Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Will those who accused Bush of being a big spender now apologize?

Obama’s 2010 budget blueprint laughingly titled “A New Era of Responsibility” (PDF here) was released today. Contained therein was the expectation that the federal deficit for the current fiscal year 2009 would rise to an astounding $1.75 trillion.

That’s a number so huge that few people can comprehend it. And as always, Obama is blaming the need for such massive government expansion on Bush.

From the Wall Street Journal: The president blamed the nation’s economic travails on the administration that preceded him and on a nation that lost its bearings. His budget plan projects a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the gross domestic product, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II.

In a morning briefing Obama described the “hard choices that lie ahead.” The only hard choices here will be how to pay for this monstrous, wasteful and economically risky government spending spree.

Where will the money come from? The rich? Do the math….

The 2% Illusion
Take everything [the rich] earn, and it still won’t be enough.
The Wall Street Journal
February 26, 2009

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end “tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans,” and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won’t see their taxes increased by “one single dime.”

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% — about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 — paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

Note that federal income taxes are already “progressive” with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He’d also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won’t come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.

But let’s not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
…
The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can’t possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.

On that point, by the way, it’s unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won’t hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There’s a reason that Charlie Rangel’s Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.

Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don’t ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama’s ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.

The week before the 2008 election I asked what happens when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? We may be about to find out. Obama and the Democrats are racing straight for the cliff on the most risky fiscal path ever taken in post World War II governing.

This could get ugly!

Also:

And The Straw Goes Marching On

I’m sure we’ve all heard of the False Dilemma. It’s false pattern of reasoning in which only two answers to a question are considered when in fact there could be more answers. Karl Rove describes Obama’s use of the False Dilemma in his new article. He lays out how Obama states, over and over, that his opponents have a opinion which they obviously don’t have and then says that those with that view are the one’s who oppose his policies:

…On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, “I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.” Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

Mr. Obama also said that America’s economic difficulties resulted when “regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.” Who gutted which regulations?

Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?

Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd’s threat to filibuster Mr. Bush’s needed reforms. (more…)

by Regina Sztajer

“All we have to fear is fear itself,” said President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he took office during the Great Depression. All recessions or depressions will ultimately resolve themselves if the government does not panic and set the country into an economic spiral. Obama promised a new beginning of change and hope but instead he has neglected his role as president by not reversing a global economic panic. Rather every time he speaks, which in the past month is almost constantly, he and his cabinet have heightened the crisis by predicting doom and gloom. Even past President Bill Clinton told Obama to cool it because he is not giving the American people a reason to hope but rather to despair in their economic woes. FDR gave the American people a reason to hope when he gave his first fire-side chats on the radio only eight days after his presidency began. He promised leadership and delivered an economic agenda that was bold and ambitious in order to reshape American Capitalism.

While Obama promises to deliver America from the recession his agenda threatens to plunge America into a new and deeper crisis. His speech to Congress this week was profoundly anti-market and anti-capitalism. Massive government invention and destruction of the markets of Wall Street will not bring prosperity. He said there is no pork in the stimulus bill! But he is using the current economic crisis to cover for scores of liberal programs (pork.) The United States will be driven into a succession of trillion-dollar in bailouts, national debt, stimulus and health care. Resulting into a fiscal nightmare if government intervention undermines growth. Without growth, there is no tax revenue to pay down the debt and so on and the economy will continue to spiral down.

Whenever Obama speaks the viewers can only watch as the confidence is drained out of Wall Street investors. Obama must instill confidence in America as well as the rest of the world. So far he is failing in this by spreading doubt and fear. When he speaks he sends the markets down and stocks crashing not realizing the world takes their cues from him. He seems to be still on the election trail not on the epic center of power.
He talks doom and gloom because he wanted to cram everything into the stimulus bill, tax increases for the rich, an expansion of health care and new government regulation. An atmosphere of political crisis is a necessity for him to achieve his purposes. Keeping the American people in a panic will induce them to vote for a trillion-dollar deficit and spending packages galore only to watch our national debt soar. The blame George W. Bush and the Republican’s for the economic mess he has inherited is part of his agenda. He took over in a recession because of the Republican’s he insists and he uses language to create a depression and a catastrophe. (more…)

From Red Maryland

In one of the least surprising things around you’ll find, taxpayers aren’t exactly enamored with bigger and badder government:

In early October, as the meltdown of the financial industry gained momentum following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of U.S. voters agreed with Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”…

….Despite all that, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that the basic views of the American people have not change: 59% of voters still agree with Reagan’s inaugural address statement. Only 28% disagree, and 14% are not sure.

Gee, I wonder way. Maybe it has something to do with the first couple of stimulus packages not working. Maybe it has to do with the President, his actions, and his rhetoric in continue to stick the accelerator open as we roll down the road to serfdom. Maybe it was the continued display of crass and corrupt leaders in Congress and appointed to the Obama Administration. Whatever it is, the people of America aren’t playing ball with this. And Congress, as they are wont to do, is leading our nation down a screaming path that is diametrically opposed to the will of the people.
(more…)

By Dick Morris

With a speech to match the most eloquent os State of the Union Addresses, with strains of FDR and JFK and a touch of Winston Churchill thrown in, President Obama has clearly staked his presidency on the outcome of the economic crisis.

Whether or not you agree with his prescription for recovery (I don’t), it’s clear that he’s not hedging his bets. If it works, his place in history is assured. If it fails, so is his early retirement.

The speech made it apparent that the Obama administration’s response to this crisis will either go down in history as a success that Americans will admire for decades, or become a case study in economic failure that students and scholars will study and pick apart for generations.

The speech began where it needed to begin, with a bold affirmation of faith in the rebuilding and recovery of America. Then Obama listed some of the more popular parts of his spending-stimulus program.

The specific items he recalled from the package were attractive. But Americans know, by now, that much of the program (largely unmentioned last night) is a mountain of pork – money spent for the sake of spending it to spur recovery, not to achieve particularly important ends.

Obama did not seek to justify the spending for the specific purposes to which it is dedicated. Courageously, he said that he passed it because it will work. For his sake, it better. But I doubt it.

Then he spoke unconvincingly about his bank-rescue plan. Promising to punish and regulate bankers even as he stressed the need to restore their confidence, he reminded me of the facetious sign posted in a friend’s workplace: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

How he plans to restore the nerve and confidence of our bankers as he castigates them is unclear. But, then, so is his program for financial rescue. One suspects that he knows full well that he will nationalize the banks. But even that step assumes that politicians can do what bankers can’t: Act quickly, ruthlessly and honestly – never a notable attribute of elected officials. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

On top of Chris Matthews, that partisan hack, muttering “oh god” as Jindal gave his response to Obama’s speech we have another perfect example of partisan hacks from a local Los Angeles station. It gets embarrassing as the hosts of Good Day LA (a local Los Angeles show) and Bill Handel gush over Obama and his speech which said nothing. Gush, gush and more gushing. They even gush about the fact that Democrats showed up early for the speech so they could touch the messiah. Bill Handel say’s “can you imagine the aura Obama has now?”

Get ready for your barf bags:

Bill Handel: “No specifics, but I don’t think last night was about specifics. Last night was his version of the we have nothing to fear but fear itself”

Yeaaaahhh.

They even believe Obama’s assertion that he will cut the deficit in half.

In between their gushing they did their best to tear apart Jindal, calling his performance a complete “disaster,” “contrived,” “fake,” and “none of it was real.”

At about the 1:30 mark Bill Handle gets pissy over the fact that Jindal had the nerve to complain about 140 million going to volcano warning sensors. He said that there ARE people who live near volcano’s who would like to know when it was going to erupt. Calling it a program that makes sense.

Whoakay….

Rant time…..Listen, there will always be someone, somewhere, who could use something from this stimulus. That doesn’t magically make it money well spent.

The difference between the two speeches, other then the delivery, is the role of government. Obama said he doesn’t want to grow government at the same time he ensures that government will be growing to a size unseen before. While Jindal pointed out that anytime the federal government gets involved, it leads to disaster. There is no way the federal government will manage this economic crisis.

It comes down to this:

“This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them for ourselves.”

Obama spent little time dealing with specifics but said the plan will save or create over 3 million jobs while Jindal argues that tax cuts, not more power and money in the hands of politicians, or as Reagan called them the “intellectual elite”, will ensure that this economic crisis fades away quickly.

Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history, with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest. While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending.

That’s the difference in a nutshell. More government will not fix anything. /rant

But back to the Good Day LA gagfest. This part of the show I had to transcribe it was so incredible:

Steve Edwards: Listen, here’s the deal, at least from my perspective. Nobody knows anything in this. Nobody understands anything, but we do understand the emotional resonance and at this moment the Republicans are on the wrong side of that and they don’t understand that the public wants to cheer and love and wants to feel good in spite of the bad times and only a few of them say “wait a minute, wait a minute, we gotta go along with the tide at least a little bit.”

Bill Handel: What they should do is just shut up and just sit back and if they can’t and if they can’t embrace Obama and at least not rip into him…and at least let the programs fall and fail if their right and then sit back and go “guys, we tried that, it didn’t work…now lets try it our way.”

Just shut up Republicans. Don’t try to fight, just submit to programs and bills we don’t agree with. Submit and obey.

Just like the Democrats did during Bush’s two terms right?

Also:

Underwhelmed by Bobby Jindal

To be fair, giving the response to Obama’s speech was a tough assignment… but…

Following any presidential speech with the opposition response is a tough act. Especially when the presidential address is the equivalent of a State of the Union address with the U.S. Capitol as the backdrop.

But Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) accepted that challenge and stepped up to the plate last night in what was an introduction of himself to many Americans who may never have heard of him.

Before he spoke, Charles Mahtesian at the Politico warned that no matter how well Jindal did, critics were likely to pounce:

Note to Bobby Jindal: They’re going to hate you.

When you deliver the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s address Tuesday night, the critics will fault your style and delivery. Your rhetoric will be panned as empty and partisan. Some in your party inevitably will question whether you were up to the job.

Not to worry though. Just look at the experience of Democratic governors who delivered the response to the presidential address in recent years – they weathered the criticism and came out better positioned on the national scene than before.

And yes, Jindal’s performance has been widely panned by people across the political spectrum. I’m not all that familiar with Bobby Jindal but I do agree he could have done better.

I did not watch Obama’s speech. I channel flipped past it a few times staying long enough to ponder what kind of bathrobe House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi was wearing and always with the mute button on. But I was anxiously awaiting Jindal’s response to see how well he would carry it off.

I lost interest after the first few minutes. Check the video yourself if haven’t seen it and you’ll know why:

That forced cheeriness at the beginning left me flat and I tuned out the remainder of his message. By the time he got serious in the second half (video here) I was gone.
(more…)

From Red Maryland

As with most liberal propositions, it feels so good. Let’s give those poor deprived souls in the Federal District “full voting rights”. Let’s give them “representation”. Well, the Senate appears to be on its way.

Well how can you possibly oppose giving the people of DC full representation? It’s easy. It’s wrong and it’s probably unconstitutional.

The only reason the District of Columbia has any electoral votes in a presidential election is because of the 23rd Amendment. That OK, because the people of this country agreed to amend the constitution. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with it or not. However, Congress doesn’t have the authority to give seats in Congress to non-states. The constitution is pretty clear about that one. Of course, the constitution also says that we’re supposed to COUNT the population every ten years and liberals want to estimate.

——————————————————————————–

Assuming that Congress gives DC a full seat in the House (and that’s a pretty safe bet), it’s logical that they’ll get two seats in the Senate as well. Why not? It’s just another form of “stuffing the box” and the Dems aren’t shy about doing that.

People live in DC by choice. If don’t want to live in a Federal District then they don’t have to. However, there is an alternative that will address their concerns:

Give the District back to Maryland. Virginia already took her part back. It’s called Arlington County.

The only problem – Maryland doesn’t want it. I can’t blame her. Still, that doesn’t justify an unconstitutional act on the part of Congress and the Obama administration.

Oh … Who am I kidding?

by Laryn

If I were president I’d make damn sure every claim I made in an address before a joint session of Congress was verifiable. Last night, President Obama made two very dubious claims.

The automobile was invented in America

Yes, Henry Ford made the automobile affordable for the masses, but the actual grunt work of inventing the automobile was done mostly in Germany. Sorry. Any machinery as complex as the automobile has many people contributing to the “invention” of the product. The heart of the auto is the engine, and most of the innovations came from Germans. If any single individual is credited with the first car, it is usually Karl Benz (as in Mercedes-Benz). Even the Library of Congress says so. They are conveniently located across the street from Congress, where Obama delivered his speech. An American, Charles Edgar Duryea, played a role in perfecting the invention.

Health care costs now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds

Dan Riehl crunches the numbers and calls the foul:

That could be called a gross exaggeration … well actually, more like a lie.

Putting aside that it now seems impossible to lose your home in Oba-land, a bankruptcy every 30 seconds equals 2 a minute, = 120 an hour = 2889 a day = 1,051,200 a year.

According to the WaPo on January 4, 08 and CNN Money for 08 and 09 projected, while it likely justifies his annual number, health care isn’t even listed in the items. It’s all about credit abuse – a topic about which Obama now has no room to talk, thanks to his stimulus plan. Linking health care to personal bankruptcy right now seems to amount to taking advantage of the economic crisis. Like Rahm suggested, you can’t let a good one go by without change. But his numbers combined with the health care reasoning don’t come close to adding up. And History has shown a president willing to lie about facts could prove to be the biggest crisis of any one administration.

More than 800,000 personal bankruptcy filings were made in 2007, compared with more than 573,000 in 2006 — the lowest level since 1998, according to data collected by the National Bankruptcy Research Center and published by the American Bankruptcy Institute, a research group in Alexandria.

 Samuel J. Gerdano, executive director of the American Bankruptcy Institute, said in a statement that the trend is likely to worsen this year as consumers’ high debt loads are “made worse by the home mortgage crisis.”

Personal bankruptcy filings for most of this decade had been much higher — around 1.5 million annually. But after an eight-year campaign by banks, retailers and credit card companies, Congress in 2005 passed the biggest changes in U.S. bankruptcy laws in a quarter-century, mandating an income test to measure a debtor’s ability to measure a debtor’s ability to repay obligations. (more…)

By Dick Morris

Ultimately, all recessions and depressions resolve themselves into crises of confidence. The instant, global, 24/7 communications of today make them ever more so. President Obama, in his pursuit of liberal big-government spending, has totally neglected the role of the president of the United States in reversing global panic. To the contrary, his every remark and the constant preoccupation of his Cabinet is to heighten the sense of crisis and to escalate the predictions of doom if we do not do as they tell us and raise spending now and taxes later.

Instead of being a firewall, reassuring Main Street even as Wall Street crashed, he has become a conduit of panic, spreading the mood of desperation from the stock exchange floor to kitchen tables across the world.

There are bad loans, which became bad assets, that lie at the root of the crisis. Through deregulation by the government and the greed of financial institutions, they spread to every portfolio in the world. But these basic facts have metastasized out of all proportion to their real harm into job and financial insecurity for every family on Earth. It is President Obama, not the markets themselves, who has spread this fear. A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake.

Previous panics have been global in impact, but local in focus. The world panicked because of developments in Mexico or Argentina or Thailand or South Korea. Now, with Collateralized Debt Obligations spreading the poison of a bunch of bad loans all over the world, infecting every portfolio, the panic is not only global in impact but in focus as well. Modern communications have hastened the spread of the virus of panic throughout the global bloodstream. (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

As you probably know, President Obama is delivering his NtSOTU (Not the State of The Union) speech tonight.

It promises to be an thrilling combination of HopeyChanginess, finger pointing, fuzzy math, and willful suspension of disbelief.

To make the night more fun for everyone, the nice folks over at Americans for Tax Reform are rolling out an exciting new game called O-Bingo.

You can download your card here:

Download Card A (PDF)
Download Card B (PDF)
Download Card C (PDF)
Download Card D (PDF)

Gather your friends, your family, and your neighbors for an entertaining night of fun and frivolity.

KEY:

“Since the Great Depression” – The economic one, not the feeling you’ve had since he signed the “stimulus” bill.

“Save or create” jobs – Obama’s new metric whereby he can claim credit for the outcome no matter what happens (how exactly does one determine the number of “saved” jobs?)

“Crisis” – Excuse to hike taxes and grow the government per Rahm Emanuel’s theory: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

“Stimulus” – The 1,000 page Pelosi-Reid-Obama pork bill rushed through in the dead of night with no transparency and that not a single member of Congress who voted for it actually read.

“Hope” – The optimistic expectation, against all evidence that this government will be the first in the history of time to succeed in spending its way out of economic problems.

“Change” – Take-home pay of future generations due to massive spending increases and government expansion.

“Bipartisan” – “Pelosi and Reid get to decide what we’ll do, but I’ll have you over for tea first.”

“Children and grandchildren” – The people picking up the tab.

“Shovel-ready” – Vital projects that somehow are not important enough to receive funding through the regular appropriations process at the local, state, or federal level.

“Toxic assets”- Now the responsibility of those who followed the rules and made wise decisions.

“Failed policies of the past” – An overspending problem by George W. Bush to be expanded by Obama

“Investment” – Government spending.

“Sacrifice” – Tax hikes.

“As I’ve said before” – Prepare for a poll tested line from stump speeches.

“Make work pay” – Writing welfare checks through the tax code (and then calling it a tax cut).

“Climate change” – (Formerly known as Global Warming) The natural cycles of the sun and the four seasons.

“FDR” – The last President to attempt and fail to spend the country’s way out of a hole.

“Let me be clear” – Warning to “have your shovel ready.”

“Executive pay” – A serious problem because large cash awards are only appropriate when politicians dole out taxpayer money to the pet projects of their sons, brothers, wives, or campaign contributors.

“Protecting responsible homeowners” – Forcing you to pay your neighbor’s mortgage.

“Trillion-dollar deficit that we’ve inherited” – Bush overspending – which Obama just doubled.

“Essential services” – Government programs that employ unionized bureaucrats.

“Vulnerable Americans” – People that Obama wants to make dependent on the government.

“Tax cuts to 95 percent of working families” – See “Make Work Pay”

“Alternative energy”– Energy that is either too expensive or hasn’t succeeded in the free market on its own (if it worked, it would just be called “energy”)

Also:

AP writers give Obama credit for Bush/Iraq SOFA

Is there no end to the revision of history by journalists? AP bimbos, PAMELA HESS and ANNE GEARAN tout troop withdrawal as fulfillment of the Delegator in Chief’s campaign promise. Pretty damn safe bet since that was already agreed upon prior to his assumption of office, and was always in the cards as part of “victory”.

President Barack Obama plans to order that all U.S. combat troops be withdrawn from Iraq by August 2010, administration officials said Tuesday, ending the war that defined his upstart presidential campaign three months later than he had promised.

Obama’s plan would pull out all combat troops 19 months after his inauguration, although he had promised repeatedly during the 2008 campaign that he would withdraw them 16 months after taking office. That schedule, based on removing roughly one brigade a month, was predicated on commanders determining that it would not endanger U.S. troops left behind or Iraq’s fragile security.

Pledging to end the war in 16 months helped to build enormous grass-roots support for Obama’s White House bid.

The withdrawal plan — an announcement could come as early as this week — calls for leaving a large contingent of troops behind, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests.

(more…)

From Red Maryland

–Richard E. Vatz

About President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Non-State of the Union Address, a few observations:

1. There are some certain verities which will last throughout the Obama presidency: this is one of the fine presidential speakers of the last 50 years, a list which includes, in order of appearance, presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and now Obama. Of these presidents, Reagan and Obama tend — \tend\ — not to generate hatred because they are perceived as sincere and non-devious.

2. President Obama had what could be understated as the most ambitious agenda ever forwarded in a State of the Union Address, which, at least officially, this was not: a stimulus package which will effect the United States’ rebuilding and recovering and our being “stronger than before.” By what mechanism is this going to be accomplished? Well, most of the specifics are not there, but as one prototypical example, President Obama promised to “end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq.” There was no addressing reduction in the really tough entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security. Vice President Joe Biden will \personally\ provide oversight regarding earmarks and overspending. Great symbol; little effect.

3. President Obama was equally nonspecific regarding what will be done about the housing crisis: Americans will be helped to avoid foreclosure. Who and how? He did not specify. The President stated in the major disjunction of the speech tonight: “…[W]e have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and re-finance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values – Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who re-finances today can save nearly $2000 per year on their mortgage.” Again, who will and who will not be subsidized? You and I don’t know.
(more…)

by Laryn

Ah, a new President and a new vocabulary comes into play. For those of you not catching on to the Newspeak I’ll do a bit of quick translation between the new word or phrase and its older meaning. It really is quite simple, once you listen for a bit! So, without further preface lets dive right in:

Accountability = Previously, oversight so as to hold institutions to account for funds and activities. New meaning is placing corrupt politicians at the head of institutions so as to ensure that political payoffs go directly to those favored by the Administration. Usage: ‘I will make Accountability of federal departments my top priority.’

Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) = Ancient, the idea that humans putting another log on the fire during the Little Ice Age helped to keep a real Ice Age from forming. Previously a misunderstood concept of the dynamics between atmosphere, solar radiation, insolation, albedo, and gaseous chemical compounds on a planetary scale. Currently, a religion that puts man at the center of all things bad happening on Rock 3 from the Star Sol, and aims to eliminate humans via ‘Regulation’, ‘Accountability’ and ‘Oversight’ with the help of ‘Social Activism’. Soon to be an extortion phrase used against government, private institutions and individuals to make them conform with the religious beliefs of its adherents. Usage: ”AGW’ is a threat to all of humanity and we must do something to stop this global phenomena.’

Bailout (or bail out) = Previously, jumping from a plane at high altitude with a parachute as a means of descending safely to the ground, originally used to imply the aircraft was headed for an uncontrolled ground vector. Current, handing money out to institutions that had much ‘Regulation’ and ‘Oversight’ and are now being made ‘Accountable’, to the point where the amount being given is more than the cost of the institution itself. Usage: ‘We will have to bail out GM and Chrysler and add more ‘Regulation’, ‘Accountability’ and ‘Oversight’ to them so they succeed.’

Carbon Dioxide = Previously a chemical compound that is utilized in the biosphere and naturally occurring, with some current uses of fuels producing it as a byproduct. Currently a pollutant that can be ‘Regulated’ due to worries about ‘Anthropomorphic Global Warming’. Usage: ‘The EPA will ‘Regulate’ the amount of carbon dioxide you can emit by breathing, with a special tax for hyperventilation.’

Crisis = Previously on the domestic side, anything that one could drag their feet on and have worked out by the time a solution full of ‘Regulations’, ‘Accountability’ and ‘Oversight’ was drafted. Currently a rhetorical means to coerce people to give up their money, liberty and freedom for fleeting problems. Usage: ‘This ‘crisis’ requires the largest change in the government of the United States, ever.’

Deadbeat = Ancient, one who does not keep up with paying off their debts or defaults on them. Previously in the credit card industry, anyone who paid off their balances in full and on time so as to incur not interest charges. Currently, an American Taxpayer. Usage: ‘We have to get those ‘deadbeats’ to pay out by new ‘Regulations’ and ‘Oversight’ with the help of ‘Social Activism’ to give money to those who took out larger amounts than they can pay off.’

Depression = Previously economic for a long term Recession. Currently it is any Recession. Generally talked about for years before it arrives so its presaged arrival seems much worse than it really is. Usage: ‘We are headed into a Depression.’
(more…)

By Dick Morris

It’s rare to criticize a politician for being all action and no talk, but that’s one of the big things that’s wrong with Obama’s battle against the economic crisis. One of the key variants in any stage of the economic cycle is what the president says is happening. If he talks down the economy, it drops. If he is bullish and optimistic, the markets are likely to listen. Particularly early in his term, when his credibility is high and the spotlight is shining on him, a concerted effort by Obama to inject optimism into his economic commentary could have a very positive effect.

Unfortunately, the president is so anxious to use the bad economy as an excuse to get every last little bit of government spending in the budget, he has pushed the markets down by a nonstop drumbeat of bad news and harsh predictions. When the president says that we may be entering a downturn from which there is no ready escape, investors, consumers, producers and businesspeople tend to listen and avoid any spending or risk. Obama has spent so much time warning of the disaster ahead that he is doing little from his bully pulpit to avert it.

Pessimism comes naturally to the party in opposition, and it takes a while for its members to get the message that they need to embrace optimism once they take power. The Clinton administration did not move toward an upbeat assessment of the economy until its third year in office. Even then, after the president had shifted his rhetoric, the Cabinet was slow to come around.

For Obama, shifting to optimism runs the risk that he loses his credibility if his predictions do not bear fruit. Mounting unemployment numbers could make a mockery of his optimism.

Broadly, Obama faces two negative trends over the next few months. On the one hand, the weekly jobless claims and unemployment data will beat a dirge for which the public will hold him increasingly responsible. This drip-drip-drip will become his equivalent of the casualty lists from Iraq that proved to be Bush’s undoing.

But, in addition, he will face criticism for his stimulus bill as the spending it envisions actually begins to take shape. The price he will pay for his arrogance in ramming the laundry list of government spending through Congress without even letting the members read what they were approving is that the media will focus on each item and make his people justify its inclusion. There will be an ex post facto review of the law, and voters will begin to wonder how economic development aid to Western Samoa or $50 million to the arts will stimulate the economy.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Here is Bobby Jindal breaking down why this stimulus bill is anything but:

And all without a teleprompter. He’s a good speaker and quite concise in why he believes this stimulus bill is the wrong kind of bill. One problem he has is that he sounds like a college professor. While Sarah Palin can pump up a crowd, I have my doubts if Jindal can. Either way, he is a front runner for 2012 and rest assured, the Democrats and their buddies, the MSM, will do to him what they did to Sarah

Also:

Obama admin shafts Israel at prep meeting for Durban II
To use National Review’s Anne Bayefsky’s words:

The speed at which President Obama is selling off American assets is breathtaking. The speed at which he is selling them out is even faster. [Emphasis added]

While America focused on “kitchen table” and “back yard” issues, Obama quietly not only broke faith with a US ally, he also shattered his campaign promises of “talk”, engaging Middle East antagonists. His mouthpieces shafted Israel not once, but twice…. first by not boycotting the preparatory forum, followed second by silence instead of protest at offending provisions in the draft manifesto.

The prep meetings for the UN’s “anti-racism” forum, the Durban Review Conference have been held the past few days with the 20 member committee in Geneva, drafting a final manifesto to present in Geneva this coming April. It was chaired by that bastion of “tolerance”, Libyan ambassador, Najat Al-Hajjaji.

(more…)

From Red Maryland

This story gets to combine two of my least favorite things in life: pork and global warming hysteria. Observe:

The use of crop-based biofuels could speed up rather than slow down global warming by fueling the destruction of rainforests, scientists warned Saturday.

Once heralded as the answer to oil, biofuels have become increasingly controversial because of their impact on food prices and the amount of energy it takes to produce them.

They could also be responsible for pumping far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they could possibly save as a replacement for fossil fuels, according to a study released Saturday.

Whoops.

Now, we’ve all had this massive rush in Washington to subsidize corn based ethanol, mainly because they grow a lot of corn in Iowa and they happen to have a Presidential Caucus there. All of the Democratic pork producers love it, because they get to bolster their Presidential cred, make environmentalists happy, and get to say they are “protecting the family farm.”

And remember: this ‘aint our first rodeo with noting the dangers of biofuels.

One of the big problems that Republicans like myself have has little to do with the idea of using alternative fuels; exploring new ideas and innovation makes good sense. But our problem has been and continues to be this rush to judgment for the latest and greatest fad that will purportedly “save the environment” when, in fact, the science on that is unproven at best or shows that we are doing even more damage at worse.

Rushing to judgment means we all pay. And we are all paying dearly for rushing to judgment and pork barrell spending on envirofuels.
(more…)

by Brujo Blanco

A New Jersey man named Eric Wollob had a habit of traveling to the shore town of Wildwood, New Jersey. While vacationing on this spot he would hand out Christian literature and sometimes engage in conversation with people on the boardwalk. This is an constitutionally protected American tradition. It is a combination of exercise of free speech, freedom of the press, and the free practice of religion.

Much to his surprise the way he was exercising his civil rights was illegal in this burg. In the 60′s there were protests and civil disobedience stemming from the Viet Nam war. To stem the problem with protesters laws were passed to control behavior. Wollob was informed by the police that he could not engage in religious activity without a permit. Now keep in mind this is a civil right. Since when does one need a permit to exercise a civil right.

It was determined that in order to pass out the handbills and speak to others about religion in town one needs to submit a detailed letter along with a mug shot of yourself to the cops. Other information required is name, address, description of literature, an investigation to be completed by the cops which is to be done in 10 days, and finally the approval of the town’s board of commissioners. Also, let us not forget the fee.

An interesting twist was discovered in that Jehovah’s Witnesses can preach all they want and no permit is required. Is suspect this was based on a case titled Lovell v. City of Griffin. This was a case wherein a Jehovah’s Witness was passing out literature and was arrested for not having a permit. If so Wildwood, New Jersey did not read the entire case. To sum up the results of this case municipalities do not have the authority to place these types of restrictions on someone like Wollob. If Wollob wanted to bring in 300 people to parade in the name of God the city could require that they apply for a permit to make certain that security and order could be maintained. Wollob, a lone Christian, did not meet that criteria.

Wollob is taking his case to court. It is likely that he will prevail but why should he have to do so. What the Wildwood authorities are doing is a black letter violation of the US Constitution. Government officials cannot require permits for an individual to exercise his or her rights.

Thank God for people like Wollob. Christians need to stand up for their rights in order to maintain rights for all of us. I believe the advantage tht Wollob has is that he did not give the police a hard time. He did what they told him to do and is using the system to fix it.

I for one believe there is a concerted effort to eliminate Christians from the public square and this is a prime example. Note that they did this to a Christian but the Witnesses are exempt.
(more…)

by laryn

Many have weighed in on Eric Holder’s “cowards” slur. He obviously hasn’t paid much attention to college campuses, where the obsession with race permeates departments, curricula, hiring, faculty profile, student events, funding, etc. Bumper-sticker identification and hair-trigger readiness to accuse someone of racism to further a particular ideological or even personal agenda are now 30 years old and institutionalized in higher education.

He is right on one count, however — in the university, public schools, journalism at large, the foundations, and politics, there is a reluctance in one aspect to broach the subject. It is absolutely taboo to suggest that personal behavior, particular ingrained attitudes, and pernicious cultural assumptions — far more than contemporary racial oppression — could have contributed to ordinately high rates of drug use, crime, illegitimacy, unemployment, high-school drop-out rates, sexist attitudes toward women, and incarceration among a subset of young African-American males.

One can cite data, and refer to it in the spirit of finding constructive solutions. Yet that will most often result in suffering the slur of racism, given that so many are invested in the industry of racial grievance, as Holder himself has unfortunately demonstrated. It is not encouraging that in the first real public speech, the Attorney General of the United States has denigrated the American people as “cowards.”

In that regard, what is cowardly is once again pandering to an audience about race rather than challenging people to transcend race and accept that it should be incidental, not essential, to one’s character. More to the point, Holder himself had a teachable moment a few years ago to stand up and talk truth to power when he was asked to participate in a tawdry scheme to pardon a fugitive on the FBI’s most-wanted list who had donated amply to the various Clinton political operations. Instead, he voted present.

I hope this is not more of the Carteresque style of blaming the American people. We’ve already heard from the Energy Czar that we in California have apparently abused our landscape, caused record droughts (still raining and snowing here in California), and so can expect soon to grow no more food, given that we’ve really used up our agricultural infrastructure rather than miraculously fed the world the last century. Our president has characterized us as “dictating” in the Middle East, in contrast to the Saudi authoritarian’s “courage.” Our secretary of state has said America too often has been impulsive and ideological. Gorism and ‘you did it to yourselves’ thinking is already rampant among some science and environmental appointees.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

What a great look inside the idiotic mind of a typical ACORN thug. Here is Stuart Varney of FOX Business interviewing Bertha Lewis, Executive Director of the New York branch of ACORN, about the recent invasion of private property by the criminal enterprise…ACORN:

Transcript below…have to read it to believe it:

Stuart Varney: Do you think you got a right to these houses?

Bertha Lewis: I think the homeowners have a right to stay in those homes until the administrations plan can be implemented…yes I do.

Stuart Varney: They got a right to the house even though they haven’t paid their bills?

Bertha Lewis: They have been paying their bills…I think it’s a false thing to say that people haven’t been paying their bills.

Stuart Varney: No, their delinquent on their mortgages.

Bertha Lewis: Well, they maybe delinquent on their mortgages but there are people still do that.

Stuart Varney: They haven’t been paying their bills

Bertha Lewis: There are millions of millions of people who are…

Stuart Varney: Doesn’t matter, they haven’t been paying their bills.

Bertha Lewis: Being foreclosed on every day and so we have a plan in place and people need to stay there..

Stuart Varney: What right do you claim to stay in a house that you can’t afford and you cannot pay the bills and what right do you have to get my money to pay for you? I’ve read the constitution, I don’t see that right…

Bertha Lewis: Well, I don’t see the right that banks have to get 700 billion dollars to get bailed out

Stuart Varney: No, no, that’s a different thing…

Bertha Lewis: That’s all part of the same thing…

Stuart Varney: No it’s not…

Bertha Lewis: Every 13 seconds Stuart, people are getting foreclosed on and they have the right to protect their homes and to protect their communities. It’s the most American thing you can do to protect your community.

Stuart Varney: ACORN is well known for looking at banks and saying “give us a loan,”….they don’t give you a loan so you scream racism you then invade their offices and demonstrate outside the private homes of bank executives, you embarrass the banks and you force them to give you loans on favorable terms, now…those loans cannot be repaid, you will not leave those homes and your claiming a right to stay in them and have a right to my money to make sure you stay in them, again…I come back to it Bertha, they may be be foreclosing every 13 seconds but you have absolutely no right to that house.

Bertha Lewis: Well banks don’t have a right to discriminate.

Stuart Varney: Again, your taking a parallel track you see….Where is the right?

Bertha Lewis: I wish we could force banks to our will but….

Stuart Varney: Where is the right? Where is the right to my money? You are demanding money from me.

Bertha Lewis: We’re not demanding money from you.

Stuart Varney: Yes you are.

Bertha Lewis: We’re demanding that the banks renegotiate these loans

Stuart Varney: It is taxpayer money in this plan, which you propose to bail out your people to stay in the homes they cannot afford. You are demanding my money and your saying you have a right to my money. It is no excuse to go on a parallel track and say “well the banks have no right to 700 billion dollars,” that’s not the point madam. You are demanding my money directly to your people. And that’s wrong.

Bertha Lewis: First of all these are not my people, these are millions and millions of hardworking homeowners who are paying their bills, paying….

Stuart Varney: They are not paying their bills….I can’t believe your getting away with this….they are not paying their bills.

Bertha Lewis: Well I know people who are.

Stuart Varney: They are delinquent on their mortgages that’s why they are being foreclosed on.

Bertha Lewis: They’re paying their bills, they’re paying their taxes.

Stuart Varney: They are not paying their mortgage bills and you know it.

Bertha Lewis: Yes they are.

Stuart Varney: No, if they were paying their mortgage bills they would not be foreclosed on, they would not be leaving the home….right?

Bertha Lewis: First of all, you are wrong because millions of millions of people are (ineligible), they are late on their mortgages

Stuart Varney: They are delinquent on their mortgages

Bertha Lewis: And that means late.

Stuart Varney: They have not paid their mortgage bills and you know it

Bertha Lewis: They have been foreclosed on and people need to be able to stay into their homes and so that they can take advantage of the President’s new plan.

Stuart Varney: So you invade these homes with a lot of guys. Your not going to leave, your gonna protect these people, we’re gonna stay in the home….Your a nice lady, your a gentle and a nice lady

Bertha Lewis: No I’m not…

Stuart Varney: But I put it to you….this is political thuggery.

Bertha Lewis: Well, I’m a very determined lady, I don’t think it’s political thuggery and I think it’s thuggery when you put out hard working members of home owners from their homes…..here’s the thing….

Stuart Varney: And it’s not when you invade a bank managers office so you should racism? That’s not political thuggery?

Bertha Lewis: Well, it is true….

Stuart Varney: It is….that’s exactly what it is…

Bertha Lewis: Well you don’t want to tell a lie and a lie doesn’t make it the truth…

Stuart Varney: You are operating on taxpayer money. You’ve received…ACORN has received since 1998 thirty one million dollars of taxpayer money, three million dollars a year, you are doing this with my money.

Bertha Lewis: You want to know what we’ve done? We’ve counseled 2,300 people to stay in their homes, renegotiation their mortgages, and…here’s the thing. Every single penny we competed for and we can tell you this, if the industry had listened to us ten years ago when we said this was coming we wouldn’t be in this crisis. So now here’s what we’re gonna do.

Stuart Varney: Listened to you? You’ve invaded their offices

Bertha Lewis: No we didn’t

Stuart Varney: …you are political thugs, you embarrass banks to give them loans which they could not afford to repay and now they cannot afford to repay them and your claiming the right to my money to stay in those homes and you will have big burly guys who say “we’re not going to leave here no matter what!”

Bertha Lewis: No, we have homeowners who are protecting their homes.

Stuart Varney: Your a nice lady….come on!

Bertha Lewis: I’m a nice lady and I’m very determined lady to tell the truth and the truth is this…

Stuart Varney: You are not telling the truth…

Bertha Lewis: Here’s the thing…

Stuart Varney: Your telling me these homeowners have paid their bills and they have not…

Bertha Lewis: We cannot force anybody to do anything….here’s the thing, you know who are the thugs? The thugs are the banks, the thugs are the mortgage brokers who bilk people so they are delinquent and they deserve to be helped just like big banks and institutions are we intend to stay.

Stuart Varney: And they have not paid their mortgage bills and they have no right to those houses…that is my last word. Bertha Lewis….

Bertha Lewis: Housing is a right.

Stuart Varney: It is not a right.

Bertha Lewis: Yes it is

Stuart Varney: I’ve read the Bill of Rights, I’ve read the Constitution, no where does it say that housing is a right.

Bertha Lewis: Yes it is.

Stuart Varney: Can you show me? Which page? Which line?

Bertha Lewis: Well we have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Stuart Varney: You have a right to a house? Where does it say that?

Bertha Lewis: If your a hard working American and you pay your taxes and you do the right thing you do have a right to protect your home.

Stuart Varney: I tell you what Bertha, we have a Constitutional lawyer in a few minutes, I’ll ask him if there is a line in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that spells out a right to a house which you claim.

Bertha Lewis: That’s good….good.

Stuart Varney: But Bertha, we’ve run way over our allotted time..

Bertha Lewis: Have we, well you have to have me back and we will show you how many homes we have defended.

Stuart Varney: Defended? Invaded and stolen but that’s another story entirely. Thank’s Bertha.

You heard that right. There is a RIGHT to a house.

Where do these people come up with this lunacy?

Sweetness and Light has the backstory on the political thuggery committed by ACORN over the years with these loans.

Meanwhile they and their ilk live off of everyone else’s money.

Also:

Iran ALREADY Trying Nuclear Blackmail

Iran offered to stop attacking British troops in Iraq to try to get the West to drop objections to Tehran’s uranium enrichment project, a UK official says.

The disclosure by UN ambassador Sir John Sawers in a BBC documentary throws new light on backroom discussions between Iran and the West.

~~~

“The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: ‘We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance.’”

The deal was dismissed by the British government and Iran’s nuclear enrichment restarted shortly after.

(wow, and that’s from the BBC-hardly a neocon mouthpiece. Odd they didn’t report this when GWB was President).

And in other news re Iran today. Not only does the leftist BBC confirm that Iran is a nuclear blackmailer and has been for years, not only does Iran pretty much admit to being part of the insurgency in Iraq, but…now the UN says they’ve got enough matl for a bomb.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought. They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

Well, if President Obama doesn’t release his Iran plan (he’s had a plan for Iran for 2yrs now, right), then someone else might take action before he does.

by Mike Stollenwerk

So there I was last week, drivin’ into DC when I heard Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (D) on WTOP.com’s “Ask the Governor Program.” And I call in and wait in the queue only to be the last caller!

I ask:

“Hi Governor. My question’s on gun carry permits. The Heller decision said that the right to bear arms is to carry them and I’m wondering if Maryland can ever move from the current non-discretionary issuance of gun carry permits? [NOTE: I meant to say “discretionary” not “non-discretionary” but Governor O’Malley appeared to understand what I meant].

And Governor O’Malley quickly responded:

No, I don’t think we will. Maryland has made a lot of strides in reducing violent crime . . . we’ve moved from I think the 4th most violent in the country to the 8th . . . we have some of the most you know proactive gun laws in the country and we still have the level of violence . . . so for the caller I’m with you at least on that common ground.”

Incredibly Governor O’Malley then went on to say that he hopes Maryland will eliminate the death penalty “for those who commit the unspeakable crime of taking a loved one from us through violence.”

So Governor O’Malley, admitting that Maryland’s rating by the Brady Campaign as the 5th most gun controllin’ state in the union is not correlated with less violent crime, thinks the continued violation of the right to bear arms is the right thing to do.

O’Malley’s complete disregard for the “right to carry” question is itself an unspeakable crime. Most states don’t even require a permit to openly carry a handgun and issue concealed handgun permits to anyone who can pass a background check. (more…)

by Blair Lee

Some states are immortalized in songs such as “California, Here I Come,” “Georgia on My Mind,” “Yellow Rose of Texas,” “New York, New York” and, of course, “Oooooooklahoma.”

Maryland joined the list in 1861 when a 22-year-old college professor, James Ryder Randall, penned “Maryland, My Maryland.” Written as a poem, the lyrics were set to the music of a popular Christmas carol, “O Tannenbaum, O’ Tannenbaum,” and became a sensation.

Other states copied the tune, resulting in “Florida, My Florida” and “Michigan, My Michigan” and one of the nation’s foremost poets of the time, Oliver Wendell Holmes, observed, “My only regret is that I could not do for Massachusetts what Randall did for Maryland.”

Today “Maryland, My Maryland” is played at sports events, graduations, gubernatorial inaugurations and the third verse is sung annually at the Preakness Stakes by the U.S. Naval Academy’s men’s glee club.

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City, when Maryland’s governor, Albert C. Ritchie, was nominated for president, his flag-waving supporters demonstrated to endless stanzas of “Maryland, My Maryland,” according to Robert Brugger’s history of Maryland. Governor Ritchie lost the nomination but in 1939 the state legislature officially adopted “Maryland, My Maryland” as the state song.

Unfortunately, “Maryland, My Maryland” has one tiny flaw — it’s hopelessly politically incorrect. You see, like many Baltimoreans of his day, James Ryder Randall was a Southern sympathizer and the event that inspired “Maryland, My Maryland” was the Baltimore Riot of 1861.

Back then there was no connecting railroad from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. Southbound trains stopped at Baltimore’s President Street Station and railroad cars were pulled by horses 10 blocks along Pratt Street to the Camden Station where they were reconnected to another train.

When Fort Sumter fell on April 13, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln called for volunteers to defend the nation’s capital. Six days later, as the sixth Massachusetts Regiment’s railroad cars were being pulled down Pratt Street, a mob attacked, blocking the street. When the Union troops abandoned the cars they were met by a hail of bricks and paving stones. Panicked soldiers fired into the crowd and the ensuing riot left four soldiers and 12 civilians dead, the Civil War’s first casualties.

One of the dead civilians was a friend and former classmate of Randall’s. By Randall’s own account, “that night I could not dismiss from my mind what I had read in the newspaper. About midnight I arose, lit a candle and went to my desk. Some powerful influence seemed to possess me, and almost involuntarily, I proceeded to write the song, “Maryland, My Maryland.”
(more…)