Darryl Worley - Have You Forgotten?

Rick Perry's Strategic Debate Blunders

It has taken me a couple days to fully compose my thoughts on Wednesday's GOP debate on MSNBC. Like most, I was looking forward to seeing Rick Perry perform on stage for the first time. I like Rick Perry and would gladly support him, but he made two obvious blunders as far as I can see. One can be fixed, the other is his to own. I was and am still hoping that Governor Perry can improve himself as I am no great fan of Mitt Romney. While I prefer Rick Perry on the substance of the issues he failed to demonstrate a level of political acumen I believe is essential to success and to that end an ability to advance conservative principles. The video to watch is here:



As we all know,the part considered controversial is Governor Perry's "Doubling Down" on his labeling Social Security a "Ponzi Scheme". Rick Perry is substantively correct about the soundness regarding the financing of Social Security. He deserves credit for bringing the issue to public attention. It is a genuine profile in courage, given the historic demagoguery of liberals whenever the subject is raised. Members in both parties and across the ideological divide acknowledge the numbers don't add up for Social Security and it needs to be corrected. Reforming Social Security will be complex and require extraordinary political skills to get it done.
 
Rick Perry's insistence on describing it as a "Ponzi Scheme" is a near fatal if not fatal error in judgement both politically and as a matter of public policy. Rick Perry is not off base in his analogy. The current fiscal structure of Social Security has a parallel with a Ponzi Scheme. There is however a fundamental distinction. First and foremost a Ponzi Scheme is a criminal endeavor intent on defrauding its investors. By contrast Social Security is a fully transparent public program freely supported by the American people with their tax dollars for over seventy years. And it has been repeatedly endorsed with results at the ballot box. A free choice by definition is not the same as being victimized by a fraudulent scheme.

The other issue I have is the politics and policy implications of his statement. In the aftermath of the debate are we discussing the long term viability of Social Security as currently structured? NO! Instead, we are debating whether or not it's a Ponzi Scheme. Issues are often reduced to cliches or hyperbole by politicians and on most issues it is acceptable because most issues are transitory and have no long term relevance except in the moment. But Social Security is not the flavor of the week as issues go, it is a perennial issue that has been debated for generations and any modifications have long term ramifications for American society. On matters of such consequence Rick Perry was ill advised to use hyperbole to illustrate his point. Furthermore, it emboldens left wing demagogues who believe that  raising taxes on everyone else is the proper remedy. If we are going to have a vast public debate on Social Security it must be on the merits.

The other portion of the exchange that bothers me is the one that can be fixed. On the morning of the debate, Karl Rove stated that it was "TOXIC" to call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. Dick Cheney also declared it to be inaccurate. As conservatives we have had many issues with big government policies and excess spending during the Bush years, a fact that is all too often ignored. We tend to view the Karl Rove's of the GOP as "establishment", and therefore not purely conservative, more interested in power than governing on principle. This is a valid criticism on many occasions, but I must point this out. Whatever one thinks of Rove or the "Bushies", we must have everybody on board in the effort to defeat Barack Obama. Don't let the numbers give you false hope. He can still win.
   
Rick Perry chose to "slap down" Rove and by inference could be accused of calling Cheney a liar in his response. Political junkies might find it entertaining but it must be said that if Rick Perry is our nominee, he as is true of all such nominees is confronted with the William Wallace moment from "Braveheart". Near the end of the movie, Wallace has been beaten, he's on the run and he agrees to a meeting, a meeting that leads to his betrayal and execution. He turns to his friends and says "We need the nobles". He was right. Fortunately this is 21st Century America and not 14th Century Scotland, but my point is that we will need the Karl Rove's committed in this fight, otherwise he'll spend the money elsewhere and we're going to NEED THE MONEY.

When Karl Rove said it was "Toxic" prior to the debate, he was giving Perry political advice disguised as analysis. Perry misinterpreted the remarks and was critical in kind. Rove is correct on the politics. Perry is wrong. Perry could have used his ill advised remarks in his book as an impetus to debate the genuine flaws in Social Security and walked back his talk of "Ponzi Scheme" at the same time. He could have suggested his remarks were intended to shine a spotlight on the the present state of the entitlement. Had he said anything to that effect we would be debating the formula for Social Security as opposed to the politics of Ponzi Scheme labeling.
 
In taking a shot at Rove he perpetuated another underlying narrative. It is quite evident that talk of a feud between the Perry and Bush people is very real. And in this respect Perry again dropped the ball. Prior to the debate, anyone affiliated with the Bush Administration have repeatedly been quizzed about this "feud". Dana Perino was pressed hard by Megyn Kelly, but only had nice things to say about Perry. JEB BUSH on "HANNITY", also debunked the notion of a feud. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have both denied there was a rift. The Bush supporters, recognizing the real possibility of Perry as GOP standard bearer were clearly not being forthright, but towed the line rather than undermine Perry publicly as the potential nominee. Did Perry or his people not notice this? Do you think contributors to Bush didn't notice? The Bush supporters and the former President himself understand the politics of the nominee distancing themselves from Bush. They won't take it personally. In fact they have been extending olive branches. If Rick Perry is the nominee, he's going to want the former Bush contributors on his side. Whatever his problems with the "Bushies", this is the big leagues man, swallow your pride and play ball, because we all need to get with the program. The title of the program reads: "WE MUST DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA". Anything else is unacceptable.

I want to support Governor Perry and I would be quite annoyed if Romney is the nominee, but how can we defeat  Barack Obama if we insist on alienating important people necessary to the cause of victory? The next debate is on CNN on Monday. I hope Perry is better prepared, because I WANT to support him because he is correct on the substance and in concert with my core beliefs and principles. But political skill and temperment are essential qualities in a candidate and as President. For quite a while it has been suggested that Perry is the perfect nominee because he unites every faction of the party. His debate performance has put the lie to that expectation. He has the correct principles, but his presentation is hurting the cause.

Marietta College Threatens to Nix 9/11 Tribute As Too American

FROM: HUMAN EVENTS

If you thought that something as innocuous as putting up 3,000 American flags on school grounds to pay tribute to those murdered on September 11 couldn’t be controversial, you haven’t been to Marietta College.

Administrators at this liberal arts college in southeast Ohio are threatening to cancel a 9/11 memorial planned by their students if flags from other countries are not observed in the activities as well

“I was taken aback by this decision,” said Sarah Snow, an Alabama native and junior at Marietta. “Our school should help students put on events, not set up obstacles, especially when we’re trying to honor those fallen.”

It all started when Snow, the president of the Marietta College Republicans, approached her Student Life department to get approval to participate in the 9/11 Never Forget Project. In addition to organizing a candlelight vigil, Snow sought to plant 3,000 American flags around campus starting this Sunday morning. She received approval from the Office of Student Life on June 23, more than two months ago. But when she returned to campus for the fall semester, days before the memorial was to begin, the vice president of Student Life, Robert Pastoor, vowed to terminate the tribute unless foreign flags were mixed together with American ones.

“He [Robert Pastoor] insisted we add the international flags for the reason that it was a ‘global perspective’ school,” Snow told HUMAN EVENTS in explaining Pastoor’s basis for interfering with the College Republicans’ memorial. He continued, she noted, by saying, “Other nationalities were killed in the twin towers as well” and that Marietta must “consider how the Muslim and Chinese students will feel about the [American flag] display.”

Pastoor did not return a call and an e-mail requesting comment.

While Marietta is arguing that the inclusion of other nations is consistent with the school’s “global” emphasis, critics see this as yet another example of college bureaucrats genuflecting to leftist orthodoxy.

“Instead of embracing the remembrance of the thousands of innocents who were murdered on 9/11, many college administrators—insensitive to the families and friends of those who died on 9/11—are more interested in creating political correctness tests than coming together to honor the victims of the jihadist attacks,” said Ron Robinson, president of Young America’s Foundation, the organization that's planning the 9/11 Never Forget Project at high schools and colleges across the country. “Colleges trip over themselves in excitement when they plan Earth Day, yet every year, these same institutions put up roadblock after roadblock for students seeking to do something as meaningful as remembering 9/11,” he added.

Snow told HUMAN EVENTS that there weren’t any foreign students at Marietta who complained to her about the placing of nearly 3,000 small American flags around campus, and that the school’s intervention was entirely driven by its own administration. “Those in Student Life were the only ones opposing the selection of American flags. My Saudi Arabian peers were even sympathetic, telling me, ‘It’s 9/11. We understand why you want to do it [use only American flags].’”

Tom Perry, the executive director of college relations at Marietta, told HUMAN EVENTS that the Office of Student life made a “request” to the College Republicans asking them to incorporate other flags as a way to foster diversity amongst the student body. Adherence was not mandatory. The American flags were never in jeopardy of being removed, he argued.

Siena Poll: Republicans On Verge Of Shocking NYC Upset

From: Hotline On Call

Republican Bob Turner holds a six-point lead in next week's special election to replace disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., according to a new Siena College poll released early Friday that shows voters in the overwhelmingly Democratic district are poised to deliver a stinging rebuke to President Obama and his party.

Turner leads Democratic Assemblyman David Weprin in the poll, 50 percent to 44 percent. Six percent of likely voters in the Sept. 13th election are undecided.

Discontent with Washington and the president is at the heart of Turner's shocking upset bid. In a district he won by 11 points just three years ago, Obama's favorability rating is now upside down in the Siena poll, with 54 percent having an unfavorable opinion of Obama and only 43 percent viewing him favorably. A remarkable 38 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents hold an unfavorable view of the president.

The Republican also has all the momentum: A Siena poll conducted four weeks ago showed Weprin with a six-point advantage. Turner's lead does fall barely within the margin of error, but the poll shows that the GOP is on the verge of a most unlikely victory in the Outer Boroughs-based district, where Democrats hold a three-to-one advantage on the voter rolls.

But the Democratic registration advantage is tempered by the poll's crosstabs. Turner runs much stronger among Republicans, holding 90 percent of the vote, than Weprin does among Democrats, taking just 63 percent. Independents are overwhelmingly lined up behind the Republican, with 65 percent of them supporting Turner and 27 percent choosing Weprin.

Turner's own internal polling last week had shown a tie, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee touted a poll showing Weprin with an 8-point lead. But clearly the DCCC has seen that tenuous sign of hope evaporate too, going up yesterday with a half-million-dollar ad-buy slamming Turner in the closing days of the race.

All of the late money may not have much of an impact, however. According to the Siena poll, 79 percent of likely voters say there is no chance they will change their mind, and 17 percent say they are unlikely to change their mind, leaving just 5 percent who say they are "not very certain" or "not certain at all" in their vote.

Voters have a more positive view of Turner than they do of Weprin. Turner's favorable/unfavorable ratings are in the black (48 percent favorable/34 percent unfavorable), while voters are split evenly on Weprin (41 percent favorable/41 percent unfavorable).

Voters believe Turner is running the more positive campaign, leading Weprin on that question, 43 percent to 32 percent. Correspondingly, a plurality of likely voters believe Weprin's campaign is more negative.

Likely voters in the district are overwhelmingly pessimistic, with 74 percent saying the country is headed in the wrong direction; Turner wins a striking 94 percent of those voters. Mood toward the direction of New York is much rosier, though -- a 47-percent plurality say the Empire State is on the right track.

The economy remains voters' top concern, with 32 percent listing it as the most important factor in making their decision, including nearly half of Turner's supporters. But there is a possible beacon for Weprin: Medicare and Social Security isn't far behind at just 28 percent, and that's been the focus of late, with Democrats falling back to their successful strategy that helped win them a GOP seat in the western New York's 26th District this May.

Nearly half of Weprin's supporters say the candidates' positions on entitlements is driving their vote. But the poll shows that strategy has its limitations: Turner actually has a four-point lead among voters aged 55 and older, 49 percent to 45 percent.

The historical Democratic dominance in the district is evident in one area, however: By a 49-to-38 percent margin, likely voters think Weprin is most likely to win the election, including 23 percent of Turner's supporters.

The Siena poll was conducted Sept. 6-8 and surveyed 886 likely voters. The margin of error is +/- 3.3 percent.

Enya - Only Time (World Trade Center Tribute)

Oops! No ObamaCare Tax Credit Via Federal Exchanges?

From: Investors.com

Because of a quirk in ObamaCare, people who buy health insurance through a federally run exchange may not be eligible for premium subsidies.

Government-created exchanges are places for individuals to shop and purchase health insurance. ObamaCare will require individuals and families to buy insurance, starting in 2014.

Those with incomes at 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for taxpayer funded subsidies — a tax credit to help pay for the premium.

It turns out that the legislation isn't so clear, the latest example of what analysts predicted would be a stream of surprises from the mammoth health law.

Section 1311 of ObamaCare instructs state governments to set up an exchange. If a state refuses, Section 1321 lets the federal government establish an exchange in the state.

Yet ObamaCare states that the tax credit is available to people who are enrolled in an "an exchange established by the state under (Section) 1311." It makes no mention of people enrolled in federal exchanges being eligible for the tax credit.

"There is this technical problem in the law," said James Blumstein, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School. "I don't see how you get around that."

This could be a big problem, as some states probably won't set up and run exchanges. Governors in Alaska, Florida, Louisiana and Texas have said they won't. Kansas and Oklahoma have also signaled they won't by returning federal funds meant to be used to establish an exchange. Other states seem to be dragging their feet.

States could be left with disgruntled residents who can't tap tax credits to help pay for insurance they're forced to buy.

"The whole structure of the law collapses without a state-run exchange," said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "That forces Congress to either repeal ObamaCare or significantly alter it."

The Tax View

The Internal Revenue Service appears to be overlooking the problem. In a proposed regulation, the IRS states that a taxpayer is eligible for the tax credit if he or a member of his family "is enrolled in one or more qualified health plans through an exchange established under Section 1311 or 1321."

"Congress did not delegate this discretion to the IRS," Cannon said. "Congress created a tax credit for A, and the IRS is saying it applies to A and B. If the IRS offers this tax credit to federally run exchanges, the IRS will be assuming powers the Constitution vests only in Congress to alter the tax code and spend money."

Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada

FROM: CBC News

In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the biggest security threat to Canada a decade after 9/11 is Islamic terrorism.

In a wide-ranging interview with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge that will air in its entirety on The National Thursday night, Harper says Canada is safer than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., but that "the major threat is still Islamicism."


"There are other threats out there, but that is the one that I can tell you occupies the security apparatus most regularly in terms of actual terrorist threats," Harper said.

Harper cautioned that terrorist threats can "come out of the blue" from a different source, such as the recent Norway attacks, where a lone gunman who hated Muslims killed 77 people.

But Harper said terrorism by Islamic radicals is still the top threat, though a "diffuse" one.

"When people think of Islamic terrorism, they think of Afghanistan, or maybe they think of some place in the Middle East, but the truth is that threat exists all over the world," he said, citing domestic terrorism in Nigeria.

The prime minister said home-grown Islamic radicals in Canada are "also something that we keep an eye on."

Jesse Jackson Jr.: 10th Amendment Is Racist

From: Tenth Amendment Center

t’s become pretty much a daily occurrence – one big government statist or another dredging up slavery and racism as THE reason to oppose decentralization, state sovereignty, and when you get right down to it, the federal system created by the Constitution.

Over the weekend, Jessie Jackson Jr. slapped down the race card.

“After all, it was the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights that protected the institution of slavery. The words ‘slave’ or ‘slavery’ did not appear in the Constitution. The institution of slavery, the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights are joined at the hip,” Jackson wrote.

I could easily debunk this asinine statement, pointing out the obvious – that the lack of the literal word “slavery” in the Constitution doesn’t prove that the federal government didn’t legally support the institution. It did. And Jessie Jackson Jr. surely knows this, as do most junior high history students. Then I could spend a considerable amount of time delving into the history of nullification and state assertion of sovereignty, showing how it was used by northern abolitionists to battle the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

I could tell the story of Joshua Glover, a runaway slave who was freed from prison and ushered along the Underground Railroad to freedom in Canada, and how the state of Wisconsin stood its ground, claiming “state’s rights” to aid those who helped Glover to freedom. I could examine the long list of evils states asserted sovereignty to battle, including child military conscription, free speech violations, unconstitutional tariffs and random deportation of foreign nationals at the president’s discretion.

But why bother? I’ve done this countless times, written volumes and made speeches. People like Jackson simply don’t listen. Their ears remain filled with the Siren Song of racism.

So I am going to simply accept Jackson’s premise. The Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty and nullification will always remain “attached at the hip” to slavery. I, as a proponent of limiting federal power to its constitutionally prescribed limits, must be a racist.

But if I am to truly embrace Jackson’s reasoning, I must conclude that he’s a racist too.

You see, the Democratic Party and slavery are joined at the hip.

It was, after all, the Democratic Party that supported the institution of slavery leading up to the Civil War. And it was the Democratic Party that embraced the KKK during reconstruction. In fact, the Ku Klux Clan was an informal arm of the Democratic Party in the late 1860s and 1870s. Klansmen not only targeted blacks, they also went after Republican politicians and engaged in voter intimidation. This helped the Democratic Party reestablish itself in the south during the post-war years.

In his book A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990), renowned historian Dr. Eric Foner wrote:

“Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.”

He went on to explain this “reign of terror.”

Israel: Turkey's chosen scapegoat

From: Jerusalem Post

Monday morning, Turkey took its anti-Israel campaign to a new level. Beyond downgrading diplomatic relations with Israel; beyond suspending military agreements; beyond threatening naval war; beyond threatening to foment an irredentist insurrection of Israeli Arabs; the Turks decided to terrorize Israeli tourists landing in Istanbul airport.

Forty Israeli passengers, mainly businessmen who had landed in Istanbul on a Turkish Airlines flight from Tel Aviv, were separated from the rest of the flight passengers. Their passports were confiscated.

They were placed in interrogation rooms and stripped down to their underwear. Their carry-on bags were checked. And then they were lined up against a wall, forbidden to sit down or use the washroom.

Passengers who contacted the Foreign Ministry said they felt frightened and intimidated.

The ordeal went on for 90 minutes, until Turkish authorities returned their Israeli passports and permitted them to pick up their suitcases and exit the airport.

What were the Turks trying to accomplish by terrifying the Israeli tourists? They didn’t need to threaten trade ties. Their Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu already took care of that over the weekend.

The victimized Israelis said the Turkish airport authorities wouldn’t even answer their questions.

Any time we asked them a question, the tourists said, the Turks ignored us.

It was as if they weren’t even there.

And that’s the thing of it. The Turks didn’t harass the Israeli tourists in order to send a message to Israel. They have nothing more to say to us. We are non-entities to them. We’re only good for attacking.

No, Israel wasn’t the target audience the Turks were playing to on Monday. Their target audience was the Islamic world generally and the Arab world specifically. Turkey’s influence in these arenas skyrocketed in January 2009 after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused President Shimon Peres and Israel of mass murder as the leaders shared a stage at the Davos Conference.

Similarly Erdogan’s domestic and pan-Islamic support levels increased steeply in the aftermath of the Turkish-supported pro-Hamas flotilla to Gaza in 2010. After nine Turkish government-supported IHH terrorists were killed aboard the Mavi Marmara when they tried to murder IDF naval commandos who had lawfully boarded the ship, the Arabs hailed Erdogan as a hero for bravely attacking Israel.

Given how well scapegoating Israel has served him, Erdogan clearly believes it is a no-risk strategy for raising his star from Cairo to Algiers.

Leftist Israeli commentators refuse to accept what is happening. Writing in Haaretz on Sunday, Shlomo Avineri recommended that Israel compensate the nine IHH members whom IDF commandos killed in self-defense on the Mavi Marmara. Avineri argued that by refusing to do so, Israel was playing into the hands of hardliners. True, “it won’t be easy, but we need to grit our teeth and do the right thing,” he wrote.

Others have argued that Israel may be able to rebuild its strategic relations with Turkey by selling Ankara more drones with which to kill Iraqi and Turkish Kurds. The Turkish military claimed it killed 100 Kurdish fighters in its attacks last month in Iraq and along the Turkish-Iraqi border. Israeli UAVs reportedly played a key role in the bombing. But Turkey needs more. If we sell them more, the argument goes, maybe they will see how useful we are and stop attacking us.

Aside from being morally reprehensible, these arguments fail to recognize the basic reality that Turkey has no interest whatsoever in rebuilding its ties with Israel. The once-important strategic alliance is over and gone, and Israel cannot do anything about it. All Turkey sees us as today is a scapegoat.

Wikileaks Bombshell: New Israel Fund Official Endorses End of Jewish State

From: Commentary Magazine

Two Wikileaks cables from 2010 confirm with stunning accuracy the critique of Israel’s foreign-funded NGO movement that many have been making for years — and they do so from the mouths of the NGO leaders themselves. The cables summarize meetings between U.S. officials and leaders of the New Israel Fund, B’Tselem, and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, called ACRI, a flagship NIF project.

In one cable, we learn that leaders of these groups have been telling U.S. officials the Israeli legal system is incapable of investigating claims against the Israeli government and military. In fact, Israel’s judiciary, both civil and military, is among the world’s most independent, and the former president of Israel’s High Court was cited by President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Elena Kagan​, as a significant role model. Yet advancing claims of judicial indifference to war crimes has become a central ambition of the NGOs, because establishing Israel’s supposed inability to investigate itself would open the door to international prosecutions where verdicts against Israel are foreordained. The credible prospect of such prosecutions would paralyze the IDF — which is exactly the point:

Limor Yehuda of ACRI argued that military police investigations could not resolve the main issues of how Israel conducted the military operation [Operation Cast Lead​], including its targeting and policy decisions…she believed only international pressure could influence the GOI [Government of Israel] to create an independent investigation that could hold senior leadership accountable for alleged violations.

And here is Jessica Montell, the head of B’Tselem:

She wanted the highest level decision-makers held accountable for the decisions they made on how to prosecute the conflict, including Military Advocate General (MAG) Mandelblit…Her aim, she said, was to make Israel weigh world opinion and consider whether it could “afford another operation like this.”

What Montell means by that last sentence is frighteningly clear: she wants to create the conditions in which “world opinion” can prevent the IDF from defending Israelis from attack.
Then there is a cable about a draft Knesset bill (since extensively modified) that seeks greater transparency for foreign-funded NGOs:

B’Tselem Director Jessica Montell…estimated her 9 million NIS ($2.4 million) budget is 95 percent funded from abroad, mostly from European countries.

Here Montell is giving credence to what B’Tselem’s critics, such as NGO Monitor, have been saying for years: that the group is essentially an arm of European foreign policy, more interested in condemning Israel than in promoting human rights.
And then there’s the bombshell:

New Israel Fund (NIF) Associate Director in Israel Hedva Radovanitz, who manages grants to 350 NGOs totaling about 18 million dollars per year, [said] that the campaign against the NGOs was due to the “disappearance of the political left wing” in Israel and the lack of domestic constituency for the NGOs. She noted that when she headed ACRI’s Tel Aviv office, ACRI had 5,000 members, while today it has less than 800, and it was only able to muster about 5,000 people to its December human rights march by relying on the active staff of the 120 NGOs that participated.
She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic. [Emphasis added]

The reasoning behind NIF’s multi-million dollar donations to Arab groups such as Adalah and Mada al-Carmel that seek the destruction of Israel as a Jewish State suddenly becomes clear: In the words of a high-ranking NIF official, the group believes Zionism itself — that is, Jewish national self-determination — is anti-democratic and should eventually yield to an Arab state where Jews will once again live as a minority. It seems the “New Israel” envisioned by NIF will not be a Jewish state. Has NIF made this clear to its American Jewish donors?

During the past decade, as the New Israel Fund and European governments have funded and fueled the delegitimization war on Israel, critics have argued the NGOs they support have no real constituency in Israel; that they represent foreign interests; that they are funded — all told, the sum is around $100 million per year — almost entirely by foreign foundations and European governments seeking to impose their agendas; that they seek to overturn the democratic choices of the Israeli people; that they foment external pressure and “lawfare” to prevent Israel from protecting herself from threats; and that the groups’ activism is motivated not by the claimed values of human rights and international law, but by varying degrees of anti-Zionism and solidarity with Arab interests and leftist anti-Israel activism.

Man in the Red Bandanna

Real Unemployment Rate Rose in August to 16.2%

From: CNSnews.com

The real unemployment rate actually rose in August, according to the Department of Labor, belying the fact that the official unemployment rate, 9.1 percent, remained flat while the economy did not create any new jobs on net last month.


According to the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, real unemployment rose to 16.2 percent in August, up from 16.1 percent in July and tying the 2011 record set in June.

The real unemployment rate is comprised of three different measures of the labor force that more accurately reflect who is really unemployed, as opposed to the official unemployment rate, which merely measures those who told the government they were unemployed and looking for work in the past month.

The real unemployment rate is comprised of the official unemployment rate, those employed part-time because they cannot find full-time work, and those marginally attached to the labor force: people who have stopped looking for work but would return to the labor force if jobs were available.

All told, the total number of Americans who are truly unemployed – those that make up the real unemployment rate – is now 26 million people, according to the Labor Department data.

Hoffa: We’re ‘Army’ Against Tea Party; ‘Let’s Take These Sons of Bitches Out’

From: Breitbart.com

Labor Day Cancelled?

Saw this at Theo Spark.com and had to have it

Sarah Palin's complete speech in Indianola, Iowa - Sept 3, 2011