This Last Week's Poll

This Last Week's Poll: Who "Won" tonight's Republican Debate?

Mitt Romney (10%)

Michele Bachmann (0%)

Herman Cain (16%)

Newt Gingrich (6%)

Rick Perry (33%)

Jon Huntsman (0%)

Ron Paul (30%)

Rick Santorum (3%)

I suspect that some of the votes were for candidates you liked and not necessarily whom you thought actually won the debate. (And you know who you are!) That's okay. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion!

Multiple choices and Obama's crack budget office accountants may account for totals greater than 100%

Thank you for your participation!
Not a scientific poll. Respondents are self selecting. Questions are drawn from fortune cookies, hieroglyphics and tomorrow’s New York Times.

Please make your opinion known in this week's poll.

"In Paul We Trust"

Because I probably haven't offended the Ron Paul people enough this week!



I suggest we mint a three dollar silver piece...

Two Polls! Double Your Pleasure!

Still one day left on the "who will Obama blame" poll. And, if you had a chance to watch tonight's Republican debate, who do you think "won"? Either by an outright win, or just "damaged him or herself the least", who fared best tonight in the debate at the Reagan Library?

We'll keep that one open 'til Saturday.

Republican Debate -Live Blogging (Belatedly)

Watch live video from MSNBC HD on www.justin.tv

5:35 Ron Paul is coming across as a little petulant.

5:38 Buy a gallon of gas for a silver dime. (Go for it, Ron!)

6:05 Rick Perry touts his success in drawing business to TX and improving education.


5:39 Ron Paul trashes the Reagan 80's "T^hey weren't all that great" Really? Compared to what? Today???

5:45 A video tribute to Ronald Reagan and Nancy

6:02 Ron Paul: Take the air conditioning out of the tent in Afghanistan, use the money to reduce the debt. Make conditions unlivable and this will bring the troops home.

Close your eyes and Jon Huntsman sounds like Mitt Romney. I'm listening to the audio, and whenever I flip back to the video, Huntsman surprises me.

6:06 Rick Perry on his success on drawing business to TX and improving education there.

6:07 Newt Gingrich in favor of charter schools.

6:08 Perry advocates securing the border. Takes shot at Obama for saying "border is safer than ever before". Either Obama has terrible intel, or is an abject liar. (I paraphrase)

Mitt on immigration reform "Turn off the magnet"

6:11 Newt everyone here legally. Control the border. Do reform in a humane way.

Rick Santorum: Son of immigrants, people who came here for freedom, not government bennies.

Michele Bachmann: What do you do with the 11 1/2 million after the border is secured?

Case by case mitigation.

Herman Cain: It's not one problem. Three other problems: Secure the border. Clean up the process to legalization. Empower the states to do what the feds won't do.

Huntsman: Adopted daughters from India and China. Legal immigrants.

Ron Paul: It's the drug laws... "This fence business may be turned against us to fence us in."

6:23 Rick Perry asked if he would take $10 spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. Perry turns down the deal as well.

6:24 Michelle Bachmann invokes the spirit of Reagan to oppose tax increase for spending cut deal.

6:25 Jon Huntsman "A pledge to sign no new pledges"

Perry gives hat tip to Obama on taking out bin Laden, bigger hat tip to the Navy Seals.

6:37 Perry : The science is not settled on "climate change"

6:38 Bachmann: Obama had to back off environmental regulations. "Temporary gimmicks and more of the same from Obama Thursday night.

6:39 Gingrich: I'd fire Bernanke Set aside an area as big as Texas in Alaska for mining and oil exploration.

6:41 Question to Romney: A de facto tax increase?

$200,000 a year or less tax free interest on savings

He'd look for a replacement to Bernanke, too. His plan would be for 4% growth and 11.5 million jobs

Gov. Perry on capital punishment : You will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas

"Americans understand justice"

6:45 Cain on GE paying no US taxes. 999 plan - get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers.

Worst recession since the Great Depression "Obama doesn't understand that the business sector is the engine for economic growth"

Paul seems a little tightly wound.

It's Official! Nancy Pelosi is the Face of No Stimulus

Yeah. That wouldn't stimulate me, either!

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democrats have dropped the word "stimulus" from their vocabulary.

Though the House minority leader and her caucus are still pushing an economic stimulus agenda to save the economy, they’ve radically changed their rhetoric with the hope of winning over voters who saw "stimulus" as close to a dirty word.

Oh, that stimulus! Same same. That doesn't work, either! Is it a surprise to anyone that Democrats would put forth the same old tired, failed ideas and just brand them with a new name to try to sell them to the general public?

I'll bet that whatever they call "Son of Stimulus", will have performed well in focus groups.

H/T Memeorandum

Liberal "Civility" on Parade

In keeping with their "stay classy" mentality, there's a new video game on the market:

Video Game Allows Players to Slaughter "Tea Party Zombies" Like Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly



Caution: Like most of liberals' prescriptions for fixing America, the game is pretty lame!

Have you ever fantasized about beating Bill O'Reilly to death with a crowbar or shooting up the offices of Americans for Prosperity with an Uzi? Well, the folks at StarvingEyes Advergaming apparently have and they'd like to share their latest creation with the world. The game is called "Tea Party Zombies Must Die" and, apart from abysmal game play, features several different levels where your only objective is to mercilessly slaughter everyone around you whether they are a Fox News stars or simply Americans For Prosperity employees.

Among the notable conservatives who you are tasked with brutally killing are Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Brit Hume, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Glenn Beck, and the Koch Brothers.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T! Civility! Class! Maybe someone could create a video game where liberals and Democrats quest for those? Probably wouldn't sell!

Stay classy, libs!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Keith Ohlbermann Condemns Hoffa's Violent Rhetoric

When Keith Ohlbermann is the voice of reason for the liberals, how far must they have fallen?



"...we too deserve repudiation..."

Some brain dead liberals are condemning Fox for "editing" Hoffa's remarks. Note, too, in the video above, the first footage is from ABC News, who may also have edited the tape, albeit in a different place. Could have been Keith Olhbermann or even the insidious Breitbart himself! Constraint of time? Or Evil, Dastardly Attempt to Deceive? You decide!

On a scale of one to ten, the remarks Hoffa made were not that bad in themselves, IMHO. But coming on the heels of "the tea party can go straight to hell", and, if I remember correctly, Ms. Waters volunteering to help them get there, for the President to condone the violent language he decried immediately after the AZ shooting is rank hypocrisy.

CORRECTION: We erroneously thought Mr. Olbermann was referring to Jimmy Hoffa's use of "army" and "war" and "take these sons of bitches out" when referring to the tea party yesterday. Apparently, Mr. Olbermann was actually speaking in reaction to the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson.

We regret the error.

I guess I should have known better. I was trying to give Keith the benefit of the doubt for doing the right thing. My apologies for any hypocrisy this may have exposed on the Left.

H/T Pat Dollard

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Allen West Takes On the Violent Rhetoric of the Congressional Black Caucus

On a related note, more drive by race baiting from the CBC:

Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party Movement would love to see you and me, I'm sorry, hanging on a tree. -Rep. Andre Carson, (D-IN)

Modern Democrats have become the party of demagoguery. If you disagree with the status quo on education, perhaps believing that a voucher system might actually improve the education of our youth, you are branded as being "against education". If you suggest that steps need to be taken to prevent the insolvency of programs like Social Security, then you just want to push granny's wheelchair off a cliff.



At one point, Republicans advocated raising the amount of federal money given to school lunches, but doing it through block grants to the states, and that was demagogued as "Republicans want to cut federal school lunch program. Republicans want to starve children."



Yes. They proposed cutting federal control of the program, not the aid. Truth has never been an obstacle to the true demagogue.



For the new Party of Incivility, it is not enough to merely disagree with your opponents and let your superior ideas win out, you must seek to demonize them and engage in what Bill Clinton referred to as the Politics of Personal Destruction.



No one is advocating lynching anyone. The discussion isn't properly about race at all, but about fiscal responsibility. With unemployment for black, inner city youths far above that of the nation as a whole, it is imperative that we get our financial house in order. One could even argue that bringing unemployment down would disproportionately favor blacks, because there are more of them currently unemployed. Putting our financial house in order will, of necessity, bring conflicts among different groups advocating where dwindling resources ought to be spent.



However, the "scorched earth" policy of demonizing one's opponents for temporary political gains is shameful, and should be soundly condemned. Then, these folks, regardless of race, color or creed, should be rewarded with an all expense paid, one way trip home from the legislative halls of this great country.





Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"Racism" As Defined by the Left

Racism is a nasty word when accurately applied, but becomes even nastier when it is falsely used to bludgeon one's opponents. Charging one's opponent with racism has become, for the Left, a tacit admission that they have neither the facts or reason on their side and they are losing the argument.



Consider the recent tirade of Sheila Jackson Lee: Sheila Jackson Lee's Insanity on Parade. She ranted that the only reason that Barack Obama was being singled out to deny his raising the debt ceiling was...wait for it...because he's black. The fact that the debt ceiling was already raised twice before during Obama's first, and hopefully only term, seemed to have escaped her.



But all too often, I'll be having a discussion with some liberal, who's losing the argument, because neither the facts or logic is on his side, and out comes the 20 Megaton Libel: "You're only opposing Obama because he's black." Usually at this point, the thread is hijacked for a fruitless discussion of race ("Fruitless" because liberals never learn. Not an indication of their sexual preference. NTTAWWT), and I'm sure the liberals hope that they have diverted your attention from yet another argument that they were losing on the merits.



So, I got to thinking about all the presidents and presidential candidates that I have criticized to see if the "because he's black" meme holds any water. Here's the list I came up with:



Woodrow Wilson

FDR

LBJ

Jimmy Carter

Walter Mondale

Teddy Kennedy

Bill Clinton

Lyndon LaRouche

George Wallace

George H.W. Bush

George W. Bush

Michael Dukakis

John F. Kerry

John Edwards

Al Gore

Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney

Hillary Clinton

Mike Huckabee

John McCain

and Ron Paul



I may have left some out. These were the more memorable ones. Now, I usually don't like to characterize people by race, but I believe the list above qualifies at the very least as "not black".



Here's the list that fits the meme:



Barack Obama

Jesse Jackson

Al Sharpton



I included Sharpton's name on there, not because he was ever a serious candidate, but he called himself one, and he is black. Al's more of a "boutique" candidate, in it to garner some attention for himself. Take the frivolous campaigning of Sharpton out of the mix, and the ratio is over ten to one whites to blacks. Some might even discount Jackson as a serious candidate, then the ratio is twenty to one.





So, let's do the math. C'mon, you liberals! It's not that hard, despite what Barbie™ says! If five to ten percent of the presidents or presidential candidates are black, and we criticize virtually all of them, how do you figure that any criticism of Obama is "just because he's black"?



Sometimes, I even get the "Well, you'd never vote for a black man for President". Except, that I did. In 1996, I voted for Alan Keyes in the California Republican primary. This was long before* Obama was ever around to vote "present" for anything.



And even though Mr. Keyes has taken some positions where I cannot fully support him today, there are still any number of qualified blacks whom I would vote for, over the dregs at the bottom of the Chicago political barrel we have today. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it.



So, please, all you liberals out there. If you have no facts and no argument, just say so. Save your lame and tired insults for those who may actually deserve it. You will clutter fewer discussions and hijack fewer threads that way.



Unless, that was your intention all along...



Update : I probably should add JFK to that first list. Even though I was a big fan of his in the day, and still quote him for his outstanding economic leadership, I believe I have criticized him for his actions, or rather inaction at the Bay of Pigs. And possibly because of some dead people in Chicago who voted for him in 1960.



Update II : Just for giggles, I looked at the percentage of Republicans in that mix. Approximately 30% of those criticized were Republicans. Statistically, I guess, that means I am three to six times more likely to criticize a Republican than I am blacks. Sounds more like a closet Democrat than a "racist"! Heh.



*Okay. Not that long. Barry was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and was able to start voting "present" in 1997.



Cross posted at LCR.

Obama on Speech Delay: "We are Not Amused."

According to Politico, not amused at all!

It seemed like a trivial matter: On Wednesday, House Republicans forced the president to delay his speech to a joint session of Congress by one day.



Who cares? The White House cares. Very much.



“It is a big deal that the House said ‘no’ to the president from our end,” a White House source with intimate knowledge of what took place between the House and the president told me Thursday. “This confirms what we all know: They will do anything in the House to muck us up.”

Is it just me? Or do the echoes of Rahm Emanuel suggest that the word they used wasn't "muck"?

On Wednesday, the White House staff did not know exactly what President Barack Obama was going to say in his major jobs speech, but it knew exactly where and when he was going to say it.



The location would be before a joint session of Congress in the august marble-clad chamber of the House of Representatives. And the speech would be next Wednesday night, when the House returned from vacation, and there would be maximum TV viewership.

I don't know if anyone is expecting anything other than warmed over platitudes, "I feel your pain" and suggestions to spend yet more millions if not trillions of federal dollars to borrow our way to prosperity.



But, if the speech really were important or substantive, why the delays? First of all, I heard a suggestion today that Obama might try to deliver the speech in a thirty minute slot before the kick off of the NFL season. If this is true, it is quite damning on many levels.



First, it suggests that it is once more an exhibition of petty gamesmanship on Obama's part. Aside from the fact that Obama and his teleprompter very seldom can say anything in under thirty minutes, this would seem to preclude any time for a rebuttal from the Republicans. Second, How substantive or comprehensive could it be if he can spell it out in thirty minutes or less. What is he? Delivering a pizza?



And third, if he could spell it out in thirty minutes or less, are you telling me that he could not delay his ten day vacation in Martha's Vineyard for thirty freaking minutes to lay out a plan to turn the nation's economy around?



And what's the BFD, as Joe Biden would say, about addressing a joint session of Congress? If he can lay it out in thirty minutes or less, make your speech from the Oval Office and let the weight of your ideas carry the day.



And then it hit me. Why the need to address the joint session of Congress, other than to screw with the Republicans and their presidential debate? It is this:



There will be so little substance to the President's speech, that he needed a studio audience to give him standing ovations and applause to make his lackluster ideas, platitudes and spending proposals sound more impressive than they really are.



This is Obama’s M.O. His Styrofoam Greek columns writ large. Remember his speech in front of 10 Downing Street address? He wasn’t visiting any British head of state, he was just using it as a backdrop for his campaign.



This guy Obama is a world class phony and poseur. God help the United States of America.



H/T Memeorandum



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama's Speech Trumped By Boehner's Full (or Empty) House

It looks like President Petulant has tried his hand at petty school yard politics. Did you hear about Obama's planned "jobs address"? This wasn't urgent enough to tell the nation before he went on vacation for ten days, but all of the sudden, he wants to make an address to Congress the same day, the same time the Republicans had scheduled a candidate's debate at the Reagan Library.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has asked President Obama to address a joint-session of Congress on Thursday, Sept. 8, when it wouldn't conflict with the Republican presidential debate.



Citing logistical difficulties, Boehner requested that Obama hold his jobs address, which Obama wants to deliver next Wednesday, one day later.



The Speaker's letter made no mention of the more obvious conflict: between the president's speech, and a Republican presidential debate scheduled on Wednesday night at 8 p.m. EST. That debate is the first of the post-Labor Day political season, and the first one in which Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is set to participate.

It was a juvenile move. Strictly "bush league" (Small "B"). He wanted to upstage the Republicans on the one hand, and use Congress as a bunch of props and a backdrop to stage the glory that is Obama.

One small problem: The President has to be invited to address Congress. Apparently, the President didn't even ask Congress about the speech, but arrogantly expected that if he said "jump" the peasants would ask "How high?".



Enter the adults with a cold splash of harsh reality for President Petulant. Boehner said that there might be "parliamentary or logistical impediments" that might interfere with his speech. That's right. "Parliamentary" (wink, wink) or "logistical" (nudge, nudge) impediments". If fact, I think that Boehner could probably give Obama an iron clad guarantee that there'd be at the very least a parliamentary impediment to the President's proposed schedule.



Note to the Obama White House: This ain't bean bag.





H/T Memeorandum

Obama: "Kiss of Death" to Yet Another "Green" Company

Remember when Barack Obama told us that "Green" energy was the wave of the future, providing the jobs the economy needed while keeping the air cleaner and enabling us to clone unicorns?? Okay. I may have made that last part up!



But, another company that Obama visited, hyped and funneled large amounts of federal money to, is going belly up. I know! Big surprise!

“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra's CEO said.



A California-based solar company that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will shut down.



The company, Solyndra Inc., said Wednesday it would suspend its manufacturing operations and lay off 1,100 employees effective immediately. The company said it intends to file a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.



“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate.”

Oh, really? "Regulatory and policy uncertainties"? Would those be the regulations and policies generated by the Democrat controlled legislature and governor's mansion, or the would those be the regulations and policies generated by the Democrat controlled Senate and White House?



The mind reels!

Solyndra received the $535 million stimulus loan guarantee from the Energy Department in 2009 to help finance the construction of a new plant to manufacture solar panels.

A half a billion here, a half a billion there...pretty soon it adds up to real money!



What are the odds that the current resident of the White House will take this as a sign that "Green" technologies are not necessarily the engine to drive the economy out of this recession, or do you think he will double down on stupid?



Yeah. Me, too.



H/T Memeorandum

"Mama Grizzly" in Iowa

Sarah's got a little "Mama Grizzly" going on in Iowa!



H/T Gina Cobb

Krauthammer on Obama's Martha's Vineyard Vacation

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's Martha's Vineyard vacation:

His problem about this is not the choice of time, the length of vacation. It’s the choice of place. I think everybody understands a president, any chief executive, has to have time off. And they wouldn’t begrudge him.



But, as an example, if he had chosen to spend it at Camp David, which is not exactly a Marine boot camp, it’s got all the amenities — it’s understood, it’s a place where a president goes. Eisenhower spent a lot of time there. In fact it’s named after his grandson. Presidents go there, everybody accepts it. It wouldn’t have been an issue.

Part of the Left's false equivalence is that if you object to Obama vacationing at lavish and pricy resorts, that you are objecting to him taking any time off at all. Although, I think Charles is being a little kind to Obama about the choice of time. Candidate Obama (he's more candidate than President these days!) says he has a plan to solve the unemployment problem, which is current, immediate and severe, and he says he'll be happy to share the details with us in ten days, after he gets back from his vacation with all those rich folk who don't currently need jobs! If he was serious or if he thought his plan was something more than yet another failed stimulus bill in the making, wouldn't he want to implement it as soon as possible? And since Michelle left for Martha's Vineyard on a separate plane, couldn't he have stayed behind for a day or two, actually done his job and then met her there?

But choosing an exclusive enclave like the Vineyard after spending three days on the road railing against the rich and the wealthy and the millionaires and the billionaires and the corporate jet owners who vacation exactly in the same place — and then spending ten days in their company — speaks of a kind of dissonance or hypocrisy.

Three grueling days of campaigning on his Canadian made, million dollar rock star bus and the guy certainly needs a break! And maybe a fundraiser or two?

You know, the Vineyard doesn’t have any bridges to it. You either get there on a ferry in your Maserati, or on a jet or a helicopter. It’s not exactly where ordinary folks will take a vacation.

Keeps out the hoi polloi, don'tcha know?

Has Obama Taken Less "Vacations" Than Bush?

I guess that depends on what your definition of "vacation" is. The MSM and the White House are trying to cover President I'm Either Playing Golf or On Vacation Obama's aloof arrogance and poor judgment.

Is there ever really a good time for the president to go on vacation? President Barack Obama’s 10-day summer getaway from Washington to Martha’s Vineyard — scheduled to start Thursday — has reignited a seemingly annual debate.



As a guest on Chicago’s WLS-AM radio Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that Obama should stay in D.C. and call Congress back to work. “If you’re the president of the United States, and the nation is in crisis — and we’re in a jobs crisis right now — then you shouldn’t be out vacationing,” the former Massachusetts governor told WLS hosts Don Wade and Roma. “Instead you should be focusing on getting the economy going again. And, yeah, go back to the office yourself, pull back members of Congress and focus on getting the job done.”



Donald Trump, appearing on Fox News earlier this week, complained, “the fact is, [Obama] takes more vacations than any human being I’ve ever seen.”

But does the perception match up to the reality?

Mark Knoller of CBS, the unofficial keeper of presidential work schedules, reported that President George W. Bush had taken more time off than Obama at this point in his first term.



Obama’s upcoming vacation is his ninth vacation since taking office. Obama has spent all or part of 38 days on vacation away from the White House. He has also made 14 visits to Camp David spanning all or part of 32 days, for a total of 70 days, Knoller said.



Bush, at this point in his first term, had made 14 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 102 days, Knoller said. He also made 40 visits to Camp David spanning all or part of 123 days. His vacation total at this point in his presidency was all or part of 225 days away.

See the false equivalence? Bush gets out of Washington and heads to the ranch on the weekends, Obama spends weeks at pricey resorts, Hawaiian beach houses and foreign countries and that's just the same, isn't it?



And, even though Obama is hobnobbing with millionaires and billionaires, he's still in touch:

White House press secretary Jay Carney doesn’t think the public begrudges the president a break to recharge and spend time with his family.



Carney also argued that the president is never really off-duty since White House advisers go with him, and he still receives regular briefings on national security, the economy and other matters.

So, Bush stayed in touch on his ranch and had staff meetings there, too. Hanging with the rich folks in Martha's Vineyard and cavorting in the surf in Hawaii isn't the same as clearing brush on the homestead. And clearing brush costs the taxpayer millions less. If President Hopey Changey didn't have a tin ear towards the peons he deigns to rule over, he might have noticed that.



H/T Memeorandum



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Prescriptions for Recovery and Disaster

There is a myth constantly going around about the sorry state of manufacturing in this country. Since I work for an American manufacturer, whose products sell worldwide, this has been of some interest to me. I recently engaged in a dialogue with a fellow over at Big Government who believes, from what I can gather, that a return to protectionist trade policies and tariffs is America's only hope. Please, don't take my word for it, his arguments in full are here.

I will post portions of the exchange, leaving out, perhaps a little more of the "colorful" language, and opting for brevity over a verbatim transcript, since I have not gathered anyone's permission but my own for the quotes. Forgive me if the following lacks the structure of a formal essay. I believe the material speaks for itself, without a large scale edit and re-writing and makes some valid points in the aftermath of the US's recent credit downgrade.

I merely mentioned the fact that Obama's hand picked adviser for job growth is busy exporting jobs as we speak. Obama also talks about "closing loopholes" where big companies avoid paying taxes, while Jeffrey Immelt is essentially making GE X-ray a Chinese subsidiary of GE, and whoops! not subject to US taxes. That enough hypocrisy for you?

We cannot "demand" that other countries raise their standards. Ever hear of the concept of "sovereign nations"? If you want to take a stand against other countries using cheaper labor and/or less than ideal working conditions, please feel free to boycott all products not made in the US. Hope you're not awfully fond of television. We haven't made any sets in the US since before the age of digital TV.

Your fantasies about tariffs are duly noted.

This was followed by the point that what had made the US "the greatest economic power in the world", was "fair trade policies".

My rejoinder:

"Do you believe it is fair to trade with a country that artificially pegs its currency?" Are you suggesting an embargo? Adopt the Cuban model? That would be one way to stop the US from "trying to compete" with these countries.

Tariffs start trade wars. The best one can hope for with tariffs, is for certain favored industries to benefit. Prices to consumers will go up (great time to raise prices, during a recession, right?) and the countries who are the targets of the tariffs will undoubtedly respond with tariffs of their own, making our goods less profitable to sell abroad.

Unless we can find some poor country who has nothing we want to buy. Then we can make their goods less profitable and our country can grow richer at their expense? Is that your idea of "fair"?

There are things that can be done to improve the business climate here in our favor. Eliminate unnecessary regulations, which raise the costs of doing business, (please note my use of the word "unnecessary" and spare me additional straw men.) lower the tax rates and make them permanent. Too many businesses are paralyzed into inactivity because of the uncertainty of tax laws, health care requirements and regulations.

Fair trade is when I trade what I have for what you have and both parties are satisfied. If business is to grow and unemployment is to recede, the government has got to get out of the way. Primarily in reducing the tax burden that feeds a bloated government filled with endless redundant departments, all of which combine to put the brakes on our economy.

Personally, I try not to buy goods made in China, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't have given them most favored nation status. But slapping any tariffs on them to protect any domestic industry is doomed to failure. It would only hurt the consumer and raise unemployment among low skilled workers and teenagers.

What made the US the greatest economic power in the world, was freedom. To the extent that government takes freedom away, it cripples economic recovery.

After a bit of back and forth, in typical liberal fashion, (whether he is one or not), he seems to take delight in dealing with what I haven't said, rather than what I did. A sort of Mind Read Fail. He advocated the return to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, and an 11 point plan... from the eighteenth century. (1791 for the math impaired)

My reply:

"Only through manufacturing, when $5 worth of iron ore is converted into a $2000 car door, or $1 worth of raw wool is converted into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit, is real wealth created" Sorry! I reject your premise. And if you thought about it for a minute, so would you. What makes a " $1 worth of raw wool... into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit"? The obvious answer is "Calvin Klein". That's what makes it different from a $100 Steve Garvey suit or from a $2 ball of yarn your granny uses to knit you a scarf.

Intellectual property creates "real wealth". You can manufacture $.25 CD-ROMs and Blu-rays all day long, but if you want to sell it for $10 or $25 or $200, you'd better put some music or a movie or some software on it that I want to buy. **

And there is "real wealth" in our resources as well. You scoff about $5 worth of iron ore, but no one mines just five dollars worth. There is real wealth created when it is mined and again when it is smelted and again when it is manufactured into something useful. And, if you do it right, once again when it is recycled.

And despite many myths and old wives tales, there is still a lot of manufacturing going on in this country. There are just not as many manufacturing jobs. By automating processes in their plants (and moving to right to work states), many manufacturers have been able to remain competitive with foreign labor. New Balance shoes, for example. http://www.newbalance.com/usa/

Energy creates wealth. Without energy, the $5 ore never gets mined or smelted or the wool stitched into an Armani suit. Without energy, the worker cannot get to the factory which cannot keep its doors open without it. Real wealth can be found in drilling and refining our own oil. Reducing energy costs would make every industry in the country more profitable, from the food on your table, to the shoes on your feet to the car that you drive.

This administration has chosen to hobble the energy industry at every turn, choosing instead to subsidize mythical* green energy and penalize every other existing source of energy. There is real wealth in the ground and more to be had in refining, manufacturing gasoline, if you will, if this administration and all the green weenies on the left would just get out of the way.

Reduce the pointless and counterproductive regulatory morass, lower corporate taxes, which are merely a hidden tax on the consumer, allow our nation's energy companies to drill and mine the resources we have and you will see a big turnaround in this country.

*In the sense of providing enough power to drive our current economy, much less the future.

** With high speed downloading, even the "manufactured" CD-ROM is virtually obsolete. (See: high button shoes/buggy whips)

FYI: "Since 1975, (US) manufacturing output has more than doubled"

In looking to document one of my points to "hockeynation" I ran across this (and the chart above):

Since 1975, manufacturing output has more than doubled, while employment in the sector has decreased by 31%. While these American job losses are indeed sobering, they are not an indication of declining U.S. competitiveness. In fact, these statistics reveal that the average American manufacturer is over three times more productive today than they were in 1975 – a sure sign of economic progress.

The true cause of dwindling American competitiveness is a tax code that puts domestic firms at a clear disadvantage – not a lack of skill or innovation on the part of the American worker.

- Veronique de Rugy

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"U.S. Flag 'Primes' Voters Toward Republican Viewpoints"

Just a glimpse at the American flag can sway voters, even Democrats, toward more Republican voting behavior, attitudes and beliefs, a new two-year study says.

The authors, from the University of Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, say the research proves the American flag has a powerful effect on voters.

"A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants' Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting eight months," reads the study titled, "Long-Term Effects of U.S. Flag Exposure on Republicanism."

Can't say for certain that it's true, but it never hurts to display the symbol of our great country on every suitable occasion.

I've placed a small flag at the top of the sidebar. Let's turn the Internet red white and blue between now and 2012.

Character: Twitter 140, Obama 0

Wouldn't it have been nice for Obama to have to answer all the questions tweeted to him, and not just those cherry picked ones he got?

H/T Smitty, The Other McCain

Border Security, Anyone?

COPENHAGEN — Ten years ago, as Denmark joined the European Union’s visa-free open travel zone, the outraged Danish People’s Party bought a decommissioned border guardhouse, vowing that one day it would be in use again. Back then, most Danes dismissed the move as a colorful publicity stunt by the newly formed right-wing party.

But last month, the Danish People’s Party was doing a victory dance, offering to donate its picturesque brick guardhouse at the German border to the government. The party had achieved its goal: Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had agreed to restore 24-hour customs control in exchange for support on a difficult budget package.

I wonder if maybe the Republican party ought not to purchase some real estate along our southern border? Not only could they fence it and defend it as they choose, but it could give them standing in suing the government to do something about our lax southern border policies.

Israeli Prime Minister Gets 29 Standing Ovations in Congress

...at his 2011 SOTU, Obama got 25. (Not that anyone's counting!)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before a joint meeting of Congress had all trappings of a State of the Union address by a president with sky-high approval ratings.

Speaking to a packed House chamber with Speaker Boehner and Vice President Biden over his shoulders, Netanyahu was repeatedly interrupted by applause – including more than 20 standing ovations. One of his biggest applause lines was aimed directly at President Obama.

“Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967,” Netanyahu said, prompting a big standing ovation.

Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be getting a lot warmer reception for his views than Obama is getting for his. And rightly so!

H/T Memeorandum