By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on March 10, 2009
President Obama and his big spenders are moving quickly, to the relief of those who are facing foreclosure on their mortgages. But the program they are offering will do nothing for those most in need.
In the fine print, Obama's plan provides no relief for any homeowner whose mortgage exceeds the total value of his home. But these folks are the ones who have been conned into taking sub-prime mortgages so loaded with brokerage commissions, interest rate subsidies, bank fees and lawyer and title-company charges that the amount of the mortgage has ballooned. These high mortgage amounts, coupled with declining property values, have turned about 20 percent of American mortgages upside down, so that the debt exceeds the value of the property.
By excluding these homeowners from help, Obama is guilty of a holier-than-thou hypocrisy. Was it not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that encouraged such over-mortgaged properties? Was it not the Democrats in Congress who passed legislation urging Fannie and Freddie to weaken the standards to allow more low- and lower-middle-income families to buy homes?
How can Obama suddenly pretend to be so shocked -- shocked -- that about 20 percent of America's home mortgages are now worth more than the property they finance? It was the insistence of liberal Democrats that made it so. When Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros demanded that Fannie and Freddie invest 42 percent of their assets in buying low- and lower-middle-income mortgages, and when his successor Andrew Cuomo raised the quota to 50 percent, what did they think would happen? When they explicitly told Fannie and Freddie not to insist on down payments in the mortgages they purchased, how did they think the purchase would be funded? Obviously, if you don't require the borrower to put money down, the full purchase price must be covered by the mortgage. To now, piously, refuse to come to the rescue of those who fell for your party's seeming generosity and bought homes on the terms it suggested is hypocritical at best.
But it is not only the over-mortgaged whom Obama will ignore, but those who have lost their jobs! If you do not make enough money such that your mortgage payments come to 31 percent of your income, you can't get your mortgage refinanced. If your income has dropped to a point where your monthly payments on your loan consume a greater part of your earnings than 31 percent, you are stuck.
So we have Obama rushing to the aid of those who have been hurt in this bad economy, but exempting from his proposed relief anyone who has lost his job and seen a cut in income or whose property values have dropped below the amount of his mortgage. In other words, he'll help anyone but those most in need.
And, once again, Obama would limit his aid to those who make below $200,000 a year. While he doesn't specify this limit in his proposal, he does limit his intervention to mortgages of less than $720,000. At standard mortgage interest rates, such a loan would call for $60,000 or so in payments a year. To qualify for relief, your mortgage payment can't be larger than 31 percent of your income -- or about $200,000. Once more, Obama makes it clear that he is not the president of anyone who makes that much money or more. He is only the president of the other people.
Obama, of course, forgets -- or doesn't care -- that those making over $200,000 account for almost a third of the total national spending and that you cannot stimulate an economy while constantly cutting off those people from any consideration in any government program. But Obama is determined to try.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Global Warming Goons
NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Story continues below ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why isn't the mainstream press covering the
EU president's visit to the U.S.?
Vote in our poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
Rate this Story (1 Star = Not so Good -and- 5 Stars = Excellent!)
(average 5 out of 5)
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views.
"They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark.
"The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Story continues below ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why isn't the mainstream press covering the
EU president's visit to the U.S.?
Vote in our poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition an 'uphill battle' (audio report)
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away (audio report)
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted.
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste.
"Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions.
"Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, ...whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
Rate this Story (1 Star = Not so Good -and- 5 Stars = Excellent!)
(average 5 out of 5)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Will Al Gore Ever Back down? Probably not.
He's already looking pretty foolish because of our record cold winters and snow fall over the last 2 years. Also the fact that his carbon foot print is enormous and bigger than nearly all Americans. Will he ever admit he just might have jumped the gun in blabbing his big mouth about Global warming without even caring what the other side said? If you don't agree with him and your a scientist, I guess you just don't matter.
A scientist forces Al Gore to back down
Apocalypse is political theater, not good science
For years, Al Gore has predicted that man's sins of carbon dioxide will bring calamity and apocalypse. He cited an increase in natural disasters.
Gore quietly dropped the contention that the increase is connected to manmade global warming this week after being called on it by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
"Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation," reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
"When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago earlier this month, his climate slide show contained a startling graph showing a ceiling-high spike in disasters in recent years.
"The data came from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (also called CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels."
The slide has since disappeared from the show, Revkin wrote.
This was not happenstance. Pielke called Gore on his assertions. The link between manmade activity and natural disasters has not been established.
CRED, the source cited by Gore, even said so.
"Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.
"Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one - even if its impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future," CRED said about its own database.
We don't know what effect human activity is having on the climate.
I do not discount that better record keeping makes it appear as if conditions are getting worse.
It seems as if every rainstorm in the Atlantic in September gets a name now.
But Gore has been seizing on anything that moves as proof of his predictions of pending catastrophe.
I might take Gore seriously if he cut back on his own consumption of the Earth's resources, but since he consumes far more than I do, I just assume the guy is after political power. He was born into politics and will remain there until he dies at a very, very old age.
I interviewed Harold Stassen in 1984. He was running for president. Again.
As Mo Udall said, only embalming fluid removes the lust for the presidency from one's blood.
A scientist forces Al Gore to back down
Apocalypse is political theater, not good science
For years, Al Gore has predicted that man's sins of carbon dioxide will bring calamity and apocalypse. He cited an increase in natural disasters.
Gore quietly dropped the contention that the increase is connected to manmade global warming this week after being called on it by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
"Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation," reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
"When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago earlier this month, his climate slide show contained a startling graph showing a ceiling-high spike in disasters in recent years.
"The data came from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (also called CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels."
The slide has since disappeared from the show, Revkin wrote.
This was not happenstance. Pielke called Gore on his assertions. The link between manmade activity and natural disasters has not been established.
CRED, the source cited by Gore, even said so.
"Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.
"Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one - even if its impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future," CRED said about its own database.
We don't know what effect human activity is having on the climate.
I do not discount that better record keeping makes it appear as if conditions are getting worse.
It seems as if every rainstorm in the Atlantic in September gets a name now.
But Gore has been seizing on anything that moves as proof of his predictions of pending catastrophe.
I might take Gore seriously if he cut back on his own consumption of the Earth's resources, but since he consumes far more than I do, I just assume the guy is after political power. He was born into politics and will remain there until he dies at a very, very old age.
I interviewed Harold Stassen in 1984. He was running for president. Again.
As Mo Udall said, only embalming fluid removes the lust for the presidency from one's blood.
Personal blog today. Sadness for a Fellow mommy friend.
I got some really crummy news today. An online friend of mine, who has been probably more than a friend than locals have been since our children were born within days of each other, got some really bad news a few days ago and just shared it. This brave woman is in her early 40s. She battled Breast cancer over a year ago. After her treatment courses, her scans were clear.
She mentioned she had a dr. appt the other day and I have to admit.. I worried .
She mentioned she had a dr. appt the other day and I have to admit.. I worried .
She's been having some back problems and has been in a lot of pain. She found out why. Her new scans aren't clear. The original cancer she had spread like wild fire through her body. It's now in her liver, bones , spine etc. She is still being optimistic. So are the doctors. Her first treatments for her Breast Cancer were very aggressive and she fought so hard. I suppose if anyone can have a good outcome and really battle and beat this stuff it's her but I try to think how I would react or be in her shoes. I would probably chose quality of life over length of life. A few crummy months or maybe a year or so undergoing treatment and feeling dead with an already compromised immune system is not my idea of Quality. She, like I have a 7 year old boy. He's her only child. She has a super hubby and great support system in him but.... I personally would rather spend what time I have doing things on my "bucket list" I would travel with my family, visit extended family and say my goodbyes while I felt good. Who knows.. There are alternatives, natural ones that could actually do a better job than Barbaric surgery and chemo therapy and the burning of radiation treatments and leave you with whatever immune system you do have , some hair on your head etc. I have seen several women in recent years have a breast cancer diagnosis, opt for radical surgery and chemo/radiation therapies and then within a year or two the cancer is back and bigger than ever. Personally I think surgery spreads it. The moment that body cavity is exposed to outside air... Poof... Cancer cells rejoice and go hide elsewhere and breed and spread to other healthy non suspecting organs.
It's so sad to see a wonderful woman, wife, mom, sister have to deal with this... Especially a second time. I do not want to meet this woman at her funeral. I want to meet her in person though and soon. I love her and her family and we haven't even met in person. I grieve for her diagnosis and what she and her family are going to endure over the months and time to come. She hasn't told her little boy yet about the recurrence. That is a toughie. He took it like a trooper the first time around and was so happy when his mommy was finished with treatment and "cancer free" Now he has to face it again. He has to now grow up more than he should have to and will have to worry if Mommy will be here for him as he grows up.
I will be only thinking good thoughts and praying for this woman and friend and won't allow the bad thoughts to surface. I won't give up before she does. She's strong. She's a fighter and if anyone can fight and win this battle.. It's her. Slay that Cancer Dragon Patty. I Love you.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Wish the "BLUE DOG DEM" would just BITE Pelosi !
'Blue Dog' Shuler Tops Pelosi's 'Enemies List'
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 3:19 PM
Former professional football player and Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler is at the top of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “enemies list,’’ according to Politico.
Why? Shuler, D-N.C., has staked out a leadership position as a fiscal conservative who doesn’t ride with the pack on issues like the massive stimulus package, which he and five other conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats voted against. Shuler’s name tops a list of 10 alleged enemies of the speaker. While many are predictable – Rush Limbaugh occupies the No. 2 spot, Virginia Republican Eric Cantor comes in at No. 4 – others are Pelosi’s ostensible compatriots in the Democratic Party.
“No Democrat has done quite so much in so short a time to arouse Pelosi’s disdain as the failed-Redskins-quarterback-turned-ambitious-North-Carolina-congressman,” according to Politico.
“The conservative, anti-abortion Shuler would have made the list for voting against both bank bailout bills and the stimulus package, but the way he went about it didn’t help; Shuler told an audience back home that “House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed” on the $787 billion package.” What most riles Pelosi, according to several accounts, is that Shuler may be positioning himself for a run against Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., next year.
Unless Shuler is planning a long House career, picking a fight with Pelosi may indeed have its advantages: His 2006 opponent, incumbent GOP Rep. Charles Taylor, scored points by portraying Shuler as a Pelosi acolyte.
Shuler, a second-term member, is clearly being noticed among Pelosi’s allies as a potential problem. He opposed Democratic leaders when he was a freshman, including on a high-profile debate on immigration. He ruffled feathers last week, according to The Hill, when, in publicly objecting to abortion-related foreign-aid provisions in the omnibus spending bill, he twice referred to the “Democrat leadership” — omitting the “-ic” from word’s end and, in so doing, repeating a refrain used by Republicans to insult Democrats. It was a tactic sometimes used by former President George Bush.
“It is an issue,” a Democratic leadership aide told The Hill. “He (Shuler) is either trying to sound Republican, or he is confused by the Republicans how to refer to us Democrats.”
Other Democrats on the enemies list: Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., (“too hawkish”); Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa., (voted ‘no’ on original stimulus bill); Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., (“outspoken, too conservative Blue Dog”); and Rep. Peter DeFazio ,D-Ore. (“squeaky liberal wheel”).
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 3:19 PM
Former professional football player and Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler is at the top of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “enemies list,’’ according to Politico.
Why? Shuler, D-N.C., has staked out a leadership position as a fiscal conservative who doesn’t ride with the pack on issues like the massive stimulus package, which he and five other conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats voted against. Shuler’s name tops a list of 10 alleged enemies of the speaker. While many are predictable – Rush Limbaugh occupies the No. 2 spot, Virginia Republican Eric Cantor comes in at No. 4 – others are Pelosi’s ostensible compatriots in the Democratic Party.
“No Democrat has done quite so much in so short a time to arouse Pelosi’s disdain as the failed-Redskins-quarterback-turned-ambitious-North-Carolina-congressman,” according to Politico.
“The conservative, anti-abortion Shuler would have made the list for voting against both bank bailout bills and the stimulus package, but the way he went about it didn’t help; Shuler told an audience back home that “House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed” on the $787 billion package.” What most riles Pelosi, according to several accounts, is that Shuler may be positioning himself for a run against Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., next year.
Unless Shuler is planning a long House career, picking a fight with Pelosi may indeed have its advantages: His 2006 opponent, incumbent GOP Rep. Charles Taylor, scored points by portraying Shuler as a Pelosi acolyte.
Shuler, a second-term member, is clearly being noticed among Pelosi’s allies as a potential problem. He opposed Democratic leaders when he was a freshman, including on a high-profile debate on immigration. He ruffled feathers last week, according to The Hill, when, in publicly objecting to abortion-related foreign-aid provisions in the omnibus spending bill, he twice referred to the “Democrat leadership” — omitting the “-ic” from word’s end and, in so doing, repeating a refrain used by Republicans to insult Democrats. It was a tactic sometimes used by former President George Bush.
“It is an issue,” a Democratic leadership aide told The Hill. “He (Shuler) is either trying to sound Republican, or he is confused by the Republicans how to refer to us Democrats.”
Other Democrats on the enemies list: Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., (“too hawkish”); Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, D-Pa., (voted ‘no’ on original stimulus bill); Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., (“outspoken, too conservative Blue Dog”); and Rep. Peter DeFazio ,D-Ore. (“squeaky liberal wheel”).
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Steele Apologized To Rush. Jindal glad.
Video: Jindal Glad Steele Apologized to Rush
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:53 PM
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called Rush Limbaugh an important leader of the conservative movement Monday night and said he was glad that Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele had apologized for describing Limbaugh’s show as “ugly” and ‘incendiary.” But he also described Steele as a “breath of fresh air” for the Republican Party.
Appearing on CNN’s “Larry King” show, Jindal explained that he agrees with Limbaugh’s opinion that President Barack Obama’s massive deficit spending programs are not good for the country.
The transcript:
King: All right, governor, here was Rush Limbaugh at this weekend's CPAC Conference. Watch.
Rush Limbaugh: What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?
King: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?
Jindal: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about.
King: Do you want him [Obama] to fail?
Jindal: I don't want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don't want policies to be adopted.
King: What if the policies work?
Jindal: Well, again...
King: What if they work?
Jindal: This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's going work ... to spend in excess of our revenues. I want my country to succeed. But what I worry about is that simply spending money on new programs. Look at every new bailout. You talked about the auto bailouts. Then you had the fourth, I think it's the fourth -- it's hard to keep track -- AIG bailout today. It seems like every time you turn around, there's another trillion dollar plan.
King: One more thing. It may be moot now, but RNC Chairman Michael Steele took some shots at Limbaugh and then apologized. What do you make of all of that?
Jindal: Well, I didn't follow the day's events. I'm glad he apologized. I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before, I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about. [He] articulates very well the concern people have about growing government spending without an end in sight.
King: Thanks, governor. We'll call on you again. Always good seeing you.
Jindal: Thank you, Larry
The segment:
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:53 PM
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called Rush Limbaugh an important leader of the conservative movement Monday night and said he was glad that Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele had apologized for describing Limbaugh’s show as “ugly” and ‘incendiary.” But he also described Steele as a “breath of fresh air” for the Republican Party.
Appearing on CNN’s “Larry King” show, Jindal explained that he agrees with Limbaugh’s opinion that President Barack Obama’s massive deficit spending programs are not good for the country.
The transcript:
King: All right, governor, here was Rush Limbaugh at this weekend's CPAC Conference. Watch.
Rush Limbaugh: What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?
King: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?
Jindal: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about.
King: Do you want him [Obama] to fail?
Jindal: I don't want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don't want policies to be adopted.
King: What if the policies work?
Jindal: Well, again...
King: What if they work?
Jindal: This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's going work ... to spend in excess of our revenues. I want my country to succeed. But what I worry about is that simply spending money on new programs. Look at every new bailout. You talked about the auto bailouts. Then you had the fourth, I think it's the fourth -- it's hard to keep track -- AIG bailout today. It seems like every time you turn around, there's another trillion dollar plan.
King: One more thing. It may be moot now, but RNC Chairman Michael Steele took some shots at Limbaugh and then apologized. What do you make of all of that?
Jindal: Well, I didn't follow the day's events. I'm glad he apologized. I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before, I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about. [He] articulates very well the concern people have about growing government spending without an end in sight.
King: Thanks, governor. We'll call on you again. Always good seeing you.
Jindal: Thank you, Larry
The segment:
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama sends letter to Russia... (He's killing our nation in the first couple of months)
More details are emerging about a letter President Obama sent to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev discussing plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.
Though the Kremlin disputes the account, senior U.S. administration officials say Obama suggested in his letter that those plans might be unnecessary if Moscow helped in blocking Iran's progress toward building long-range missiles.
"President Obama sent a letter to Russian President Medvedev discussing a broad range of issues, including missile defense as it relates to Iran," a senior administration official told FOX News.
"The suggestion is that need for missile defense deployment could become unnecessary if, working together with Russia, the Iran missile threat is addressed," an official told The Associated Press.
Plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to guard against Iranian attacks on U.S. allies in Europe, are among a host of issues that soured U.S.-Russia relations during the former Bush administration. There have been indications Obama, who has vowed to shake up American foreign policy, might be willing to set aside the missile defense system.
The senior official told FOX News that the U.S. will continue to "consult with Poles and Czechs as we move forward with decisions on missile defense."
Obama and Medvedev were expected to meet at the G-20 economic summit of advanced and developing nations in London next month, according to the officials.
The administration has previously hinted that the policy on the missile defense shield that former President George B. Bush fiercely advocated was open to reassessment.
In Moscow, a Kremlin source told FOX News there was no quid pro quo on Iran and missile defense in the letter, but said the correspondence was considered very positive and contained a number of initiatives.
On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged the United States to restore diplomatic relations with Iran, Russian news agencies reported. "This would be an important element in stabilizing the situation in the region," he said.
Lavrov is scheduled to hold talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Geneva on Friday in the highest-level meeting between the two nations since Obama took office.
At a February gathering of NATO defense chiefs in Krakow, Poland, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington would review the missile plan "in the context of our relationship with both Poland and the Czech Republic" as well as with NATO and Russia. The language marked a departure from the tone of the Bush administration, which enthusiastically promoted the plan and signed deals last year with Warsaw and Prague.
Gates said that if Moscow really wants to stop the missile shield, it should help eliminate the threat of a missile attack from Iran.
The Obama administration has been vocal about its desire to repair rifts between the U.S. and Russia. In Munich last month, Vice President Joe Biden told a gathering of world leaders, "It's time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Though the Kremlin disputes the account, senior U.S. administration officials say Obama suggested in his letter that those plans might be unnecessary if Moscow helped in blocking Iran's progress toward building long-range missiles.
"President Obama sent a letter to Russian President Medvedev discussing a broad range of issues, including missile defense as it relates to Iran," a senior administration official told FOX News.
"The suggestion is that need for missile defense deployment could become unnecessary if, working together with Russia, the Iran missile threat is addressed," an official told The Associated Press.
Plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to guard against Iranian attacks on U.S. allies in Europe, are among a host of issues that soured U.S.-Russia relations during the former Bush administration. There have been indications Obama, who has vowed to shake up American foreign policy, might be willing to set aside the missile defense system.
The senior official told FOX News that the U.S. will continue to "consult with Poles and Czechs as we move forward with decisions on missile defense."
Obama and Medvedev were expected to meet at the G-20 economic summit of advanced and developing nations in London next month, according to the officials.
The administration has previously hinted that the policy on the missile defense shield that former President George B. Bush fiercely advocated was open to reassessment.
In Moscow, a Kremlin source told FOX News there was no quid pro quo on Iran and missile defense in the letter, but said the correspondence was considered very positive and contained a number of initiatives.
On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged the United States to restore diplomatic relations with Iran, Russian news agencies reported. "This would be an important element in stabilizing the situation in the region," he said.
Lavrov is scheduled to hold talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Geneva on Friday in the highest-level meeting between the two nations since Obama took office.
At a February gathering of NATO defense chiefs in Krakow, Poland, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington would review the missile plan "in the context of our relationship with both Poland and the Czech Republic" as well as with NATO and Russia. The language marked a departure from the tone of the Bush administration, which enthusiastically promoted the plan and signed deals last year with Warsaw and Prague.
Gates said that if Moscow really wants to stop the missile shield, it should help eliminate the threat of a missile attack from Iran.
The Obama administration has been vocal about its desire to repair rifts between the U.S. and Russia. In Munich last month, Vice President Joe Biden told a gathering of world leaders, "It's time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
