policy implemented on a variety of fronts. We courted Vladimir Putin by closing down an Eastern European anti-ballistic missile project in hopes that the Russians would help stop Iranian proliferation. We scheduled face-to-face talks with the Iranians. We did not press initially for economic sanctions of Iranian exports and imports. We largely ignored Iranian terrorists who were killing Americans in Iraq.

The Obama administration kept quiet in spring of 2009 when a million Iranians hit the streets to protest their cruel authoritarian regime. It seemed to apologize for the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Mohammed Mossadegh. It reopened our embassy in Syria, Iran's closest Middle East ally. It jawboned Israel, Iran's worst Middle East enemy.

The result of Obama's Iran 2.0 policy?

Failure on every front. The Iranians sped up work on the bomb. They snubbed every deadline we issued. They increased weapons shipments to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. The Russians aided rather than blocked Iranian nuclear efforts.

More recently, the Iranians plotted to kill a Saudi diplomat in the United States. They issued warnings to the Sunni Arab Gulf kingdoms and tried to stir up their Shiite populations. They turned to Afghanistan and helped supply Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. They forged an anti-American alliance in Latin America with Hugo Chavez. They are boasting about closing the Strait of Hormuz and warning allies of Israel of possible retaliation.

In the manner that Jimmy Carter's reset foreign policy crashed in 1980 with the communists entering Afghanistan and Central America, and American hostages taken in Iran, and so was followed by a suddenly tough new Carter Doctrine, likewise the Obama administration is now forced to reset its policy.

With Obama's new Iran 3.0, we are flip-flopping and now ratcheting up sanctions. We are announcing the dispatch of additional warships to the Persian Gulf. We are lobbying the United Nations for tougher resolutions against Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the U.S. We are no longer warning Israel to play it cool, but rather publicly and matter-of-factly announcing the likelihood of a preemptive Israeli bombing strike.

In other words, after demagoguing the old Iranian 1.0 containment strategy, the Obama administration is now trying to play 3.0 catch-up after its own failed 2.0 appeasement policy.

The ironic result is that war is now far more likely with Iran than it ever was under George W. Bush, and for far more reasons. Obama faces no knee-jerk, left-wing criticism. Just as the Left went silent when Obama suddenly took ownership of Guantanamo, Iraq, renditions and tribunals, it won't hit the streets if he takes action against Iran. If Obama finds himself behind in the 2012 campaign, such a bold move would win him political unity and advantage in wag-the-dog fashion.

Due to Obama's hostility toward Israel, the United States now has far less knowledge about, and influence with, the Israeli military. And the long-appeased Iranian theocracy is now more likely to miscalculate, thinking either that the confused Obama administration won't stop it, or that any American attempt to stop it would be only half-hearted.

Obama's initial Iran reset policy squandered the American sense of deterrence. Now we are desperately trying to regain the tough bipartisan approach taken under earlier presidents.

But the likely result of this schizophrenia will probably be an Obama 4.0 Iran policy -- in other words, a big war in the Persian Gulf.


1d) As US and Israel dicker over Iran strike, American airlifts strength to the Gulf



As the US and Israel carried on bickering over the right time to strike Iran's nuclear sites, their war preparations continued apace. Military sources report flight after flight of US warplanes and transports were to be seen this week cutting eastward through the skies of Sinai on their way to Gulf destinations, presumably Saudi Arabia, at a frequency not seen in the Middle East for many years.

The three International Atomic Energy inspectors who spent the last three days of January in Tehran had asked to meet the hitherto invisible head of Iran's nuclear bomb program, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, 50, a general of the Revolutionary Guards. The Iranians pretended to be deaf. They also kept the inspectors away from any nuclear installations. A senior Obama administration official termed the visit "foot-dragging at best and a disaster at worst."

Intelligence and military sources note that without talking to Fakhrizadeh or any of the 600 nuclear engineers and scientists working under him, unless one of them defects, there is no way the West can determine what exactly is going on in Iran's nuclear program stands and which installations have been moved to underground facilities.

No one doubts now that advanced centrifuges and stocks of enriched uranium – 3.5 percent and 20 percent grades alike - have been moved to Iran's underground bunker site at Fordo near Qom, which the US administration has claimed its bunker buster bombs cannot reach and which Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak has defined as "a zone of immunity."

In their ongoing argument with Jerusalem, American officials commented crossly this week that "Israelis are looking at the problem too narrowly."

Clearly Israel, unlike America, envisions the Iranian "problem" from the narrow viewpoint of potential victim of an Iranian attack. Sunday, Feb. 5, Alireza Forghani, head of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's strategic team, was quoted as remarking, "It would only take nine minutes to wipe out Israel."

The remark came from a just-published detailed and serious paper by an Iranian study group which advised Tehran not to wait to be attacked but to launch a preemptive strike against the Jewish state.

Wiping Israel out in 9 minutes would require a nuclear weapon. It therefore behooves Israel to narrow its vision and focus closely on Iran's nuclear potential and intent.

By now, the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government have pretty well run out of semantic ammunition for their dingdong over how long to wait for sanctions to bite before going on the military offensive against Iran's nuclear sites and who should do the deed.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu plans a trip to Washington in March and will almost certainly get together with President Barack Obama. That is a date to watch.

Israel leaders have not given up warning that time is running out for a military strike that could stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Obama's comment to NBC TV Sunday Feb. 4, "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do," has been interpreted by some circles in Washington as meaning that Israel has agreed to wait long enough to give tough sanctions a chance.

Sources say that interpretation is wishful thinking rather than based on fact. The president's comment was another attempt to keep Israel within certain lines of restraint.

1e)Israeli Deterrence and Dolphins
By Jonathan F. Keiler


Last week, Germany agreed to sell Israel a sixth Dolphin-class submarine. Israel already has three of these capable submarines in service. Two others were either quietly delivered last year, or soon will be -- sources differ.

While the Dolphins have numerous conventional military applications, in reality, Israel appears to be in the process of creating the world's first nuclear counter-strike force based on small, conventionally powered submarines armed with long range-cruise missiles. While Israel has never officially admitted to possessing nuclear weapons and seems inclined to maintain its long-held posture of nuclear ambiguity, there is little doubt that she does indeed posses nuclear weapons and most likely has had weapon assembly capabilities since at least the late 1960s.

Iran has clearly emerged as Israel's chief regional antagonist. Iran's single-minded drive to acquire nuclear weapons -- and its threats to use them once deployed -- arguably presents the most serious strategic threat to Israel since the state's founding struggles in 1948.

This threat has led to almost endless conjecture regarding an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear installations. Israel's successful attack on a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, the failure of international sanctions to stem the Iranian program, and elaborate Israeli maneuvers that appear directed toward Iran have ratcheted up this speculation to a near-fever pitch. Yet to this day, as Iran inches ever closer to becoming a nuclear power, Israel has kept its sword sheathed.

Over the past decades, Israel has acquired conventional weapons systems with Iran in mind. The four most significant are F-15I and F-16I long-range strike fighters, the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system, and the Dolphin submarine.

The Dolphin is a German-manufactured diesel electric submarine. It has impressive submerged mission capability, sophisticated sensors, and advanced torpedoes. Upon the initial Dolphin sale, some observers focused on the installation of extra large 650mm torpedo tubes, in addition to standard 533mm tubes. While the larger tubes can be used for swimmer delivery vehicles, there is much speculation that their purpose is to deploy a new type of Israeli-made cruise missile.
The Israelis have long been interested in missiles of this type, having unsuccessfully sought to purchase the American Tomahawk (which could also be launched from a 533mm tube). The top candidate for making use of the 650mm tube is an extended-range version of the Israeli-designed Popeye Turbo missile. It would be a modification of the long-serving Popeye air-launched cruise missile, a weapon used by both the U.S. and Israel.

In 2000, Israel reportedly carried out tests in the Indian Ocean with cruise missiles of 1,500-km range. Whether the Popeye Turbo variant or another secret missile, this would give Israel a long-range cruise missile capability, similar to a Tomahawk, capable of taking out large above-ground targets, like cooling towers, transformers, generators, hardened buildings, and communication facilities. However, it is unlikely to be capable against deeply buried targets (as are much of Iran's nuclear facilities). Also, given the limited size and storage capacity of the Dolphin, each sub would be able to launch only a small number of missiles, thus greatly limiting these missiles' conventional utility against Iran.

The Dolphin is the most expensive single weapons system in the Israeli arsenal (even with German gifts and contributions to the costs) and cannot be risked absent clear necessity. Given the peril, and the relatively limited power of the Dolphins in conventional land attack, it seems unlikely that any Dolphins would be used for this purpose against Iran. Deployment to the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf during a surprise conventional strike on Iran would be very hazardous. So Dolphins in such an event would most likely be used to gather intelligence, deploy commandos, or strike at Iranian naval vessels -- not hit Iranian nuclear facilities or land defenses.

Furthermore, while speculation regarding the Dolphins has persistently focused on Iran, historically, Israel's primary naval focus has been on the Mediterranean. Israel has never fought a major sea engagement in its southern waters, and its naval deployments have historically been heavily weighted toward the Mediterranean. Israel's primary trading partner is Europe, and the country's major ports, industry, and population centers are located on its long, vulnerable Mediterranean coastline. Although the causus belli of both the 1956 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars was, at least in part, Egyptian blockades of the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel relied on ground and air forces in both conflicts to break the blockades.

Until the peace treaty with Egypt (1979) and the reopening of the Suez Canal to international and Israeli shipping, Israel was unable to deploy major warships to the Red Sea other than by sailing around Africa. Shortly after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Israel deployed two Saar-class missile boats to Sharm el-Sheikh (then still in Israeli hands) by sending them around Africa, presumably to ward off another blockade at Bab el Mandeb [i]. But since the Suez Canal's reopening, Israel has been reluctant to deploy naval assets through the Canal, or maintain them in the Red Sea [ii]. Israel in 2009, evidently with Egyptian blessing, ostentatiously deployed a Dolphin through Suez and back, for maneuvers and presumably as a warning to Iran. But there appears to be no permanent basing for the Dolphins in Eilat.

Thus, the Dolphins are likely part of the Israeli arsenal for two reasons, and a conventional preemptive strike against Iran is simply not one of them. First, the Dolphins offer important conventional operational capabilities against Israel's enemies and rivals in the Mediterranean. At present, Syria, Hezb'allah, and Hamas present the only immediate hostile naval threats to Israel, but things can change rapidly in the Middle East. Israel faces two dangerous and powerful naval rivals in the form of Egypt and Turkey.

The second reason Israel has Dolphins is almost certainly on account of nuclear deterrence. If there was much doubt about the Dolphin's nuclear capabilities, the recent announcement that candidates for service in the IDF sub force must renounce dual citizenship indicates the highly sensitive nature of this assignment. Israel is a very small country with no defensive interior to speak of, and it would be particularly vulnerable to a nuclear first strike against a relatively short list of targets. Therefore, a failsafe nuclear deterrent has become an existential aspect of Israeli defense policy.

Dolphins equipped with the nuclear-armed extended-range Popeye Turbo or another similarly capable cruise missile could maintain deterrence from deep in the Mediterranean. The distance from the Israeli port of Haifa to Tehran is 1,573 km, about the purported range of the long-range Popeye Turbo. Haifa to Isfahan (site of one of Iran's critical nuclear facilities) is about the same distance. Dolphins sailing off the coast of northern Syria, or southern Turkey (in the vicinity of Cyprus), could launch from somewhat closer range. Thus, for purposes of nuclear deterrence, there is no need to risk Dolphins in the Arabian Sea or Persian Gulf.
So why do the Israelis send an occasional Dolphin through Suez? Deception is one likely reason, as well as concern for Israeli shipping in the Red Sea at Bab el Mandeb, where history shows that Israel is vulnerable to blockade.

The Iranian regime has threatened Israel with nuclear attack and suggested that the tiny state could not survive a single successful nuclear strike, which might be true. As the United States appears to be plotting a course that tolerates and seeks to manage a nuclear-capable Iran, this is tremendously worrisome. It suggests that very soon, an Iranian regime well-equipped with nuclear weapons might speculate that a successful first strike against Israel's clustered and exposed land-based nuclear facilities is feasible. The Dolphins, by providing a secure last leg of an Israeli nuclear triad, will help ensure that that never happens.


[i] Moshe Tzalel, From Icebreaker to Missile Boat the Evolution of Israel's Naval Strategy (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), p. 63.
[ii] Ibid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)No Budget, No Problem
Now the White House tells Senate Democrats to flout the law.

The Senate last passed a budget 1,106 days ago—that would be almost three years—and now the White House is telling Democrats not to bother this year either. Harry Reid will be pleased, because last week the Majority Leader said he had no plans to do so.

Asked yesterday about the lack of a Senate budget, spokesman Jay Carney said that "Well, I don't have an opinion to express on how the Senate does its business with regards to this issue." ABC's Jake Tapper pressed, incredulously, "The White House has no opinion about whether or not the Senate should pass a budget?"

Mr. Carney reiterated that President Obama has "no opinion," only that he "looks forward to the Senate acting on the policy initiatives contained within his budget." But Mr. Carney refused to say the Senate should act by even proposing a budget, let alone, you know, actually passing one.

The running tally of days without a budget has become a Republican talking point, but there's a lesson here about liberal governance and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. That law, a Democratic creation, mandates that both chambers by April submit a formal budget blueprint that shows how the government will meet its obligations over the coming year, lays out a general fiscal framework for entitlements and sets priorities for spending and taxes. The law was supposed to increase the incentives for fiscal discipline. But now that House Republicans want to take it seriously, Democrats want to pretend it doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, the GOP used its budget last year and will again this year to advance specific and credible alternatives to the Obama status quo. At least Democrats are conceding that they're unwilling even to suggest solutions of their own.

2a)The Anti-Romney Vote
By Thomas Sowell

A funny thing happened to Mitt Romney on the way to his coronation as the inevitable Republican candidate for President of the United States. Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado happened. Rick Santorum beat him in all three states on the same day -- and beat him by huge margins in two of those states, as well as upsetting him in Colorado, where the Mormon vote was expected to give Romney a victory.

The Republican establishment, which has lined up heavily behind Romney, has tried to depict him as the "electable," if not invincible, candidate in the general election this November. But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been vinced, especially in a month when pundits had suggested that Romney might build up an unstoppable momentum of victories.

In a sense, this year's campaign for the Republican nomination is reminiscent of what happened back in 1940, when the big-name favorites -- Senators Taft and Vandenberg, back then -- were eclipsed by a lesser known candidate who seemed to come out of nowhere.

As the Republican convention that year struggled to try to come up with a majority vote for someone, a chant began in the hall and built to a crescendo: "We want Willkie! We want Willkie!"
If there is a message in the rise and fall of so many conservative Republican candidates during this year's primary season, it seems to be today's Republican voters saying, "We don't want Romney! We don't want Romney!"

Even in Colorado, where Governor Romney came closest to winning, the combined votes for Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich added up to an absolute majority against him.
Much has been made of Newt Gingrich's "baggage." But Romney's baggage has been accumulating recently, as well. His millions of dollars parked in a tax shelter in the Cayman Islands is red meat for the class warfare Democrats.

But a far more serious issue is ObamaCare, perhaps the most unpopular act of the Obama administration, its totalitarian implications highlighted by its recent attempt to force Catholic institutions to violate their own principles and bend the knee to the dictates of Washington bureaucrats.

Yet Romney's own state-imposed medical care plan when he was governor of Massachusetts leaves him in a very weak position to criticize ObamaCare, except on strained federalism grounds that are unlikely to stir the voters or clarify the larger issues.

The Romney camp's massive media ad campaign of character assassination against Newt Gingrich, over charges on which the Internal Revenue Service exonerated Gingrich after a lengthy investigation, was by no means Romney's finest hour, though it won him the Florida primary.

This may well have been payback for Newt's demagoguery about Romney's work at Bain Capital. But two character assassinations do not make either candidate look presidential.

If Romney turns his well-financed character assassination machine on Rick Santorum, or Santorum resorts to character assassination against either Romney or Gingrich, the Republicans may forfeit whatever chance they have of defeating Barack Obama in November.

Some politicians and pundits seem to think that President Obama is vulnerable politically because of the economy in the doldrums. "It's the economy, stupid," has become one of the many mindless mantras of our time.

What Obama seems to understand that Republicans and many in the media do not, is that dependency on the government in hard times can translate into votes for the White House incumbent.

Growing numbers of Americans on food stamps, jobs preserved by bailouts, people living on extended unemployment payments and people behind in their mortgage payments being helped by government interventions are all potential voters for those who rescued them -- even if their rescuers are the reason for hard times, in the first place.

The economy was far worse during the first term of Franklin D. Roosevelt than it has been under Obama. Unemployment rates under FDR were more than double what they have been under Obama. Yet FDR was reelected in a landslide. Dependency pays off for politicians, even when it damages an economy or ruins a society.

2b)Dependence on Government Highest in History

When John F. Kennedy was President, just over a quarter of federal spending went to fund programs paying for some 21.7 million Americans to be dependent on Uncle Sam. But as high as that spending and dependence on the federal government was then, it has exploded today, with one in five Americans -- more than 67.3 million -- depending on Washington for assistance.

The Heritage Foundation's 2012 Index of Dependence on Government shows an alarming trend under the Obama Administration of a level of dependence on our government that has never been seen before. Today, a full 70 percent of the federal government's budget goes to pay for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance, with recipients ranging from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries. Heritage's Patrick Tyrrell writes that other findings from the study show:

Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.

The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation's average disposable personal income ($32,446).
At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.

As of now, 70 percent of the federal government's budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.

Representative Allen West (R-FL) writes on The Foundry that this disturbing trend does not bode well for our country and, in fact, will ultimately lead to an America where dependence -- not independence -- becomes the norm. And he says Washington must play a role in changing course while also encouraging charities and community groups to help lift up Americans who need support:
We in Congress need to do our part to aid the struggle for more personal responsibility. We need to reduce government spending levels so we are taking less from America's producers of economic growth. We need to take a long, hard look at these assistance programs, eliminating duplicative efforts and directing aid first to the neediest of our population.

We also have to embolden charities, local groups, and private-sector initiatives to empower individuals through programs that require more "skin in the game." Far too often, these good Samaritans are pushed aside by government zeal to provide inferior and bureaucratized services. And finally, we need to reform entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security so that they are viable for future generations without bankrupting our country.

With America about to witness the largest retirement of people in world history -- and with the number of "taxpayers" who pay no taxes only continuing to grow -- alarm bells should be ringing in Washington and across the country warning that the federal government is about to burst at the seams. The United States simply cannot afford to continue fostering a society where a growing number of people are dependent on the federal government and not themselves. What's more, if this trend continues, America will see increasing division between those who pay for programs that advance dependence, and those who unquestioningly accept--and expect--the assistance from those programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Three Coal Power Plants Closing
By Chris Lawrence


Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations.

The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted.

The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy's total generation. In recent years, the plants served as "peaking facilities" and generated power during times of peak demand for power.

The plants operated under subsidiary Monongahela Power. Mon Power recently finished a study of unscrubbed coal fired plants in the system to determine the potential impact of the most recent environmental regulations from EPA. Company officials determined the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) made it unfeasible to retrofit or continue operating the three plants.

“The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired,” said James R. Haney, regional president of Mon Power and president of West Virginia Operations for FirstEnergy.

The announcement follows an announcement from First Energy last month that six coal fired plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland would also be retired. All of those plans are due to be off line and shut down by September 1, 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)How Fair Is That?

Barack Obama announced a major settlement today between the big banks and state attorneys general regarding one aspect of the housing crisis. We don't know all the details yet -- it was another Obama special negotiated behind closed doors with the results being announced to us mere "peasants." We'll delve further into it later, but I wanted to share my initial thoughts.

For months now the president has been framing his left-wing agenda as a matter of "fairness." For example, Obama and the left argues that it is not fair that people like Mitt Romney pay only 15% on dividends and interest. Using Obama's yardstick of fairness, how does this multi-billion settlement measure up?

Imagine two home buyers five or six years ago who purchased homes on the same street in the same neighborhood and paid the same $200,000 price. One buyer and his family made years of sacrifices to save up for a $40,000 down payment. He and his wife have done whatever they had to do over years to faithfully make their mortgage payments, even though value of their home has declined below what they owe.

The couple next door didn't have savings, and didn't want to wait to buy a house, so they took out a no money down loan with an adjustable interest rate too. As the economy began to decline, they were finding it almost impossible to make payments each month. Listening to liberal rhetoric telling them they weren't responsible for their situation, that it's all Wall Street's fault, they stopped paying their mortgage.

Now here comes the "fairness president" announcing today that the guy who sacrificed and made his payments on time gets nothing, while the family who was not prudent will by law have the size of its mortgage decreased. The bank will have to eat the loss. If that family had already been evicted in a foreclosure, they will get a $2,000 check as part of the settlement.

Since we've got the "smartest" president we've ever had, maybe he can explain to millions of hard-working Americans how this is fair to them. But wait…there's more.

When the family who defaulted gets this "Obama gift" of having its mortgage reduced, not only is the value of their house lowered, but so too is the value of the home next door. So the guy who played by the rules gets nothing from the "fairness president," has a less valuable home and looks like a sucker. This kind of manipulation of the market is frequently referred to as a "moral hazard" because it rewards and thus encourages bad behavior.

The public ought to be outraged. As usual nothing about the left-wing philosophy is fair to people who play by rules and pay their bills. When the goodies get redistributed, they are the ones who get left "holding the bag." Just think what would happen if several million homeowners reacted by no longer paying their mortgages until their loans were also decreased by tens of thousands. It would only be "fair."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Does the Conservative Movement Really Want the GOP Nominee to Lead It?
By Conor Friedersdorf

That people expect as much from Mitt Romney isn't just a problem for him -- it's a problem for conservatism, too.

Puzzling over why Mitt Romney isn't connecting with conservative voters, John Fund offers a hypothesis in National Review. "Mitt Romney doesn't seem to realize he is campaigning for two jobs, not one," he writes. "He is doing quite well in the race to become the Republican nominee for president, and must still be considered the strong favorite. But ever since Barry Goldwater captured the GOP nomination in 1964, the Republican nominee has been more or less the titular head of the conservative movement, the most important single component of the Republican party."

This attitude is shared by Tea Partiers to whom I've spoken. They want in the Republican nominee a Ronald Reagan figure who'll unite the right and govern as an unapologetic conservative. Understandably so. What they perhaps don't appreciate -- even correcting for the gulf that separates the Reagan of their imagination from the actual man -- is how singular a figure Reagan was, and that treating GOP presidents as titular heads of movement conservatism more often ends in disaster.

The recent example is George W. Bush, whose name and tenure go unmentioned in the race for the Republican nomination, so thoroughly did he discredit himself (assisted by self-described conservatives who put partisan loyalty before principle). Nor was it the first time that the Republican Party and its leader set back the several causes of movement conservatism.

Richard Nixon served in the White House from 1969 to 1974, when he resigned the presidency in disgrace. Put the Watergate scandal aside, for it doesn't bear one way or another on conservative orthodoxy. Instead let's review his domestic policy, bearing in mind that if you asked your average Tea Partier, "Who is more conservative, Richard Nixon or Barack Obama?" they'd call the latter a socialist. Yet it was Nixon who imposed wage and price controls. In a quirk of history, it was actually Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who implemented them! The conservative movement also has Richard Nixon to thank for creating the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And he sought to bring universal health care to the United States long before Bill and Hilary Clinton. One half-expects new research from Dinesh D'Souza purporting to uncover his Kenyan anti-colonial roots.

The Republican Party has very rarely been a force for conservatism. And while Reagan came closer than anyone since Goldwater, even he falls far short of what the average Tea Partier now demands.

As Reason.com editor Nick Gillespie puts it in Time magazine's recent symposium on conservatism:

At least since the election of St. Ronald Reagan, self-styled conservatives have repeatedly revealed themselves to be the biggest frauds or most delusional suckers in American politics. Conservatives ostensibly believe in limited government and individuals who are smart and moral enough to use voluntary associations and free markets to meet the needs of all God's children.

But under Reagan and, more recently, George W. Bush and a Republican Congress that spent like LBJ on a bourbon-fueled bender, they cheered an immense increase not just in federal outlays and borrowing but also in centralization of power in Washington. The "FDR Democrat" Reagan saved entitlements for the old and the relatively wealthy by jacking up payroll taxes on the young and relatively poor. Bush and his congressional playmates created No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription-drug plan, the Transportation Security Administration and at least two wars that can only be reckoned tragic wastes of blood and treasure.

This doesn't give Reagan his due, but I understand the impulse to puncture the myth that surrounds him. For decades now, it has caused conservatives to imagine that if only they can elect the right charismatic Republican president, he can double as champion of their movement and shrink the federal government, a feat that wasn't among St. Reagan's several impressive accomplishments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------