SHERIFF TRUMP AND HIS POSSE ARE COMING TO TOWN

SHERIFF TRUMP AND HIS POSSE ARE COMING TO TOWN

Eric Arthur Blair, better known as George Orwell, could not have written a darker scenario than America presently confronts. Government actors including but not limited to; the President of the United States Barack Obama, the Attorney General Loretta Lynch and membership of the FBI have colluded with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to alter the outcome of the presidential election.  Their actions include obstruction of justice, misuse of classified information, destruction of classified information and other offenses against this nation. Congress stands by as the Executive Branch pummels a nonpolitician who wants to “Drain the Swamp” of corruption in our Capital. Our nation has been compromised by a rogue government which puts itself before the people. Not to worry a new sheriff is coming to town.

Donald Trump is no paragon of virtue or saint. His origins are derived from the hard streets of New York City. His father, Fred Trump, built residences for those in the low and middle income brackets. In this environment our next President became intensely interested in real estate. Building an expansive company Donald Trump has developed numerous skills, lacking in most politicians, which could benefit the entire nation. The wall of skepticism generated by the left concerning Trump’s abilities and lifestyle were designed to take him down. They failed miserably. Instead media outlets pushing this adulterated garbage have been rebuked by Trump and his followers. Ratings of left wing news outlets have tanked and some Hillary co-conspirators have lost their jobs. With that stated the cleansing process has already begun.

Universal stupidity has brought the present government into power. Promises made were not promises kept. Degenerate thought processes have driven governmental departments to destroy whatever good government could do for us leaving behind a barren frontier to rebuild. Trump is the correct person to initiate this building process. Every institution, tradition and industry has been touched in some form or manner by the overreach of incompetence. As bad as this sounds there is worse. Intimidation of American citizens on a level, not seen in one human life time, has emerged as a norm for the Obama Administration. Payoffs, kickbacks and bribes have accompanied the current President’s tenure in office received by those who lather praise on him. Imagine for a moment that a Republican was in office involved in the same actions. Special prosecutors would be invoked and indictments would flow. Will this Teflon President jump ship and avoid his day in court? Not likely. With the new sheriff a few days away from appointment there is no place in the foothills or valleys to hide. Come clean Mr. President the American people and your soul need a lift from 8 years of your reign.

Mark Davis, MD platomd@gmail.com  Author of Demons of Democracy and Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster.

Obama’s failed record and legacy is Hillary’s campaign platform

Commentary by James Shott

Yes, it was a significant recession, deep enough to earn the title the “Great Recession.” But since the Great Depression there have been several recessions that, at the time they occurred, were called the “Great Recession.”

Since the Great Depression and including the latest incarnation of the Great Recession, none of them have come anywhere close to the horrible conditions during the 1930s. Thus, Barack Obama’s citing of the Great Recession falls short in excusing the dismal economy and the failed Obama recovery. The lousy economy is due to faulty policies since the end of the recession in June 2009.
 
As the end of Obama’s presidency nears the U.S. is more than $19 trillion in debt, and the debt nearly doubled during Obama’s presidency. At a seriously high $10.6 trillion when he began, Obama’s policies have added about a trillion dollars for each of his eight years in office.

During the Obama recovery, Gross Domestic Product has not once reached 3.0 percent. “Adding insult to injury,” The Daily Signal reports, “Obama coupled an incredibly weak economic recovery with a more than trillion-dollar tax hike.  By allegedly making the rich ‘pay their fair share’ through the $620 billion (2013-2022) fiscal cliff tax increase, the administration really pushed for everyday Americans to sacrifice lower take-home pay for more government spending and intervention in their lives.”

Obama has claimed the creation of millions of jobs. "We're in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history,” he said. “More than 14 million new jobs; the strongest two years of job growth since the 1990s; an unemployment rate cut in half."

Well, sort of. When a recession produces job losses, the recovery – even a poor recovery like this one – produces some “new jobs.” And according to CNN Money, Obama created 9.3 million, not 14 million, new jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics explains that the U-6 unemployment rate reflects “total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.” At the end of the first quarter of 2016, the U-6 rate was 10.1 percent. 

These unemployed, discouraged workers who have stopped looking for a job, and underemployed workers are not counted in the unemployment figure the administration brags about, but are nonetheless part of the American workforce, which totals 243 million people, and currently more than 90 million of them are unemployed or underemployed, putting the workforce participation rate at a decades-low 62.6 percent.

In a May open-ended Gallop survey, participants noted general economic issues as the most important thing on their minds, but not far behind were issues with their government, such as immigration and race relations, two things Obama has made worse.

Potentially more serious, however, is the disintegrating U.S. influence across the globe and our severely weakened military, issues considered so serious that Congressional Republicans have developed a 23-page policy document to address them, under the leadership of House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis).

“In the past seven years, our friendships have frayed, our rivalries have intensified. It’s not too much to say that our enemies no longer fear us and too many of our allies no long trust us. And I think this is the direct result of the president’s foreign policy,” Ryan said. “All he did was create … many voids around the world and now our enemies are stepping in to fill those voids. This is what happens when America does not lead.”

With Obama’s tenure ending we are faced with the prospect of Hillary Clinton being elected to what will essentially be Obama’s third term, continuing his disastrous policies, and adding her own signature disasters to the mix.

Among Clinton’s favorite issues are: gun control, climate change, and income inequality.

She says that 33,000 gun deaths every year is unacceptable. But considered in context, 33,000 deaths among our 320 million population is roughly one death for every 10,000 people. And not all gun deaths are murders. Some are killed by police; others by people defending themselves; some are suicides; some are accidents. To Obama and Clinton, the Orlando terrorist attack is a gun control issue.

Obama’s manic compulsion for climate change has produced policies that have destroyed the lives of thousands of energy industry workers, and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars propping up failing green energy companies like Solyndra, based on a theory that is faulty and heavily disputed. Likewise, Clinton wants to install a half-billion solar panels by 2020, seven times what we have today. More bad policies on the horizon.

She favors making incomes more equal, not understanding that wages are based on economic principles, not fairy tale desires. She wants a $12 an hour minimum wage for everyone, trained or not, good at their job or not.

And we cannot ignore her failure to provide adequate security at the Benghazi consulate when evaluating her foreign policy credentials.

Clinton, like Obama, seeks to control and ignores logic and reasoning when seeking solutions. She shares his “big government as the solution to all problems” philosophy, and that is a recipe for continued trouble.

Cross-posted from Observations

This is not Bush's War-- It is America's Fight

Cross Posted from Wake up America.

From the comment section on my last post "Welcome Home President Bush... I Missed You While You Were Gone, we have a decent debate going on (when not interrupted with foul mouthed, attitude ridden trolls) and there were some important points made that I thought deserved front page attention.

Thanks go to Amy Proctor, because as usual she nails the core issue and she provided me the links I emailed her for.

This is for those on the left that have convenient memories and continue to insist that this is Bush's war. I will show you why this is America's war.

On October 31, 1998, President William J Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

On December 16, 1998, President Clinton made a televised speech explaining why he attacked Iraq.

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

These two links and statements were what Amy Proctor posted in the comment section of my last piece and the point is that Clinton did the right thing with the Iraq Liberation Act and Bush has followed through with it in his two terms as President.

Lets take this a step farther for those that wish to rewrite history and claim that WMD's were the only reason we toppled Saddam Hussein, here is the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

For those that do not have the time to read the whole thing, here are seven OTHER reasons contained in the Joint Resolution linked above.

Hat Tip to Ankle Biting Pundits for listing the seven additional reasons, excluding the issue of WMD's that are part of this resolution.

1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1991
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf

Read those two statements in full, every word of them, then read the Joint Resolution in full.

Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with and he has been, that was agreed on by members of both sides of the aisle. We now OWE it to the Iraqi people to help them in their reconstruction phase, which by looking into our own history, takes years, patience and two steps forward then one backwards and continues along that same vein until it is done.

A Democratic President did the right thing with the Iraq Liberation Act and a Republican President has followed through with it.

This is not a Democratic or a Republican war... This is America's fight and surrender is NOT an option.

I will leave you with my new heading from the top of the page...in the immortal words of John F. Kennedy:

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."... John F. Kennedy

ANY price. ANY burden. ANY hardship.

I truly do not think he meant, UNTIL we lose patience, or UNLESS it costs money, or any number of reasons that the Democratic party wishes to spew forth.

He believed people deserved to be free... 12 MILLION Iraqi's risked their lives and those of their families in agreement.

Do we really wish to abandon them?

One last point, do we really wish to give Iraq over to al-Qaeda so that they have a safe haven to build their training camps and so that they can come to the US again and attack us, perhaps costing us more than 3,000 lives next time?


[UPDATE] Two links I would suggest at this time. The first is to John McCain's site with a petition stating Surrender is NOT an option. Please go sign that.

The second is to a LA Times article called "Congress isn't commander in chief" (Can you BELIEVE that this is in the LA Times?... Hell must have somehow froze over).

[End Update]

.

When Bashing the Troops Backfires Count $$$

Another Columnist in H. Clinton's Pocket?

The latest leftist attack on the war in Iraq comes from John Allen Palous commentary (ABC News) “Who's Counting: How Iraq Trillion Could Have Been Spent”.

The price tag for the Iraq War is now estimated at $700 billion in direct costs and perhaps twice that much when indirect expenditures are included. Cost estimates vary — Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz puts the total cost at more than $2 trillion — but let's be conservative and say it's only $1 trillion (in today's dollars). . . .

Conservative, now that’s really funny! If Palous wanted to be “conservative” would the BOLD subtitle to his article read “The Cost of the Iraq War: Can You Say $1,000,000,000,000?”

The budget that President Bush will submit to Congress today shows the federal deficit falling in each of the next four years and would produce a $61 billion surplus in 2012, administration officials said.

See Monday's Wall Street Journal. “How War's Expense Didn't Strain Economy” By Deborah Solomon.

Since President Bush took office, he's boosted annual defense spending by 50% -- including $500 billion over five years for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and doubled spending on homeland security. At the same time, he's cut taxes, expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, approved $100 billion to clean up after Gulf Coast hurricanes, and signed bills that spend a little more each year on domestic programs.

For years, critics said it couldn't last, backed by some historical precedent: President Johnson is blamed by many for triggering inflation in the 1970s by spending on both guns and ...

But let’s get back to Palos and the leftist ABC Clinton lobby. Although Palous admits that the official price tag for the Iraq War “is now estimated at $700 billion,” why not just bump it up to $2 trillion for the sake of leftist argumentation. After all what’s a few billion here and there when spinning to the dupes who can’t read beyond his hyped sub-title???

Of course Palous was smart enough to search for the someone notable who came up with this 2 trillion dollar claim. And lo and behold he found Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz, a life long Democrat, won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001.

Wonder why Palous didn’t seek out other more recent Nobel Prize winners??? More jucy tidbits on that below . . .

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at Columbia University and was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Clinton and Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank. His latest book is Making Globalization Work.

According to his autobiography, he helped found the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, with support of the Ford, Rockefeller, McArthur, and Mott Foundations and the Canadian and Swedish government, to enhance democratic processes for decision making in developing countries.

To get a feel for just how left-leaning Stiglitz is read his “Will the Dam Break in 2007?”

When Bush assumed the presidency in 2001, many hoped that he would govern competently from the center. More pessimistic critics consoled themselves by questioning how much harm a president can do in a few years. We now know the answer: a great deal.

Never has America’s standing in the world’s eyes been lower. Basic values that Americans regard as central to their identity have been subverted. The unthinkable has occurred: an American president defending the use of torture, using technicalities in interpreting the Geneva Conventions and ignoring the Convention on Torture, which forbids it under any circumstances. Likewise, whereas Bush was hailed as the first “MBA president,” corruption and incompetence have reigned under his administration, from the botched response to Hurricane Katrina to its conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. . .

So much for the continued doom and gloom of the left. Now, why didn’t Palous seek out an opinion from the most recent recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, EDMUND S. PHELPS??? Phelps, Professor of Political Economy at Columbia, was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize for economics. But Phelps just happens to be a capitalist.

To get a feel about how Phelps feels about our economy read his “Dynamic Capitalism: Entrepreneurship is lucrative--and just”. Here’s an excerpt:

There are two economic systems in the West. Several nations--including the U.S., Canada and the U.K.--have a private-ownership system marked by great openness to the implementation of new commercial ideas coming from entrepreneurs, and by a pluralism of views among the financiers who select the ideas to nurture by providing the capital and incentives necessary for their development. Although much innovation comes from established companies, as in pharmaceuticals, much comes from start-ups, particularly the most novel innovations. This is free enterprise, a k a capitalism.

The other system--in Western Continental Europe--though also based on private ownership, has been modified by the introduction of institutions aimed at protecting the interests of "stakeholders" and "social partners." The system's institutions include big employer confederations, big unions and monopolistic banks. Since World War II, a great deal of liberalization has taken place. But new corporatist institutions have sprung up: Co-determination (cogestion, or Mitbestimmung) has brought "worker councils" (Betriebsrat); and in Germany, a union representative sits on the investment committee of corporations. The system operates to discourage changes such as relocations and the entry of new firms, and its performance depends on established companies in cooperation with local and national banks. What it lacks in flexibility it tries to compensate for with technological sophistication. So different is this system that it has its own name: the "social market economy" in Germany, "social democracy" in France and "concertazione" in Italy. . .

Ok, so now we know why Palous quoted Stiglitz instead of Phelps. Or do we? Is there more we need to know about Stiglitz???

This is from “The U.N. War Against America: Annual Briefing Report” PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST THE U.N. TAKEOVER. Here's an excerpt on Stiglitz. (Highlights added by me).

Clinton Economist Promotes GlobalTaxes

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, perhaps the most prominent economic thinker in the Democratic Party, is also blowing the horn for global taxes. A chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bill Clinton Administration, Stiglitz has been described as a “real Democrat” and possible candidate to head the Federal Reserve16 in a Democratic Administration.

His first book, Globalization and its Discontents, was praised by billionaire leftist George Soros as “Penetrating, insightful.... A seminal work that must be read.”17 In it, Stiglitz suggested that while a global tax on currency transactions, the so-called Tobin Tax, was being seriously studied in Europe, it might involve serious “implementation problems.” But with his subsequent book, Making Globalization Work, those problems have vanished, as he argues for a variety of global tax schemes18 that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.

Stiglitz, who anticipates possibly serving in a Hillary Clinton Administration,19 foresees major changes in the global economy. Most of these involve soaking American taxpayers. He and Soros20 are among those proposing the creation of new currencies to finance more foreign aid spending.

For his part, Stiglitz wants to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in what he calls “global greenbacks.” This is a new form of “global money,” he says, constituting one of several “innovative approaches to financing economic development [which] need to be tested.”21

“Who would receive the annual emissions of global greenbacks?” he asks. He suggests various approaches:
“…to allocate funds to different countries on the basis of their income and population (consistent with principles of social justice, poorer countries would get a larger allocation per capita).”
“…funds would be distributed through international institutions, either existing ones or newly created ‘special trust funds’ established under the auspices of the United Nations…”
“A portion might be used to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals – the goals the international community set for itself in reducing poverty by 2015…”22

In Making Globalization Work, he specifically proposes several global tax schemes, arguing that:
“Taxation on global negative externalities, such as arms sales to developing countries, pollution, and destabilizing cross-border financial flows, can provide a third source of revenue for financing global public goods.”23

The term “global public goods” is part of a U.N. effort to claim there are certain matters beyond the ability of any one state to address and that the international community, including the U.N., must get involved in solving them.24 As Stiglitz puts it:

“Globalization entails the closer integration of the countries of the world; this closer integration entails more interdependence, and this greater interdependence requires more collective action. Global public goods, the benefits of which accrue to all within the global community become more important. These include, for instance, health (funding a vaccine against malaria or AIDS, and the environment (reducing greenhouse gas emissions, maintaining biodiversity in rainforests). These should be first priorities for the funds.”25

All of these ideas, which have been extremely popular at the United Nations, involve global taxes of some kind.

While he embraces global taxation as one important source of revenue, Stiglitz identifies two other sources of international revenue as resulting from reform of the global monetary system and the “management of global resources.”

In the first instance, he says that the global monetary system of the world should be reformed in order to produce funds to “promote development, fight poverty, and provide better education and health for all,” he says.26 He says that global currency reserves, U.S. dollars held by various nations, especially China, should be transformed into “a new international currency” that can solve global problems. In the second instance, that of “management of global resources,” Stiglitz argues that revenue can be generated “for providing global public goods” through “auctioning off fishing rights, or the right to extract natural resources beneath the sea, or carbon emissions permits…” 27

At the “Second Annual Global Colloquium of University Presidents” last year, with then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in attendance, Stiglitz gave a talk entitled, “Innovative Sources of Funding for Global Public Goods,”28 in which he presented these ideas in some detail.

Now if that doesn't scare you, nothing, including war, will!!!

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, DragonLady's World, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.